The Shakedown Crews

Congress should be afraid: VERY afraid

2011-01-10T15:14:00.000-08:00

The assassination attempt against Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford has deeply shocked and frightened members of congress. These were the same officials who, following the murders at Ft Hood and so many others in which US citizens were killed, issued bland statements of regrets or remorse, and of course, the desultory requests to "withhold judgment".

Today, however, many of those same officials are leaping headlong into accusatory diatribes against their political opponents, talk show hosts, and an assortment of individuals they consider to be "radical", "extreme", and of course--dangerous.

The trend this week appears to be for pundits, politicians and other soap-box prima-donnas to issue contrite speeches calling for national reflection and for everyone to eschew violence and "dangerous rhetoric".

My own take on this, however, is a little different. I do not want to promote violence, and I do hope that, as a nation, we find our way through these troubled times without violence. But I am disgusted and nauseated by the speeches of our representatives who suddenly find themselves shocked--shocked--that anyone would dare try to assassinate one of them.

These are the politicians who have quite literally spent our nation into bankruptcy, who have taken the most prosperous nation on earth, the shining beacon and last hope of freedom in our times, and emptied it of its treasure, hobbled its economy at every turn, apologized for it, publicly stated their shame and decried American "arrogance" on international stages.

These are the representatives who subscribed to the Left Wing propaganda that America was a bad country, sat in churches where racist ministers yelled, "Not God Bless America, God damn America!" Their anti-American policies then shattered the American dream, weakened us and humbled us before our enemies, left our borders open to invasion and implemented policies of reverse-discrimination against whites.

Now they wring their hands in grief and fear. Don't blame us! Don't be mad at us! Don't threaten us!

Well, whose responsibility was it to safeguard American prosperity? Who passed the bloated spending bills? Who passed bills they had not read? Who passed tax laws and then failed to obey them, relying instead on their elite status as the oligarchy, the privileged few?

The sad fact is that they are responsible for what has happened and is happening to the country. But they simply do not want to be held responsible!

The economic collapse was not just the fault of George Bush, and we all know it. It was the result of decades of irresponsible policies whose purpose was social experimentation, vote buying, and greed. They were passed by both Republican and Democrat progressives, while a few wise individuals warned of the potential dire consequences.

Now that those policies have failed, have our esteemed leaders reversed course?

HELL NO. Instead, over the past two years, they plotted a course directly toward the iceberg of bankruptcy and national insolvency, and screamed imperiously "Full speed ahead!"

So now a lunatic--not a conservative, just a nut--has shot "one of their own", and we are witness to hundreds of fat, sweaty and corrupt politicians developing cold chills as they realize that they just might be held to account.

And what is their initial response? To propose more tyrannical limitations on liberties, outlawing certain types of speech that scares them.

Banning speech will not restore the American dream. It will not reverse the course upon which those irresponsible representatives, like the drunken captain of an Exxon super tanker, have steered our nation.

Instead, they must swear to honor their oaths, to do their duties to the nation, restore the economy, and stop belittling it and apologizing for it.

Meanwhile, I for one am very glad to see members of the House of Representatives shivering in fear.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."--Thomas Jefferson

Inside the minds of Chris Matthews and Marco Rubio

2010-11-03T13:33:00.003-07:00

As if to prove that even a jackass can change his stripes, MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews spoke out about Obama recently, and set a tone that should be studied by every conservative looking to make further inroads into Democrat power. Click the link and watch the video.

“As a campaigner, he {Obama} did nothing but talk about what a great country this is, what an exceptional country this is, because a guy like me made it here, and only in a country like this could I have made it. He was very patriotic, very inclusive, and he was very interactive in an interesting way. Ever since he’s been President, he’s been elitist, and he’s come with his teleprompter, and he’s given his speech. He hasn’t listened, he’s talked at us rather than with us…I think he hasn’t explained himself. Lincoln had to explain the civil war, ‘darn it’, Roosevelt had to explain everything to us…”

To put this into perspective, remember that this is the same Chris Matthews who got “a tingle up my leg” every time Obama spoke during his campaign.

As a friend of mine responded, Matthews “is still a jackass”. Sure, he was born a jackass and will die one as well, I’m sure. But this moment of clarity reveals that even a lifelong, card-carrying jackass can still love his country and appreciate a leader who expresses his belief in American Exceptionalism. And this is a fundamental and vital realization; if Chris Matthews, who is indubitably a spokesman for the rabid left, can recognize that there is such a thing as “American Exceptionalism”, and hearing his leaders speak of it causes a “tingle”, then there is common ground from which to work with these guys.

The trick is to plant a “worm of doubt” in the minds of these liberals that will eat away at some of their core beliefs.

The fundamental problem with Liberals is not that they don’t love America, but that they don’t necessarily love America for what it is; instead they love an idea of what American could become, if only they were able to “fundamentally transform” her—as candidate Obama promised to do.

Liberals believe that they have been enlightened by their education (and their astute powers of reasoning and heightened tolerance) to recognize the gross historical errors in America’s past. They see first, and foremost, the wrongs committed during the formative American years: slavery and the mistreatment of African Americans (among others), the genocidal wars against the American Indians, the internment of the Japanese, as proof positive of an ugly side of America. And more importantly, they see themselves as the moral champions of the underprivileged.

They therefore want to believe that, had they been alive “back then”, they would have been abolitionists. They would have spoken out to defend the Native Americans. They would have marched in Selma, held hands with the civil rights leaders, and opposed the internment of the Japanese. Never mind that the Republican party was the party that liberated the slaves, and it’s convenient to their belief system to forget how many Democrats opposed the civil rights movement; it is better to believe that the Democrat party is what Jack Kennedy and LBJ made of it, and the rest can be ignored through the willful myopia of Liberal idealism.

The "worm of doubt" that I mentioned can only be planted by subtle means. Conservatives want to crow loudly that America is the best country in the world, a notion that immediately smacks up against the Liberal “insight” into America’s many flaws. From that moment on, they reach for their blinders and ear plugs and will not hear another word, no matter how true.

What must be accomplished is to communicate to these individuals the notion that America is not great in spite of its many flaws, but precisely because America has proven itself capable of overcoming its flaws, of performing a national soul-searching, and not because a few “enlightened” geniuses like Chris Matthews brow beat the American people. Martin Luther King did not fundamentally transform race relations in the country by deriding America, or insulting the American people; he led by example, peacefully marching and letting the most radical, hateful section of the country heap abuse upon his people. It was the dignified and stalwart example he and his followers set that implanted a “worm of doubt” in the minds of white America and that, in turn, caused them to doubt the moral justification for their behavior. The change this caused was profound and permanent. This was Liberalism at its best, and it was tested when, after the 9/11 attacks, Americans went about trying to defend their homeland from Muslim extremists without re-implementing the internment camps that would have been created just 60 years before.

I believe we have witnessed another voice call out from the wilderness who may very well represent the next stage in the national evolution. Senator-elect Marco Rubio’s victory speech contained profound wisdom that should be studied next to Chris Matthew’s fleeting admission.

“Now let me tell you that there are those out there who doubt about the greatness of America. Sometimes when I say it, I hear the snickers from some in different parts, they think it’s simplistic. But you see, I know America’s great, not because I read about it in books, but because I’ve seen it with my eyes. I’ve been raised in a community of exiles, of people who lost their country, of people who know what it’s like to live somewhere else…a community of men and women that were once my age, and when they were they had dreams like we have now, and yet they lost all those things through an accident of history. And so they came here, to try to rebuild their lives. And some did. But many others could not. And instead it became the purpose of their lives to leave their children with the opportunities that they themselves did not have. This is the story of the Cuban exile community. And it defines what so many of us who are a product of it are. And I know this: no matter where I go, or what title I achieve, I will always be the son of exiles.”

Rubio’s eloquent soliloquy is brilliant. He has, in one succinct paragraph, addressed the “snickers” of the Liberals who receive the notion of American Exceptionalism and greatness as “simplistic”, while immediately reminding us all that America is not great because of a mythical promise of success to all, because not all will enjoy immediate success. It is great because it offers a possibility of success and renewal, it is a place where communities of exiles can reestablish themselves, lay down new roots, and achieve great accomplishments and success if they accept the challenge and struggle for the opportunity.

He acknowledged that his success came at the sacrifice of those before him, a sacrifice that bore with it great sadness and suffering, yet it was sacrifice gladly given by a noble people who understood that their sacrifice should not be judged by what they received from it, but rather by what they gave to their children, and to future generations.

This was the same sacrifice that Martin Luther King and the real civil rights leaders clung to; knowing that although they themselves might not reach the Promised Land, they would willingly give a pound of flesh so that their progeny might someday reap the rewards.

As Matthews stated, Obama himself acknowledged during his campaign that he could not have accomplished great things in other countries. There has never been a black prime minister of England, nor a black president of France, nor of Germany. But there is now a black president of the United States of America. There have been multiple Cuban senators. And someday, there very well may be a Cuban president.

And this is what is great about America: not that it is, but that it is possible here.

In America, we are all "sons of exile".

Obama, Cain, and Jesus: A parable of confused morals.

2010-10-11T15:14:00.000-07:00

I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar, so I rarely delve into any type of religious topic. If you had read my previous article about the attacks on Christianity, you might have come to the conclusion that I’m religious. I’m not.

As an agnostic, I’m really not even a person who calls himself a Christian—although I was raised by a Christian mother—nor a “person of faith”—a failing my wife often criticizes and suggests that I work on getting a little more faith.

But I don’t disrespect anyone for their religious beliefs. As an agnostic, who can’t lean on a “faith” to get me through troubling times, I rather envy anyone with faith. And, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”

Which brings me back to Obama. Yes, you knew I’d get there eventually, right?

While I agree with Jefferson’s statement that “{Religion is} a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle”, I can’t help but contemplate our current president’s odd expressions of “faith”. I rather preferred Obama’s previous lack of religious expression to his recent proclamation of faith in Christianity.

Apparently responding to polls suggesting that over 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian, Obama publicly stated that he “came to Christianity as an adult”, and was attracted to certain aspects of the religion, although admittedly not all. Now, myself being an agnostic who can’t blindly believe that Jesus was “the Son of God”, I understand his sentiment; I nevertheless don’t judge Obama for not being able to believe the Christian dogma part and parcel. But unlike Obama, I won’t call myself a Christian just because I like “certain parts” of the religion. There is at least one core part of the religion you have to believe or you simply are not Christian: that Jesus was God on earth and he died for our sins to give us eternal life. It’s great if you agree that we should love our neighbor, but if you don’t believe that Jesus is God, you really have no business claiming to be “a Christian”…especially if you only do it in election years!

Many conservatives have already spoken or written at length about that topic, so I won’t delve into it deeply. But there was a statement Obama made that really caught my attention. Remember when he said that he liked that part in Christianity about “being your brother’s keeper”? That was a statement he quoted often during the healthcare debate. When asked about his Christian faith, Obama told the LA Times:

“The precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brother's and sister's keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”

I haven’t read the Bible lately, but of course all those years of having my mother drag me to church had some benefit, because I realized that the quote Obama spewed out wasn’t a quote from Jesus…it was actually Cain who said it after he’d murdered his brother. Genesis 4:9.

Cain and Abel, sons of the original Adam, were promised to marry twin sisters. Abel was to wed the more attractive of the two, and Cain was envious. He argued with his father and brother and in order to settle the quarrel, Adam arranged for Cain to make a sacrifice to God, to see what God’s response was. God rejected the sacrifice, which was an indication that he disagreed with Cain’s argument. So angered by these events, Cain murdered his brother. In some versions, he did it with the jawbone of an ass. (Is it wrong to note that the ass is the emblem of Obama’s Democrat party?)

Returning to Obama’s statement, the last part of it does, in fact, sound like something Jesus is quoted as saying. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 5:43. But even then, Jesus was repeating a quotation of the Hebrew Torah, from Leviticus.

Still, there something profoundly ironic about Obama misquoting Cain’s smart-Alec response to God’s query “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain responds: “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?”. A holistic examination of Obama’s statement of faith reveals that he has conflated Cain’s disrespectful response to God with the advice given by Jesus! He has somehow joined the concept of “treating others as you would have them treat you”, and the story about the first fratricide in recorded history, and concluded that they contain the same moral.

What does that say about his adherence to Christianity? Did he learn this from Reverend Wright?

A short period after Obama misquoted the Bible, he stood before an audience, attempting to persuade voters in the upcoming November elections to support his party, when his Presidential Seal fell off the podium.

If I were superstitious (I’m not, but it’s amusing to think about this from the perspective of how the ancients might have read the signs), I might consider that an ill omen portending tragedy for Obama…the equivalent of God rejecting Cain’s sacrifice, as it were.

Think of it this way: Cain slew Abel out of envy. God did not consent to grant Cain’s greedy demand to be given the more attractive wife, so Cain murdered his brother in a jealous rage.

What’s ironic is that Obama, with his class warfare rhetoric, sows the seeds of envy among millions every time he promotes his notion of social justice and redistributive policies, and then ends up trying to prove his adherence to Christianity, but in so doing, quotes Cain instead of Jesus. It’s bizarre but fitting.

So do I think that, when the Presidential Seal fell from the Podium, it was God's way of telling us that He had rejected Obama’s Presidency?

I guess I’ll have to consider that as a “matter of faith.”

A Christian strikes back: Kathleen Folden was right

2010-10-08T15:14:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010, Kathleen Folden entered the Loveland Museum/Gallery with a crowbar hidden on her person and destroyed part of Enrique Chagoya’s lithograph “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals.” Witnesses claimed that, as she destroyed the piece, she asked, “how can you desecrate my Lord?” Afterward she was arrested, and as she was led away she reportedly stated to reporters: “Remember; God is real.”

On Friday, Oct. 8, the Denver Post compared Folden’s attack on the lithograph to the Taliban’s destruction of monumental statues of Buddha. Readers left similar comments on the Post website.

One attempted to claim that Christians have somehow decided to embrace the fanaticism of Muslims who defend their religion with violence: “I think all the funny business over that fat pastor threatening to burn the Koran, and the ensuing sanctimony of Muslims, has influenced Christians, this lady specifically, to embrace Islam.”
Another directly accused Folden of terrorism: “The woman is a terrorist, plain and simple. She executed pre-meditated terrorism and carried out the plot. The Taliban has come to America disguised as Christianity.”

The Post interviewed Adam Lerner, director of the Denver Museum of Contemporary Art, who said, “I really hope this doesn’t create any kind of precedent.”

It is very easy to understand how this event could shock liberals who cannot comprehend how a sane person could possibly be motivated enough to drive from her Montana home to Loveland, Colorado, in order to destroy a piece of art. To these people, the fact that the so-called “art” depicted Jesus Christ’s head on a woman’s body with another man apparently performing oral sex on Christ should not be good enough reason for such a horrendous response.

The anger and apparent offense they express give me the impression that they feel victimized by a particularly brutal form of secular blasphemy.

This is easily understood, as the very first amendment to our beloved constitution defends the individual’s right to freedom of expression, and we all would agree that even obscene and offensive forms of expression are to be tolerated.

Interestingly, however, we must for a moment remember that not all expression is protected. Just as one cannot call out “FIRE” in a crowded theater, because it creates a safety risk, Liberals have also passed a number of laws denoting “protected status” on certain groups within our society, and identifying certain types of speech that are felonious “hate crimes”.

From this reasoning, it is understood that a black man who punches a white racist who called him “N-----” has committed a lesser offense than the man who was “expressing himself” with that hateful term. A homosexual who defends himself after being called a “queer” or “fag” would be defended as being “in the right”.

And as Mr. Lerner indicated, an isolated event is not as worrisome as a “precedent” indicating the start of a trend. If only one white person were to have ever called a black person the “N” word, then it would not be such an offensive situation, would it? But when we consider the greater history around that word, and the litany of offenses and crimes associated with the kind of hate the word represents, then we understand that the black man struck the offending racist not because of one word, but because it was the tipping point in a series of offenses that pushed him over the edge.

Perhaps it’s time to examine the long list of offenses perpetrated by the “art world” and defended by the liberal mindset that has finally driven Christians to the point of violent reaction. I don’t even have to search very far. Anti-Christian sentiment is inspiring violent vandalism against Christian buildings and symbols. Virgin Mary statues were destroyed in Boston, Mass. and in Leadville Colorado. One man, Jay Scott Balinger, admitted to between 30 and 50 Church arsons across various states. You might think this sort of serial-arsonist would be accused of hate crimes, and that his crimes would have garnered national attention. But he wasn’t, and they didn’t.

The disrespectful representation of Christ in the Chagoya painting was not an isolated incident. This was just one more in a series of highly offensive and religiously blasphemous artistic expressions designed specifically to insult Christians. Here’s a short list: The “Piss Christ” sculpture by Andre Serrano. “Corpus Christi”, by Adam Cullen. “The Ninth Hour”, by Maurizio Cattelan. “Bearded Orientals: Making of the Empire Cross”, by Priscilla Bracks.

The fashion to insult Christians goes beyond the plastic arts. Plays that portray the Christian Prophet as a homosexual have been staged for the sole purpose of inciting the Christians for their opposition to gay marriage and other aspects of “the homosexual agenda”. At Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, gay activists interrupted a church service by yelling “Bash back!” outside the church and screaming “Jesus was a homo” through a megaphone.

So yes, there has been a precedent set, but it is not the one that Mr. Lerner feared. To the contrary, the precedent has been that, while Liberals clamor to show respect to Islam and all Muslims, they participate in a hateful orgy of insulting, degrading, attacking and offending Christians. Perhaps this is why so many of their attacks are tinged with vulgar sexual and scatological references.

One Denver Post reader stated the obvious: “To the extent that the Loveland art was an attack on Christians, it provoked an in-kind response. Some jurisdictions recognize the concept of 'fighting words' in inciting violence. The Loveland art was the lithographic equivalent of 'fighting words'. If this were a black man smashing art that contained race controversy, DP bloggers would be expressing a very different viewpoint.”

Many Christians will publicly state that they wish she had not resorted to vandalism. But we must face the fact that the onslaught against Christians has been going on for decades in this country and has pushed them to a tipping point. With both cheeks already battered and torn, who can reasonably expect them to accept one offense after another without striking back?

Kathleen Folden, unlike the Taliban and other Muslim extremists, did not bomb a building, or torch a church, or stab an artist to death. Like Jesus overthrowing the carts of the money changers in the temple, she has simply destroyed one lithograph that was, without any doubt, a hateful expression against her religion. She will bear the burden of fines and a criminal record. But she will also be able to proudly declare that she fought back against hateful indecency.

Immigrant riots and the Rodriguez film, "Machete"

2010-09-08T09:06:00.000-07:00

In a previous article, I discussed the new Robert Rodriguez movie, “Machete”, that was released in theaters this month, and the concerns many people (including myself) had based upon the information we had obtained about the film. Claiming to have received a script from the movie, Infowars’ Alex Jones and Aaron Dykes warned the public that Rodriguez had created a script that was contaminated with an anti-white, racist theme and encouraged Hispanics—especially illegal immigrants—to rise up against their perceived oppressors (white Americans) and fight them to the death.

In their September 5th article, “’Machete’ producers lied about racist bloodbath”, Jones and Dykes explain that, after having viewed the film, they concluded that their analysis was correct. When Rodriguez had been confronted about the reports of a racist and violent “call to arms” against whites, he admitted in an interview with Ain’t it Cool News that he had “had too much tequila” and that the script would be changed. However, after viewing the screen, Jones and Dykes claim that everything they had warned about from the pre-release script was still within the film “in one form or another”. In conclusion, Jones and Dykes stated that the most offensive and dangerous aspect of the film “was the one-sided approval of Hispanic revenge killings while uniformly demonizing the actions of the white groups involved.”

As Jones warned, Rodriquez’s irresponsible screenplay risked flaming tensions and inspiring waves of violence in the country as it spread the false impression that all whites—and especially the authorities—are racist murderers who gleefully kill Hispanics out of hate. Liberals, and especially Rodriguez, deny this and either can’t imagine how their propaganda films will have any impact on society, or (and more cynically) they do in fact know how their films may inspire a violent reaction, and actually hope it does.

As if to prove their point, riots have broken out in Los Angeles this week after LAPD officers fatally shot a drunk “immigrant” with a knife who allegedly attacked officers. Without getting too deeply into the details, reports on the incident indicate that officers on bicycles responded to a citizen report that “a man was threatening people with a knife.” Three officers responded and, as they approached the subject with the knife, he refused to put down orders issued in Spanish and English to drop the knife. Instead, the officers report that the suspect raised the knife over his head and lunged at an officer. The officer fired his weapon and killed the Guatemalan “day-laborer”.

In response to the shooting, the mostly Hispanic neighborhood has erupted in violence. Local Hispanics interviewed by the AP were quoted as saying “Killing a drunk isn’t right”, claiming that the man was “a drunk” but was “not violent”. Others are infuriated and demand that “the officer who did this should be subject to discipline”.

At least four individuals have now been arrested for the misdemeanor crime of “inciting a riot”. Hundreds of others have engaged in protests, at times turning violent. Police have arrested a total of 22 people, as of Tuesday night.

It would be a reach to presume that “Machete” had any influence in these events, but it is worth investigating. After all, the drunk Hispanic immigrant engaged in his threatening behavior on the same weekend “Machete” was released, as did the subsequent violence. Were any of these “immigrants” influenced by the message in “Machete”?

Whether or not “Machete” had any influence on these events is questionable. But one must ask the reasonable question: if a Guatemalan illegally entered Mexico and, in a drunken rage, threatened the lives of Mexican police, would locals riot and demand that the officers be punished for defending their own lives while restoring order?

The answer seems obvious, doesn’t it?

The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Part 1)

2010-07-15T09:53:00.001-07:00

Barack Obama’s charismatic performance during the 2008 electoral campaign was, to many, electrifying and highly exciting. His ability at eloquent oration, contrasted to former President Bush’s down-home style punctuated by frequent errors, was especially impressive, and led many people to suspend rational thought and analysis and come to the absurd conclusion held by historian Michael Beschloss, that Obama’s IQ was “off the charts”. Beschloss even went so far in his schoolgirl-giddiness to assert that Obama was “probably the smartest guy ever to become President.” Never mind that it was inevitably revealed that the teleprompter was to Obama what wax wings were for the mythological Daedalus. Remove the teleprompter…and Obama’s wings melt. It’s great entertainment to watch him crash to earth.

A year and a half into the presidency, Americans have caught on, and are increasingly disturbed by the absurd positions the administration has adopted. No longer appearing to be the great intellect many once believed him to be, Obama now appears incurably befuddled.

There is no issue that better highlights the administration’s contradictory and nonsensical folly, than the quandary in which it finds itself regarding the Arizona immigration bill, SB1070.

We all would do well to recall that Arizona passed SB1070 in response to unacceptable crime rates within the state connected to illegal immigration, and about which the Federal Government was simply not responding. The Government has, for several decades now, failed to fulfill its responsibility to secure the borders and to process the millions of immigrants who flaunt federal immigration laws. So the Arizona legislature carefully authored SB1070, with the specific intent of allowing local law enforcement to help enforce federal law. The law was in no way written to change, alter, or counteract federal law.

What’s more, out of concern that local law enforcement, while attempting to enforce the law, might violate the civil rights of citizens, the authors carefully stated in multiple locations that racial profiling was prohibited, and that officers could only request proof of citizenship when 1) the persons questioned had already been detained for other legal police matters, and 2) there were grounds for suspicion that the persons questioned were not US citizens.

The law was very carefully designed to support the federal laws, and to help federal agents to enforce the law, and not to undermine it.

High ranking members of the Obama administration could not even wait until they had actually read the bill before maligning it publicly. Department of Justice Attorney General Eric Holder was caught out while giving testimony before congress and had to admit that he had not read the law he was criticizing. The same embarrassment befell Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, and Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley, who went so far as to compare the Arizona law to Chinese human rights offenses.

It was no surprise when Attorney General Holder announced that he was filing suit to block the Arizona law. What was surprising was that the reason given had little to do with the concern about civil rights violations: the Obama administration’s position was that the Arizona law “interfered with” the Federal Government’s authority to regulate immigration.

There can be no doubt that the conflict between Arizona and the Obama administration will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, where Obama is going to have great difficulty convincing the Supreme Court that a state law that strengthens and supports federal law, somehow preempts the federal law. Consider marijuana laws as an analogy. There are federal laws that make growing, selling or distributing marijuana a crime. If a state passes laws that prohibit the growing, selling or distributing of marijuana and allows local police to enforce the law, they have not preempted the federal law, but have simply supported it. The Arizona immigration law does exactly that.

Click HERE to Read Part II

The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Part 2)

2010-07-15T09:52:00.000-07:00

Evidence for the befuddled, confused and contradictory opinions on immigration within the Obama administration can be found by a cursory examination of their actions taken since the issue arose.

In the midst of Obama Administration vs Arizona immigration law battle, Obama appointed Harold Hurtt to head up the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of State and Local Coordination. Hurtt is a former police Chief in Houston and Phoenix, and is a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies.

Sanctuary cities are those municipalities that “that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status.”

That is to say, that the governments of cities have made the decision unilaterally to ignore federal law and to prohibit their officials from enforcing them. These laws were a response by liberals within local governments to reject the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, under which a number of crimes became grounds for deportation.

As an example, The 1979 Los Angeles policy stated: “Officers shall not arrest, nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code”

To put it quite simply, being in the country illegally was already grounds for deportation, but the 1996 law specified that illegal immigrants who committed additional crimes locally should be arrested, held in custody, and then reported to ICE for deportation. The sanctuary city proponents like Mr. Hurtt, realizing that they could gain political power by courting the Hispanic vote, rebelled against the federal law and declared that they would not assist the Federal Government. What’s more, they actively prohibited police from asking questions about residency status and reporting them to ICE.

Many illegal immigrant criminals have been released because of these policies, and US citizens have become victims of their crimes as a result.

At about the same time Obama was appointing a “sanctuary city” proponent to head up ICE, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with Obama in the White House, and they shared their opinions about the law. Brewer got Obama to agree to send National Guard troops to the border—but only 1,200 of them—and said his administration would contact her in two weeks to inform her of his decision whether or not so sue Arizona. Weeks passed, and still no one from the White House had contacted the Governor’s office.

To the contrary, word of the suit was leaked to the press by Secretary of State Clinton while visiting Ecuador, infuriating Governor Brewer due to the lack of protocol and disrespect. “"If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is {to} inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation," she said.

Insult was added to injury when Arizona Senator Kyl demanded an audience with Obama. In a meeting with his constituents after that one-on-one discussion, Kyl revealed that Obama had explained his unwillingness to help Arizona: “The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all {the Republicans} won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform…In other words, they're holding it hostage."

He later responded to Obama’s speech calling for immigration reform by declaring: “All Americans would be better served if this Administration focused on implementing proven border security solutions rather than engaging in demagoguery and criticizing states that have been left to enforce immigration law because of the federal government’s unwillingness to do so.”

Taken together, we now see that while Obama publicly declares that he takes national security seriously, and agrees that the problem of illegal immigration should be solved, his actions reveal that he is more focused on winning votes from the Hispanic constituency instead of protecting the rest of the citizens. While he threatens to sue Arizona for passing a law that supports Federal Law, he then appoints a man who supports laws that undermine federal immigration laws to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. And when confronted in the Oval Office by Senator Kyl, Obama reveals that he recognizes the scope and severity of the crisis in Arizona, but will not act to protect US citizens because to do so would be to give up political leverage that would win him electoral support from the Hispanic voters.

Obama’s focus is not on fulfilling his duties to protect the American citizenry, but rather, to protect and defend his own political career.

Click HERE to read the Conclusion

The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Conclusion)

2010-07-15T09:51:00.000-07:00

The reality of the Presidency seems to be a major inconvenience to Obama, and complaints about the problems he “inherited” have become a rather tedious mantra emanated from the White House. Economic crises, two wars, terrorism, difficult healthcare policies, financial reform, a pestilent immigration issue boiling up at the wrong moment—and then the BP oil spill. Anyone with eyes not clouded by cult-like adoration for Obama could see that he failed to show leadership during more than two months as the spill worsened.

As the BP oil disaster unfolded, Obama found himself desperate to regain the appearance of being “in charge” after weeks of incompetence. He proudly declared that he was sending 17,000 troops to the Gulf of Mexico to help with the cleanup.

This pronouncement appeared to have perplexed a number of officials, such as Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. His spokesman, Dan Turner, said “We just don’t have a need for them right now.” Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, director of the public affairs with the Florida National Guard, seemed to have no idea what their mission was, and struggled to speak supportively: “While there is a challenge to determine which mission we may be called for, we continue to plan for potential missions.” In other words: we have no idea what we’re going to be doing, but we’ll try to be ready.

Only weeks before, Arizona Governor Brewer had reacted to an issue of National Security, decrying the drug-related violence occurring across the border was spilling over to Arizona, and that an uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants was wreaking havoc in her state, and she had contacted the White House to request that National Guard troops be sent to secure our borders and protect our citizen.

The President’s response: a law suit against the laws she had passed to try to protect her citizens, and a hollow promise to send a measly 1,200 troops.

But when Obama needed to appear decisive after his clumsy handling of the Gulf disaster, he ordered 17,000 troops to go there, without a clear mission. Yet again, political expediency trumps National Security.

With uncanny timing, a new report surfaced that tied the international terrorist organization, Hezbollah, to the Mexican drug cartels and illegal immigration. This national security threat is not new. The government has known for years that Mexican coyotes have helped members of violent gangs, such as MS13, and leftist organizations, such as the FMLN, enter the country. MS13 gang members were once caught helping to smuggle an al Qa’eda agent into the country. But the latest information did connect Hezbollah to the Mexican drug cartels and the expanding violence in Mexico that is spilling over the border, and should have been a clarion call to the White House to take the issue more seriously. It should have reiterated to the White House that Governor Brewer’s impassioned cries for help were warranted, and a real response required.

Instead, the White House proceeded with their lawsuit, and continued to ignore the Governor.

Realizing that the Federal Government was determined to undermine SB1070 on the grounds that it “interfered” with (or “preempted") Federal authority to make and enforce immigration law, Governor Brewer brilliantly countered by challenging the government to sue all sanctuary cities.

The administration’s response was stunning: the Federal Government sees no need to sue sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, while it considers SB1070 to be unconstitutional because it “actively interferes” with enforcement.

Tracy Schmaler, the spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said: "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law."

The statement is absurd. As previously discussed, sanctuary cities did not “passively” ignore the federal laws; they actively order their law enforcement to disregard it. In many cities, the District Attorneys actively lowered charges to lesser ones that would not require deportation—but did so only for illegal immigrants, and not for US citizens facing identical charges. How can it possibly be constitutional for cities to enact policies that give greater rights and protections to non-citizens than it gives to citizens?

Far from being “passive”, the sanctuary city laws directly undermined the intent of the Federal Immigration law, as was pointed out by the author of the 1996 law, Rep. Lamar Smith.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd... Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000?"
Take Rep. Smith’s analogy further: suppose Jackson Mississippi decided that it would passively ignore federal discrimination and desegregation laws. Would the Federal Government allow that to happen?

In California, there is a proposition up for a vote that would make the possession and sale of marijuana legal, in direct conflict with Federal laws. Will the Federal Government ignore this?

The attentive observer, carefully examining the details of the Obama administration’s policies, cannot help but notice the self-evident contradictions. A state law passed to mirror federal law and help in enforcement is criticized for “interfering” with enforcement, while policies enacted to ignore federal law and undermine the intent of the law is overlooked. A national security crisis on our border that calls for federal assistance is mocked, ignored, and then given short shrift, while a political crisis in the Gulf is given the troops needed at the border, even though the Gulf state authorities said they didn’t need the troops, and there was no clear sense of mission for them.

President Obama, once believed to possess astonishing clarity, instead suffers from an ideological astigmatism that prevents him from focusing on the country’s real needs, or the requirements of his office. Protecting the nation, securing its integrity, is the President’s primary responsibility, and not an annoying chore that the president can simply choose to ignore for political expediency.

Newsflash: Arizona NOT a border state

2010-06-25T14:48:00.000-07:00

OK, well this may explain why Democrats don't understand why Arizona passed SB 1070. A Wisconsin county supervisor states that Arizona is not a border state...according to her, it's "removed from the border". She deserves to be removed from her office for her ignorance.

Meanwhile, we are finding out that there is a nexus between Hezbollah and the Mexican drug gangs...

You'd think this intel would inspire the Federal Govt--that would be Obama--to take our border issues seriously, as a matter of national defense.

But no. This week Obama met with Arizona Senator Kyle, who reports in this video that Obama refuses to seal the border until the Republicans agree to work with him for "immigration reform"...also known as "AMNESTY".

And finally, Dear Leader Obama decided to appoint a Sanctuary City kook to head ICE.

"The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration
enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between
federal and local officials on the issue.

Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination.

...as a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of "sanctuary city" policies, by which illegal immigrants who don't commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don't check for immigration papers. "

What other evidence do you need to prove that the Democrats are out of touch...and are just plain stupid?

Corruption investigation brewing: Obama in trouble?

2010-05-26T09:16:00.001-07:00

As Obama’s presidency falters, with his popularity ratings crashing (latest polls have him between 42% and 48% as of May 26th, 2010), it is becoming increasingly clear that the regime must take steps to forestall a slaughter at the polls in the upcoming November elections that could see the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and there is a growing pattern that suggests that someone within the Obama administration has been trying to tinker with local elections by offering jobs to entice Democrat candidates to withdraw from primaries in order to shore up the candidates the Whitehouse prefers. This is a crime under federal law, and could explode into a major issue for Obama. More seriously, if Obama knew of the effort, it would be an impeachable offense—and you can bet your boots and saddle that if the Republicans managed to take control of the House or Senate, there will be hearings to investigate the charges.

Even the major national media—generally left leaning and eager to ignore any blemishes on their beloved president—is beginning to notice. The most widely reported scandal involves Joe Sestak, who has publicly and repeatedly claimed that he was offered a job by the Whitehouse if he would withdraw from the race against Arlen Specter (the former Republican who realized he could not beat the Republican challenger in a runoff so he agreed to switch parties and vote for Obama’s Healthcare plan, in exchange for Obama’s support in the upcoming election). Sestak rejected the job offer, ran against Specter, and beat him. But now his public comments about the job offer are creating a maelstrom.

The dodgy offer was not a single event, however. The Colorado gubernatorial race also saw some of the attention, when Democratic candidate Andrew Romanoff received a call from Obama’s deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, who allegedly offered a job at USAID. Unlike Sestak, Romanoff mentioned names and the offered job, lending even more credibility to the allegation.

Remember that Obama also tried to push New York Democratic Governor Patterson to step out of the race, a third indication that, in these desperate times, the Whitehouse is eager to meddle in local elections in order to shore up its support.

Those are just three examples, each supporting the notion that the Obama Whitehouse may be violating federal law in order to maintain its power. Democrats in Congress are rejecting requests (by Republicans Issa & Steele, as well as Democrat Dick Durban) to answer questions or open a probe.

But this is precisely the kind of issue that can work against Obama in the mid-term elections, and should Republicans take power of Congress, Obama almost certainly will find himself being investigated and probed by Republicans at the same time he will have to prepare for the 2012 election.

***UPDATE***
Even MSNBC's Joe Scarborough is wading in now, accusing the media of "media malpractice" for not taking this issue more seriously. Uh-Oh-bama! If you are even losing your traditional lapdog media you know you are in real trouble!!!
Good work, Joe!

Obama's profound contempt for America

2010-05-21T10:21:00.000-07:00

During the Mexican presidential election of 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was alleged to have attempted to change the election results through various means, in the hope of helping his political ally, Lopez Obrador, win the presidency. Obrador lost the election, however, in part because Chavez’s underhanded shenanigans were discovered and revealed to the very nationalistic and proud Mexican public that vehemently rejects any kind of foreign interference in its internal affairs.

Within days of Obrador’s loss, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez publicly stated that the election had been “stolen”. The Mexican president at the time, Vicente Fox, immediately acted in accordance to expectations of any standing president. Representing his nation, he publicly denounced Chavez’s criticism of his country, its laws and electoral results, as unacceptable interference:

“Mexico has decided who will be its next President…Mexico strengthens its
institutions, and for this reason we reject these criticisms, especially since
they come from a Head of State of an ally. It is very clear that Mexico
has its own laws, its own Constitution, and its own institutions…that are strong
and capable.”

The candidate who won that election, and who was defended by President Fox, was none other than Felipe Calderón, the Mexican president who we just saw at the White House this past week, making declarations against American immigration policy and denouncing the sovereign decisions of the State of Arizona, with the shameful complicity of Barack Obama.

To get a full grasp of the importance of this event, I must explain a few things about Latin America’s perspectives.

A president is seen as the “Head of State”—that does not mean that he is just the leader of the government, it means that he is the symbolic representative of the people of his nation. It is expected that a Head of State behave at all times in a manner that exudes dignity, respect, and shines a favorable light upon the nation’s patriotic heritage. It is understood that a Head of State should treat both his allies and his opponents (both domestic and international) with respect. And it is understood that a Head of State may respectfully critique his own country, its laws, but it is expected that a Head of State, when dealing with other nations, proudly display his nation in its best light, and never undermine his own nation’s dignity.

The notion of sovereignty to Latin American presidents is of utmost importance. Just like the United States of America, Mexico and the other Latin American nations started as colonies of powerful European empires. Their people, like ours, were subjected to injustices that eventually became unbearable. Like America, they waged bloody revolutions to gain their freedom, and like America, they take great pride in the blood spilt for their freedom.

Latin American nations are therefore fiercely defensive of any perceived slight from foreign nations who dare to criticize their internal affairs and suggest how to do things differently.

President Fox’s respectful but firm response to the arrogant and undermining commentary by Chavez was to be expected. The Mexican people would have been sorely disappointed had their Head of State not responded firmly. Decorum allows for foreign presidents to comment on international issues, to criticize international policies or economic agreements, but any foreign leader who dares to criticize the internal affairs of a sovereign nation like Mexico is rejected, in the same way any person would reject unwanted criticism of his family’s private affairs by a stranger on the street.

More importantly, any visiting Head of State is like a guest in someone else's home. He is treated with utmost respect, but to one to whom much is given, much is expected. Imagine the scandal if a dinner guest were to lecture his hosts for their children’s behavior, or to disparage the home’s décor, or to question the honor of the host’s wife.

I cannot imagine that Mexico would ever tolerate the presence of a visiting Head of State who, when invited to the National Palace, took that opportunity to criticize Mexico’s sovereign internal affairs.

Any American President that stood before the cameras and called Mexican laws “discriminatory”, as Calderón did on his visit to the White House, would be savaged by the Mexican press and protested by the Mexican populace. An apology would be expected, and if not received, diplomatic relations would be severely strained.

It is a sad testament that the man who calls himself President of the United States of America, the increasingly dubious Mr. Obama, actually invited a foreign Head of State to the White House lawn with the explicit intent of having that foreign leader criticize the internal and sovereign affairs of the United States of America, and of Arizona in particular. Mr. Obama failed in his role as Head of State to present his own nation in its best light, as he has sadly done repeatedly around the world. It is a betrayal of the reasonable expectations of the noble American people, a treacherous insult to the dignity of this great nation.

Mr. Obama then rubbed salt in the wound when he invited President Calderón to speak before Congress and repeat his insolent criticism of Arizona and Federal immigration laws. A disgusting portion of the American Congress failed in its duty to represent the American people when they rose to give a standing ovation in response to President Calderón’s criticism of a law that is supported by as much as 73% of American citizens!

Our President is not acting as a Head of State. Mr. Obama has clearly failed to grasp that he is expected to nobly represent the entire nation, not just a tiny minority. Mr. Obama’s behavior once again illustrates his profound contempt for the nation he was elected to lead.

What good is a law degree if you refuse to read the law?

2010-05-18T10:49:00.000-07:00

I believe it is fair to say that most Americans were outraged to learn that most of our elected representatives voted for the Obama "Health Care Reform" bill last year without having actually read and studied the bill. Instead, most of them simply relied on input the received from advisers, staff, and their peers. After all, the bill was over 2,000 pages long, who actually had time to read such a huge piece of legislation?

The irony was not lost on the American public. We elected hundreds of well-educated individuals, most of whom have fancy law degrees, so that they will go to Washington DC, represent our interests, and write laws that benefit us. And yet those legislators apparently did not see the value in actually reading the bill and just "trusted" that it would all work out. Even Speaker Pelosi went on the record making the asinine statement that she was in a hurry to pass the bill so everyone could "find out what's in it." Dammit, Nancy, this is a law, not a friggin' birthday present! When it comes to government, we don't want no stinkin' surprises!

Considering the incompetence and unprofessionalism of those representatives, no one is shocked to learn that there are, indeed, very unpleasant surprises as we find out "what was in that bill." We now are hearing that the government underestimated its costs, that health care costs will indeed increase as some critics had warned, and there are other unsavory results, such as a doctor shortage and a very probable need to ration care. All of which, we were assured, would never happen.

But let's take a moment to refocus attention on the Arizona immigration law, and the frenzy of attacks emanating from President Obama and his cadre of nincompoop cohorts. Obama appeared to be over eager to lead the charge against the law, stating on camera that Arizonans who took their children out for ice cream would be arrested and deported for looking like foreigners--an accusation that was patently false, because specific provisions in the law prohibited that kind of interaction with law enforcement. We soon learned that Obama had not yet read the law.

Then we heard the opinion of Attorney General Eric Holder, who proclaimed that he was extremely concerned about the possible unconstitutionality of the law and how it might very well lead to discrimination. Holder's credibility was cut to pieces in a painfully embarrassing exchange that occurred--sadly for him--on camera, in which he was forced to admit that he, too, had failed to read the law he was criticizing.

Next, we have buffoons from the State Department, such as Asst. Secretary of State PJ Crowley, who stumbled all over themselves to open negotiations with China over human rights violations by pointing out the Arizona law as an example of America's own human rights problems--only to discover that they had not read the law, either!

But wait, there's more. Secretary of Homeland Security, "Sherlock" Napolitano, recently made on-camera comments attacking the law, but slipped on a political banana peel when asked if she had read the law. Senator McCain asked her point blank if she had read the law, to which she responded that NO, she had not, but had been advised about it.

Doggon it, why should someone of her stature be expected to actually READ a law before criticizing it?

McCain pressed her, saying "Then you are not prepared to comment on it?"

Napolitano should have demurred, but that is just not the way of the Arrogant Elite. Instead, she said that it was "not the kind of law I would have signed. I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in."

I'm sure many law enforcement officers don't really want to have to arrest people for minor drug infractions but they do anyway. Since when do we pass laws according to what the police would find enjoyable to enforce?

And besides, Sherlock, exactly how would you know that for sure, if you have not read the law?

This all points to an extremely disturbing trend we are seeing in Washington. Our elected representatives and the appointed officials who work for them must have somehow developed a gift of clairvoyance, since they repeatedly claim to know what is contained in laws they have not bothered to read.

Yet we, the lowly common people formerly known as citizens--but more recently relegated to the level of "subjects"--actually have to take the extraordinarily mundane steps of reading the laws manually! As a result, we discover facts that the omniscient ones somehow missed--or pretended did not exist.

And this last issue implies to me that our elected representatives can no longer be trusted with the business of running our government. They clearly hold the people in such disregard that they callously lie in public, and in so doing trample upon the trust that we people bestow upon them in the course of their duty.

Be ye warned: trust once betrayed is nearly impossible to recover. And when an entire nation arrives at the inevitable conclusion that their government cannot be trusted, or worse, the government is contemptuous of the people, then there are few peaceful options that remain to set it all right.

What is wrong with this country (and California in particular)?

2010-05-12T13:15:00.000-07:00

According to the Los Angeles Times—hardly a conservative rag—support for the Arizona immigration law appears to be growing across the country. This is encouraging news and needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

The LA Times points out that while Obama is vociferously opposed to the new Arizona law, 73% of Americans now think that it is reasonable for police who are already engaged with individuals for some violation of the law to request identification and—if they are immigrants—to check their immigration status. Among Democrats—usually the last to recognize good ideas and common sense when they see it—has risen and they are now evenly split, 45% for and 46% against. This, despite all of the president’s false, inflammatory, and (some might even say) slanderous statements against the law. It appears the Democrats are no longer getting a shiver up their legs every time Obama says anything.

Republicans support the law by 85%, while 64% of independents support. Kind of looks gloomy for the illegals in Arizona, doesn’t it?

Meanwhile, the protests and riots by the illegal immigrants and their supporters appear to have fizzled out.

My attention on the issue was sparked again due to the absurd events in the Santa Rita School District. A 13-year old girl, Tracy Hathaway, was working on an art project in her school in which she drew an American flag with the words “God Bless America” on it. Her teacher, seeing the flag, told her: “You can’t draw that—that’s offensive.” Interestingly, the same idiot teacher noticed that another child, who had drawn President Obama in red, white and blue colors, praised that drawing. When confronted by the parents, the teacher clammed up and wouldn’t comment.

Santa Rita superintendent, Mike Brusa, issued a statement on the district website that “I asked the administration to contact parents again to see if there is {sic} any expectations from prior contact that have not been met. The Principal did so, and indicated the parents were satisfied that the situation had been handled.” Grammatical errors aside, the superintendent appears to be downplaying the serious nature of the discriminatory actions of one of his teachers.

This latest event echoes the infuriating treatment given to the five boys at Live Oaks High school a week or so ago, when they were suspended for wearing American flag T-shirts on May 5th…just because that might offend Mexican Americans celebrating Cinco de Mayo. At least there the principal, Nicholas Boden, took the time to issue a formal apology for the incident. I can understand his stated concern that the flag T-shirts might have been considered “incendiary” and could have resulted in a violent confrontation between students, but I still find it offensive that, rather than issue a statement to all students that everyone should respect each other’s patriotism and no confrontations over flags would be tolerated, he instead chose to punish American citizens for wearing flags because that day happened to correspond to a Mexican day of commemoration (not a holiday, as I think I’ve mentioned before).

It seems like a the whole situation was just a little crazy…but maybe I should not be surprised, since the “mascot” of Live Oaks is the Acorn, and the slogan on their home page is “Go Nuts!”

Forgive me for thinking that the entire state of California has gone just a little “nuts”. Maybe it’s the influence of the nutters in “Holly-weird” on the rest of the state.

“Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane likened the law to Nazi Germany, saying “Nobody but the Nazis ever asked anyone for their papers.” Such a childishly stupid statement does not merit a response.
George Lopez joked that “Arizona, George Lopez is coming…Ooops…I just got pulled over…Apparently I fit the profile.. Gacho!!” Another idiotic comment that reveals the very limited ability of Hollywood stars to comprehend complex issues and comment intelligently.
The “brilliant” singer Ricky Martin stated that “Racial profiling should never be tolerated…” You’re right, Ricky, which is why the Arizona law explicitly forbade it.
Eva Longorea Parker whined that “The recent legislation in Arizona threatens to undermine basic notions of fairness.” Apparently, Eva does not think on her own, and simply parrots the falsehoods coming from Dear Leader Obama.
At least Jon Stewart’s idiotic take on the law is mildly amusing, saying that Arizona is “the meth lab of democracy”. Ha ha, Jon, that was almost funny. Maybe your writers should write jokes for President Obama!? Oh…yeah…they already did!

All this begs the question: what is the world is going on in this country? How have we gotten to the point that wearing an American flag is somehow "disrespectful"? How can a child's drawing of an American flag and the motto "God Bless America" be "offensive"? Since when can enforcing federal law be likened to "Nazi" policies? How can Hollywood even think about producing a film like Robert Rodriquez's "Machete" that glorifies a Mexican national attempting to assassinate US representatives?

***UPDATE***

Just when I thought I could go on to look at other topics, I see two more infuriating articles.

A high school girls' basketball team that won the opportunity to play at a tournament in Arizona has been told by their school district that they cannot go to Arizona because (as Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson told the Chicago Times) the trip “would not be aligned” with the school's “beliefs and values”.

And so-called experts in human rights from the United Nations have now issued a statement condemning the law--not for what it does--but what THEY think MIGHT happen as a result. According to the statement, "the law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics." Apparently the "experts" didn't read the law, or they would know the law takes steps to prevent that happening. So it makes just as much sense to say that the law is excellent because it MAY result in terrorists being captured after crossing the border illegally.

But most important is this quote: the experts are concered about the "vague standards and sweeping language" of Arizona's law, saying it raised "serious doubts about the law's compatibility with relevant international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party."

This reveals the most insidious aspect of the United Nations: it pretends to usurp the sovereignty of United States Federal and State Laws. Since the state law simply echoes the already existing federal laws, and the UN had no problem apparently with those laws, there is no way the state law somehow violates UN agreements. But this is how the UN attempts to control the citizens of sovereign nations and force them to submit to the rules of world government.

No, thank you. We'll make our own decisions, thank you.

Does the Robert Rodriguez film "Machete" incite rebellion and race wars?

2010-05-07T08:24:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, while researching the Mexican-American response to the recently passed law in Arizona that allows State Law Enforcement to help enforce Federal Immigration laws, I became aware of a new film by Robert Rodriguez, called "Machete".

The trailer for the film can be seen here.

Before I comment, here are a couple of caveats: Although I watched the trailer several times, I am cognizant of the fact that a short trailer might not be a fair and complete representation of the true message contained within the film. So I reserve the right to change my opinion as facts emerge.

But I would like to comment on what I saw, in context to the current political situation.

First, it is important to note that the trailer starts with an explicit warning to the state of Arizona--as if everything else in the film should be considered a WARNING or threat.

The plot appears to be that a wealthy US businessman makes the case that illegal immigration is good for businesses. This is a fact, it is part of the problem that we are having, echoes back to Cesar Chavez's opposition to illegal immigration (that I.I. is used by businesses to undermine labor laws and depress wages and conditions for US citizens).

However, I don't see any indication that this reality is fleshed out to promote the legitimate gripes of labor leaders like Chavez, since that would inevitably lead the viewer to the conclusion that I.I. needs to be stopped.

That US businessman is who hired the attempted hit man: note that it is this same person who then double-crosses Machete and tries to kill him. Why? What is the sub-plot? Was this a set up by the Senator to create a race war? Or was it to further another political agenda? The answers to these questions will obviously impact the story greatly, I'd like to know more about what the underlying political message is there. I somehow suspect that Rodriguez will try to establish a plot line that this is part of an evil conspiracy by the senator who opposes illegal immigration, but there is insufficient info in the trailer so we'll have to wait and see.

{UPDATED: Confirmed by CNN review The new trailer for the film, which features Jessica Alba, Robert DeNiro, Lindsay Lohan and Michelle Rodriguez, lays out the basic plot points: Danny Trejo’s Machete is paid to assassinate a corrupt senator with an anti-immigration platform, but it’s actually a set-up to reinforce the senator’s call for harsh anti-immigration laws.}

Meanwhile, the "hero" in the story is a former "Federale" (an incorrect Anglicization of the word "Federales", the singular should be "Federal", but I'll overlook that idiocy). Federales is a slang Spanish term for Mexican Federal Police, specifically the Federal Investigations Agency or by its Mexican acronym AFI (formerly the Federal Judicial Police PJF) nowadays extended to the new Federal Police (which was known from 1998 to 2006 as the Policia Federal Preventiva PFP and was roughly and equivalent of the United States Marshals Service.

So, the plot line appears to make a hero out of a former "Mexican Federal Marshall" who agrees to assassinate US Senators. Why? Because as the businessman points out, ignoring those immigration laws is beneficial to both US businesses AND the Mexican people. Suddenly assassination is made legitimate.

I don't see anything in the trailer that ever appears to contradict that premise. So the notion that Mexican officials waging war against Arizona and killing elected US officials appears to be promoted and romanticized here.

There are other very clear messages sent. One woman actress (I think her name is Rodriguez also) questions a Mexican-American Border Patrol officer (that's what I infer) and asks her why she persecutes "her own people". "It's the law" is the response, to which she essentially says that just because it's the law doesn't make it right. This same woman later tries to rally additional fighters with the claim that "We didn't cross the border: the border crossed us!"

This is a common propagandist rallying cry used by Mexican activists that tries to rewrite history and perpetuates the claim that the United States stole the territory we now consider the American Southwest, thus legitimating the Mexican claim to all of this territory, and the notion that they have a "right" to retake (reconquista) any land they want in this area.

Here is another attempt to undermine US laws designed to defend the rights, liberties and safety of US citizens.

We see a priest who is asked to help murder people and he (Cheech Marin) takes up arms. So here we see a suggestion that the Church should aid and abet seditious actions against the government--scenes that remind me of the revolutionary actions of Latino priests in Latin America, such as Archbishop Romero in El Salvador, who aided and abetted the FMLN guerrillas in their war against the government.

Nowhere in the film is there ANY consideration for the legitimate complaints of US citizens that innocent Americans are being killed, kidnapped, robbed and otherwise injured by this uncontrolled flood of illegal immigrants.

Nowhere do I see any acceptance that Mexicans and Chicanos who live here are actually injured by this situation. Nor do I see any indication that there is any reasonable analysis as to the role the Mexican government is playing in this crisis.

In short, the trailer leads me to believe that the message in the film is that Mexicans living in the United States a) have a historical claim to all of this land, b) it is a "noble" pursuit to take up arms against American businesses and the government, c) shedding blood is warranted. It serves to reaffirm the fears and suspicions held by many Americans, that the Mexicans do NOT want to "assimilate", or even accept US laws, nor do they want to participate in our society as citizens. To the contrary, there are elements here that promote the concept that Mexicans should engage in acts of war against the nation!

I cannot help but believe that a film like this, released during these times of intense tensions, will fan the flames of resentment on both sides and possibly lead to increased violence. Worse case scenario, it may even lead to a blood bath, as it appears to incite a race war in the South West.

What's more, the fact that the trailer, released on Cinco de Mayo, and starting with a WARNING to the state of Arizona, closely resembles the al Qa'eda terrorist films declaring their belligerent stance against the United States, their perceived wrongs, and rationalizations for upcoming acts of terror against the citizens of the United States.

Which leads me to my ultimate questions: has Hollywood now officially declared itself in belligerent opposition to the US government? Have they become the mouthpieces for domestic terrorist groups?

What is the response of the Obama administration to this? How would they react if a conservative militia created a film that portrayed the assassinations of Liberal representatives and open warfare against the government?

***UPDATE***
A "holy CRAP" update... You need to read this article and listen to the videos posted by Info Wars author David Weigel and Alex Jones. Now, there is a lot on InfoWars that makes me roll my eyes...conspiracy theories about the Iluminati for example is something I just don't buy into. But these two blokes got their hands on the script for "Machete" and their report both confirms my fears and expands them. According to their review of the script, the movie actuallly DOES encourage a race war. But you shouldn't just take it from me; listen to what these guys say after having read the full script and having spoken to Hispanics who worked on the film and allegedly fear about the consequences!

A Letter for Family and Friends of the Soldiers Returning from Iraq

2010-04-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

Note: This is a real letter written by Sgt Aaron A. Goddard while he was deployed in Balad Airfield, Iraq. He sent it to the friends and family of this soldiers...to raise spirits and share what they go through. It's a brilliant way of portraying hardship without being whiney, and is a testament to their true grit.

This is a letter for the friends and family members of personnel who have recently been deployed to Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The hardships of this deployment has taken a great toll on these soldiers and we simply want to warn you of some of the things that you may experience with your returning soldier.

Upon return from deployment ensure that there is no ice anywhere to be found within your home. Shut down all refrigerators for about three hours then allow them to run for approximately 20-30 minutes at a time. This will allow the soldier to become acclimatized with his “new” surroundings. If the soldier runs into cold, or heaven forbid ice water, he/she may go into shock. If this happens proceed to the kitchen and boil some water to approximately 100 degrees Fahrenheit, slowly allow your soldier to ingest the warm water to allow them to return to a balanced state. Over a period of three to four weeks slowly start decreasing the temperature of the water to allow their body to adjust to the colder beverages. Within a month your soldier will be able to handle iced beverages with no problems. Also be certain that during the acclimatizing phase of this procedure stock no more than two or three bottles of water at a time. The mere sight of an abundance of water may cause your loved one to hoard every bottle in a hiding spot unknown to you or anyone else. Over time he/she will realize that they no longer need to hide their water. This realization may happen over a period of time, or it may occur to them that people will not trade cigarettes for water and it may dawn on them that it is no longer necessary to hoard water for those “just in case” periods.

When your soldier returns home ensure that there is a small amount of dust over everything that you and your soldier possess. For you this may be the most difficult thing to deal with (outside of your soldiers bathroom habits which we will discuss later in this letter) due to the uncleanliness of your home. This will take less time to overcome on both party’s part. Your loved one will clean and gripe about how much dust there is and how it gets into everything. This is normal, do not be alarmed at your soldiers’ sudden desire to clean, in fact encourage it and slowly they will realize that they no longer need to clean everything two or three times a day. However be aware that if the winds suddenly pick-up wherever you may live, your soldier will immediately proceed to close every door, every window, and might even attempt to seal up any doors or windows that they feel might let dust in. This is caused by the dust storms that they experienced out in Iraq. This is also normal, and it may last a little longer than their cleaning phase. Remember also that if your loved one starts to yell at you for not helping to “secure” your home, humor them and help them to secure your doors and windows.

Prior to your soldier coming home, ensure that you turn up the thermostat to an unbearable 100 degrees plus. This will allow them to be more at home. This will also not last as long as the water phase, but it will be difficult for you to endure the temperature as well as they do. The extreme heat that your soldier has faced has attuned his/her body to a certain temperature and it will take them a little while to get used to colder environments. WARNING: DO NOT ALLOW YOUR SOLDIER TO BE AROUND ANY AIR CONDITIONING. This may cause their body to go into shock, or it may cause them to go on a rampage about officers and how they screw over the little people time and again. Allowing them to vent their frustrations about their chain of command and/or returning them to their inhospitably warm home can only remedy this. If your soldier goes into shock, place as many blankets on their person until their body stabilizes to an above average temperature. By gradually decreasing the temperature of your home, you can overcome this phase over a period of time.

Your soldier’s bathroom habits may shock, scare or more than likely disgust you. Do not be concerned if your soldier flushes the toilet for twenty minutes or more, marveling at the sight of running water. Your soldier has not had the benefit of running water for over nine months and they will not be accustomed to the principles of how a toilet functions. Keep a fire extinguisher handy in the bathroom! For the entire duration of the deployment your soldier has been burning their own and other soldiers’ feces as opposed to flushing toilets. If you see your soldier carrying a can of diesel fuel into the bathroom, immediately remind them that it is no longer necessary for them to burn feces. As I mentioned this is probably the most disgusting part of the entire adjustment phase. It is not for those with weak stomachs and if you require assistance in this phase feel free to ask for help from another family member or neighbor. If without you knowing, your soldier somehow manages to sneak a can of diesel fuel into your bathroom and proceeds to light it on fire, instruct your soldier that you have been placed on BBQ detail, and that you will take care of it. Your soldier will not argue with you and after he/she leaves extinguish the flames and flush the toilet. As a further precaution, ensure that there are no flammable or combustible materials within a two-foot diameter of the toilet.

Your soldier’s personal hygiene may become a problem once they return. This is caused by the lack of showers available to your soldier during his deployment. Your soldier may go three days or more before taking a couple of bottles of water (ensure that it is warm water) and going outside and drenching themselves with their water. If your neighbors have a problem with seeing your loved ones naked in the front or back yard cleaning themselves, inform your neighbors that it should last only a couple of weeks and ask them not to call the local authorities as this is normal for your soldier. You can help your soldier by subtly reminding your loved one that it is no longer necessary to shower outside. Laundry was a big issue for soldiers out in Iraq. They might take it upon themselves to retrieve a bucket and proceed to clean their clothes by hand and placing it on a makeshift clothesline. This can be easily handled by ensuring that all your soldiers’ clothes are clean and kept folded in their proper places.

IMPORTANT: At no time mention the word “lightning” around your soldier. Even if there is a lightning storm approaching make no mention of the word lightning. If by some chance they hear the word lightning your soldier will immediately drop anything that they are holding and attempt to place their chemical protective gear on. Once they change into their protective suits they will run to a bunker or up against a sturdy wall. They will then start asking for accountability of all members of your family and will instruct you to get into your gear and get to safety. If this happens all you simply have to do is say the words “all clear.” Once you say this, your soldier will proceed to take off his protective suit and go back about his/her business as though nothing happened. This may last a lot longer than all of the other phases, as it was the most uncertain time of their deployment due to the helplessness of the situation. Studies are currently underway as to how long your loved one will carry around his/her protective gear until they realize that it is no longer necessary. To help your loved one sleep better at night, use a tape recording of explosions and slightly rock the bed a couple of times, this will help them sleep as they are accustomed to hearing the sounds of mortars exploding as a lullaby. If you are driving in a vehicle and your loved one may wear his/her Kevlar helmet and/or flak vest. He/she may also start to throw food out the window to children on the street. Inform the neighbor kids that he means no harm and that he is only trying to help feed an impoverished nation.

Please ask your mailman to hold all mail for approximately five to six weeks before giving them to you. The mail system was extremely slow and they will probably not be accustomed to receiving mail in a regular time frame. Your solider may also not know how to use the phone. Keep a “phone roster” handy by the phone, allow them to sign in for the phone and instruct them that it will probably be a one to two hour wait and that they may only use the phone for ten minutes. Once they pick up the phone do not be alarmed if they suddenly holler for joy when they get through on their first attempt. Slowly decrease the time increments you inform them of for a wait and allow them to talk on the phone for longer than ten minutes. This will adjust them to their return to civilization.

Ensure that all food tastes bland. Make your loved one stand in a line for approximately one hour outside your home and allow them to enter. Ensure that your cooking has no taste to it and ensure that there are only plastic utensils and plates as your loved one will attempt to throw away their plate when they are finished. Add spices over a period of time to allow your loved one’s palate to adjust to the sensation of flavor. If you feel that your loved one is ready give them a crappy flavored non-alcoholic beer and allow them to enjoy. Your loved one has been in detox for their entire duration of the deployment and any attempt by them to ingest alcohol can have an undesirable effect on your soldier. If you see your loved one sneak a drink from the liquor cabinet and lock themselves in the room, do not be alarmed if they refuse to answer the door, or even acknowledge that they are in the room. They may be attempting to hide the fact that they are drinking and it may take a little getting used to by your loved one to drink in public again.

Once again I remind you that your loved one has gone through many changes and it is difficult to say whether or not that any or all of these symptoms may be apparent in your soldier. Exercise caution and patience when dealing with your returning loved one and please remember that they love you and that they missed you all throughout the entire deployment. Over time your loved one will return to normal and you will be reunited with the loved one who was deployed to an uncivilized land.

Yours sincerely,
Sgt Aaron A. Goddard
Balad Airfield, Iraq

Anti-Semitism in the Obama administration

2010-04-26T13:38:00.000-07:00

Obama’s National Security Advisor, General James Jones (Ret), has just been captured on video telling a joke that portrays Jews as greedy merchants.

“This happened recently in Southern Afghanistan. A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around in the desert lost, out of food and water, and looked out on the horizon and saw a little shack…he got closer and found that it was a store of a Jewish merchant. The Taliban warrior went up to him and said, I need water, give me some water. The merchant said we don’t have any water but we have some ties, we have a nice sale on ties today. Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a scream of language I can’t repeat…and passively the merchant sat there until the Taliban was through with his diatribe and said I’m sorry I don’t have water for you, and I forgive you for all your insults…but I’ll help you out. If you go over that hill about two miles there is a restaurant there and they have all the water you need. The Taliban said thanks and still muttering under his breath disappears over the hill only to come back an hour later and walking up to the merchant says ‘your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”

The language of this joke is disturbing. How is it possible that a high level government official actually thinks that telling “Jew jokes” at an official speech is appropriate?

It is very interesting that while the General refers once the merchant as a “Jewish merchant” and from that point on only uses the term “merchant” for the Jew, in a manner that seems to reduce the Jewish aspect of the joke but, having set the premise, then uses a code word for the Jew from that point on. Meanwhile, the Taliban is never a “terrorist” or an “insurgent”: he is a “warrior”.

While contemplating this speech, I found that Rush Limbaugh is under attack for a comment he made in which he attempted to point out the use of code words used by the Obama regime that appear to subtly refer to Jews.

LIMBAUGH: To some people, “banker” is code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s — if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there?

The assault on Rush seems to be based upon the premise that he is anti-Semitic for pointing out that Obama is engaging in a constant attack on “Bankers”, which is, in fact, undeniable, and by pointing out that the term “bankers” appears to be a code-word for “Jews”. Take it in light of how General Jones used “merchant” as a code word for “Jew”. However, it should be noted that Limbaugh was discussing Norman Podhoretz's book, Why Are Jews Liberals?

This same topic has been discussed ad nauseum by none other than Jewish conservative talk-show host (and Rabbi), Dennis Prager.

In fact, Mr. Prager writes:

"The most frequently asked question I receive from non-Jews about Jews is, why are Jews so liberal?..." He then goes on to write about the six main reasons why Jews tend to be Liberal, and points out that "just as liberal Jews fear a resurgent Christianity despite the fact that contemporary Christians are the Jews' best friends, leftist Jews fear American nationalism despite the fact that Americans who believe in American exceptionalism are far more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than leftist Americans. But most leftist Jews so abhor nationalism, they don't even like the Jews' nationalism (Zionism). If you believe that leftist ideas and policies are good for America and for the world, then you are particularly pleased to know how deeply Jews — with their moral passion, intellectual energies and abilities, and financial clout — are involved with the Left. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Left is morally confused and largely a destructive force in America and the world, then the Jews' disproportionate involvement on the Left is nothing less than a tragedy — for the world and especially for the Jews."

I guess, despite the fact that Limbaugh is a conservative and a staunch supporter of Jews and Israel, because he is a Gentile, he's not allowed to talk about the same topic that Prager and Podhoretz are discussing. Therefore, he is attacked. Mark Silk writes in Spiritual Politics:

“As MediaMatters pointed out, that last bit is patently untrue--unless Limbaugh wants to include himself among the Jew-haters. He begins with what "some people think" and then associates himself with the view. His speculation is that Jews--three-quarters of whom voted for Obama--may be having buyer's remorse because Obama has started attacking their co-religionists on Wall Street. Only someone a lot more familiar with traditional Gentile attitudes about Jews than with the American Jewish community could entertain the idea that the latter would have second thoughts about supporting a candidate who attacks Wall Street bankers.”

So, somehow, the Liberal left wants us to believe that it is “patently untrue” that the word “banker” is used as a form of code-word against Jews. But this is not the case. The use of the concept has been used since before the Nazis took control of Germany, and was in fact commonly used by American progressives such as FDR and his acolytes. Read a little about the Catholic Priest Charles Coughlin as just one example. Coughlin, an avid supporter of FDR blamed the Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers", and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution. He later said that "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing." Mind you, this Priest was the one who founded the National Union of Social Justice. (If the term “social justice” doesn’t jump out at you, you obviously have not been listening to the attacks on Glen Beck for his suspicions about the renewed infatuation by the Obama administration with “social justice”).

As Andrew McCarthy points out on his blog, Obama’s constant discussion about Economic justice “is simply the finance angle of ‘social justice,’ the idée fixe of Obama and his coven of Change-agents — like Michael Klonsky, the communist educator who ran a “social justice” blog on Obama’s official campaign website.”

There are many, more recent examples of “progressives” trashing Jews such as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Former President Jimmy Carter, to name just two.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly true that Obama’s attacks on bankers have been on-going and quite vitriolic.

Example ONE:
Speaking from the White House, Mr. Obama said, "I want to send a strong warning to this country's bankers," before turning to his economic team and saying, "I don't mean you guys."
After the President excused them from listening to the rest of his address, approximately one hundred former bankers filed out the door, leaving the room virtually empty.
Once the room had cleared, Mr. Obama resumed his attack on bankers, using his strongest rhetoric to date: "If you do not clean up your act, I am prepared to give you heck."
Example TWO:
Obama: "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

Example THREE:
President Obama attacks banking 'masters of the universe'

Democrats want to convince everyone that it’s the Conservatives who are the bigots, but even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to distance himself Wednesday from the views of his brother-in-law, who called President Obama "anti-Semitic" over the airwaves this morning.

Perhaps Limbaugh’s belief that there are many Jews who see through the lightly veiled code words is accurate after all. And having his National Security Advisor stand up and tell “Jew Jokes” certainly does not help matters.

70% overtaxed, but 47% pay no taxes?

2010-04-19T11:05:00.001-07:00

I noticed two interesting statistics over the past few weeks and contemplated them for a while before I noticed something odd.

First, we saw a poll that revealed that 70% of Americans feel they are over-taxed.

At about the same time, we saw reports that 47% of Americans will pay no income tax at all.

I heard analysts speaking about both of these polls and statistics and I never heard anyone connect the two. What I did hear was President Obama mock the "anti-tax" protesters, since according to him he has "cut taxes", and should be thanked. In reality, the president imposed new policies that are going to hike the cost of living, impose new taxes, and even force Americans to purchase a product from a Government-approved list of companies (refusal to participate making the citizen subject to fines or imprisonment) and yet he then claims he has "cut taxes". How can he even try to make that claim? Simply by not having reversed the Bush tax cuts, he claims to have cut taxes.

Just like the government's tricky use of statistics such as "jobs created or saved", a vacuous shell game to try to take credit for jobs that still exist by claiming they would have been lost except for the Obama policies, or new jobs that have allegedly been created (most of the real jobs that were created were government jobs, so their inclusion is misleading from the start), this latest bit of propaganda is completly illogical. It's like saying "I cut your taxes because I didn't impose a new tax." It is doubly misleading because in reality, there have been a whole new slew of taxes created, many of which were hidden in the so-called "Health Reform Act". These taxes include increases in capital gains (such as a 4% tax on home sales), the already mentioned requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a "fine", and others. Meanwhile, the same administration proposes a VAT tax on all sales, not to mention the Cape and Trade energy tax, both of which will immediately cause inflation in all products and services.

So the reality is that YES, government-caused tax hikes and fines are in the works, and Obama's plattitudes are empty, as usual.

Which brings me back to the original topic: If the statistic is correct that only 47% of Americans have to pay federal income tax, how is it possible that 70% of Americans feel over taxed?

Clearly, the 53% of Americans that do pay Federal Income Tax feel they are paying way too much. So what of the additional 17% that apparently do not pay Federal Income Tax but still feel they are over taxed?

It occured to me that these must be individuals who are not required to pay Federal Income Taxes, but are still taxed heavily at the State and local level, and feel they are still paying too much. Many of these are likely to be the same individuals who are thrilled to get Obama-Care, because someone else will be footing the bill, and yet they also feel the squeeze from excessive local taxes. Afterall, I've heard that the tax rate in utopian cities like New York exceed 60%! It is not difficult to imagine that a NY resident who earns too little to pay federal taxes may squirm under the excessive state and city taxation in NY city.

And this leads me to believe that there is at least a 17% voting block of citizens who might be swayed against the type of government expansion of costly programs if only the right message were created and directed at them. In fact, this might just be an indication of who the independents and Democrats are that have been joining the Tea Party movement.

(I encourage you to read this article that breaks down who it is that actually pays taxes in this country. The findings may surprise you.)

Nostaligia for the Plantation, a review

2010-03-29T15:34:00.000-07:00

Folks, I just went back to look at something I had posted way back in 2008. This was during the campaign, before we knew what we know now. And boy, does it seem apt now.

I thought it might be interesting to look back and see it under new light.

Excerpt:

How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

The Obamas are peddling the exact opposite message from the Kennedys! The Obamas are telling the voters: “Vote for the guy who will give you stuff for free. Vote for the guy with the handouts.” The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”

And liberals will defend this by making quaint and absurd statements that actually compare Obama to Jesus: "Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor."

The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote. In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday.

But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:
Goldberg: “Do I have to worry about being returned to slavery because certain things in the constitution had to be changed?”

McCain: “That’s an excellent point, Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank you.”
Goldberg:“I got scared!”

Joy Behar: {laughing} “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!”

{Black Co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted by actually hiding her head in apparent embarrassment.}Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:

Michelle Obama:“Vote for the guy who serves your personal interest.”

Joy Behar:“Don’t worry, honey, us white folk, we’ll take care of you.”Can it be any clearer, folks?
Can’t you people see the inherent racist and infantile dogma that is being sold to you like snake oil? At the same time Democrats blast capitalists for “selfishly” striving for success and amassing personal wealth, they contradictorily offer excuses and compensation for failure, and encourage the populace to hold their cap in their hand and wait for Uncle Sam to give them their due. Instead of demanding self-respect and responsibility of our population, the Democrats are selling indulgences, governmental pardon for irresponsibility, laziness, and victim mentality. Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!

It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the Plantation.

Corpus Cristi versus Ticked Off Trannies

2010-03-26T14:45:00.000-07:00

There is gay outrage this week because of the proposed screening of “Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives”, a film by Israel Luna is promoted as a “campy homage to the exploitation films” in which “a group of transgender women are violently beaten and left for dead,” but then “the violated vixens turn deadly divas.”

Apparently the idea of transgender women being attacked "for being who they are". The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has demanded that the film be removed from the Tribeca lineup.

"GLAAD has since seen the film in its entirety and can report that the title is far from the only problem with this film. The film, its title and its marketing misrepresent the lives of transgender women and use grotesque, exploitative depictions of violence against transgender women in ways that make light of the horrific brutality they all too often face."

GLADD continues its criticism:
"By marketing Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives as a "transploitation" film, by using the word "trannies" (a pejorative term for transgender people) in the title of the film, by casting transgender women in some roles, and by citing the murders of Angie Zapata and Jorge Mercado in the trailer, Israel Luna has attempted to place his film squarely within a transgender narrative.
However, while some of the actors in the film identify as transgender, the characters are written as drag queens, “performing” femininity in a way that is completely artificial. "

{Note: yeah, that makes perfect sense, because whenever I find out that someone born male who has their tallywacker removed and a vagina created, it would never occur to me to think that they are 'performing femininity in a way that is completely artificial'. There's nothing more natural than a male willfully having his genitalia removed so he could become a female.}

"Transgender people are a marginalized and vulnerable minority in our culture, subjected to horrific hate crimes and pervasive discrimination. Relatively few media images of transgender people exist, so every media image becomes essential in educating audiences about transgender lives and working to eliminate the discrimination and violence they face.

In this context, it is irresponsible and insulting to make a film that serves up graphic anti-transgender violence as a "hook" for an homage to B-movies of the 1970s. "

Yeah, I can see why they are upset. Seriously. Here you have a group that is misunderstood, misrepresented, and often finds itself the target of bigoted attacks. It does seem very inconsiderate to write such a film, and gosh darn it, I wish this kind of thing would stop.

Now that that's settled... I would like to sing the praises of a wonderful play, "Corpus Christi", being promoted in Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas.

This play sounds so sweet and could not possibly offend anyone. You see, it explores the life and times of Jesus Christ, except that it is in a modernized form, in which the "thinly veiled Jesus figure" is a boy named Joshua.

Oh, and he struggles "to confront a hostile environment"--just like Jesus did--except that the hostility Joshua suffers is because he just happens to be a homosexual.

Yes, that's right. It's a play about Jesus as a homosexual. And his best buddies, the good old apostles--you guessed it--they're all gay too! Will there be locker room fun? You'll have to attend to find out!

Director John Otte chose "Corpus Christi" as the final project for his advanced directing class. "I chose this play to direct and produce because I am a Christian," who, may I add, also just happens to be gay.

"It is being said often that this play is a direct attack on Christians -- their faith and their deity," Otte said. "It simply is not true. He is my savior as well, and I was raised in an extremely faithful and religious home."

That's nice, Mr. Otte, because no one in their right mind would be offended by the portrayal of their Messiah as a homosexual high school student! Pshaw!

And YET, not everyone is thrilled! The pastor of the local Hillcrest Church of Christ, David Harris, says: "It infuriates me that somebody would be given a platform to be able to demean and degrade the son of God...I'm angry about it, and every Christian should be."

Now, all sarcasm aside, is this not a wonderful situation?

On the one hand, you have a film maker who decided to recreate the campy slasher movies of the '70s but include a bunch of "trannies" as the victims-turned-heroes, and his stereotypical portrayal of transgendered women just doesn't ring true, and to these gays it seems "exploitative" to portray them being victimized.

And yet, on the other hand, you have homosexuals who are perverting the image of Jesus Christ and the apostles, making them gay--which is considered sinful by Christians--and this we are to accept as "art" with nary a whimper.

To be fair, "Corpus Cristi" is intended to be a heartwarming play to "bring people together". And why shouldn't it, when Jesus is portrayed as--get ready--"The King of Queers"?

Why would that upset Christians?

Shouldn't gays see the offense they are perpetrating on one of the world's great religions? Is this not yet another example of the kind of constant abuse that is heaped upon Christians by liberals, atheists, and now homosexuals? How many "Piss-Christ" type of blasphemies do Christians have to endure before this ends?

I ask you: when do you expect to see a play based upon "Gay Muhammad"? What do you think would happen?

To conclude, there's not much to say, except "you can dish it out, but you sorry bunch of over-sensitive pansies can't take it."

Let the anti-capitalist illegal immigrant rot in a North Korean jail

2010-03-22T09:50:00.000-07:00

Just a short note.

You may have heard about Aijalon Mahli Gomes, an American from Boston who left America and ran off to North Korea, where he illegally crossed the border--thus becoming an illegal immigrant in the Socialist Republic of North Korea.

He was arrested and now will be tried for his illegal entry into that socialist paradise.

Irony: According to Reuters News, Aijalon Mahli Gomes left the USA because he no longer wanted to live in a capitalist society.

I wonder if he's started to rethink his naive, dangerous, and stupid belief that socialist nations are Utopias now that he's rotting in a North Korean jail.

In my opinion, The US State Department should not invest ONE second in obtaining his release. He wanted a socialist experience, and now he's finding out what it's REALLY like.

Let him rot in a commie jail!

A tale of two gays: Ashburn and Massa

2010-03-11T16:42:00.000-08:00

This past week we've had a lot of fun with our representatives, haven't we?

Last week, California State Senator Roy Ashburn was "arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning."

The CBS article stated about Ashburn: "Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties, with a history of opposing gay rights."

It continues by examining his "anti-gay" record in depth:
"Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws."

My goodness. Liberals had a hay-day with that incident, and not because he was arrested for a DUI. No, it was because he was apparently a "hypocrite". John Danz Jr, writing for News Blaze, wrote:
"Politicians of both sides of the spectrum carry the stigma of being self-serving liars - but how is being gay and voting against gay rights self-serving? I think it's just stunningly moronic."

It appears, according to one article, that Ashburn "came out" on a radio program and admitted he was gay--a fact that did not provoke any sympathy from the Liberals. No, instead they were infuriated.

Ashburn explained his vote against gay issues this way: ""My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district, and I have always felt that my faith and allegiance was to the people there in the district, my constituents."

In response, Danze writes: "It should ...should be evident to anyone with half a brain and even a modicum of political knowledge that leaders and representatives are elected to make decisions on their own volition and not always at the whim of the people. If you're just making decisions based on the volition of the people, you may as well not even be there."

Really? Is that what Liberals believed when Clinton stuck his finger in the air to judge the political climate and formed policy that coincided with public opinion? It was brilliant when he did it.

But even then, why should we think that every gay man must also be a supporter of all the pro-gay legislation that Liberals are attempting to pass. The second assumption they are making is that he must secretly agree with gay marriage, but had voted against it to stay "in the closet".

Is it not feasible that there are some gay men who do not believe in gay marriage? Or of declaring a "Harvey Milk" day?

But before their outrage could even go stale, we were privileged to witness the personal woes of Democrat Representative Eric Massa.

In this story, we have the delicious tale of a Liberal, pro-Obama Democrat who was a former Navy man and, as we find out, had a long history of inappropriate sexual advances on his male staff, and perhaps even on Naval men years ago. Massa, who is also married with children, was also "in the closet" and it seems tries to pretend he is not gay, even though he had very gay tickle-fests with his staffers, not all of whom appreciated that, and even made an extremely provocative sexual advance on another.

In response to these revelations......absolutely no outrage from the left.

No, to the contrary, the only outrage they are expressing is that Massa is being beat up by the conservatives.

In fact, they actually are voicing compassion for the poor little bastard. In the Huffington Post, author Charles Karel Bouley writes a piece called "Stop The Gayhunt on Massa and Listen to Kennedy":
"Rep. Patrick Kennedy got all fired up on the floor of the Congress Thursday, March 11, 2010, veins bulging, spittle flying....why? He was angry that while the Congress debates Afghanistan and the $3 Billion dollar a year escalation there are two members of the press corps there; he contends because the rest are too busy talking 24/7 about former Rep. Eric Massa's personal woes."
He continues with an empathetic exploration of poor Massa's situation.
"His family must be in such an uproar, and his life is unraveling. The one thing this man has probably never dealt with, the fact that he obviously wants to explore men sexually on some level, has been ground in to grist for the media mill and he is literally falling apart under the glare of the spotlight. He is unstable, in huge denial, struggling internally to hold on the "self" he thought he had and the "self" that everyone now sees. He can't reconcile the two and he's come unglued in some areas. I'm no psychologist, I've just been gay my entire life and have seen this over and over again."

That was almost enough to make me cry for poor Massa. I might even shed a tear or two for Ashburn while I'm at it!

But isn't it rich that life affords us the opportunity to see in such stark contrast the difference in how Liberals will treat a supposed conservative gay and a liberal one?

Meanwhile, about Ashburn, John Danz Jr declares: "Roy Ashburn, Gay Hypocrite, Must Be Forced Out of Office"

Hey, as a conservative, I have no problem with that. Kick him out and let the conservative people of his district elect another conservative to his place.

What do you think the odds are that they would elect someone who would suddenly vote for Harvey Milk day?

Illegal Immigration Vs. a National Biometric ID Card

2010-03-09T08:59:00.000-08:00

I'm going to wade into potentially dangerous territory today.

In an article in the WSJ today, author Laura Meckler writes:

"Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker."

The plan is being formed by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.).

Of course, privacy advocates are concerned. Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, responds that "it is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy....We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

Exactly how is it being "treated like criminals" to provide identification to get a job? Don't we already have to provide a résumé? Don't we already provide a SSN? Don't employers already call around to verify our employment history, and sometimes perform extensive background checks?

It seems that what the ACLU is really concerned about is identifying the people who have illegally entered the country, illegally falsified identification, and illegally acquired jobs, and treating THEM like the criminals they are.

It is clear, in fact, it's indisputable, that this would require every citizen and legal resident to submit certain biometrics in order to acquire the card. And yes, to a certain extent, this card could be used "to track citizens".

But exactly how is that different from the way the government currently uses the Social Security Number today? In fact, it can be argued that the use of the Social Security Number is in direct violation of the promise by the Federal Government that the SSN would NOT be used for the purpose of identifying citizens. The original intent of the SSN was ONLY for the purpose of providing Social Security as a form of insurance.

However, Congress allowed a perversion of that intent and it morphed into the disastrous situation we have today, in which that number is used to verify an individual's identify for just about every important transaction in which he or she engages. Need a loan or credit? Show your SSN. Need a Driver's License? Show your SSN. Need a doctor's checkup? Show your SSN.

We now have a runaway problem in which organized crime is defrauding America of TRILLIONS of dollars by stealing SSNs in bulk. What's more, illegal immigrants have become some of the primary recipients of these stolen ID numbers.

And even more frightening, we are wide open to massive electoral fraud unless we get this situation under control.

So, let me ask this question: how is it any more intrusive to carry a card that is directly tied to biometric identifiers that are truly unique to the person and prevent the identifying number from being stolen and 're-purposed' by criminals? How is this different from a Social Security Card, except that it will be used for its actual intended purpose? How is it different from the use of a birth-certificate (which also can be falsified), or a Passport?

If there are privacy concerns, surely those can be handled through legislation. Why not?

In fact, there is really no reason why we could not issue a national biometric identification card {referred to as NBIDC from now on} AND solve the problems surrounding identity theft tied to the use of SSNs.

I have travelled and lived Latin America, and without exception, every country I've visited uses a national ID card, or Carnét. These are used to verify each individual's identity when requesting a bank account, credit, a passport, and yes, even before voting. To my knowledge, it has yet to become a "privacy issue" in these countries, or at least, no more so than a SSN is here in the United States.

But what are the benefits to issuing an NBIDC?

In the battle against illegal immigration, the only entity enabled to police immigration is the Federal Government.
Business owners who want to comply with the law and not hire illegals run the risk of a discrimination lawsuit if they ask to see proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect might be a foreigner.
Police are constantly being sued for discrimination whenever they stop individuals whom they suspect are here illegally.
Because drivers licenses in most states can be acquired even without being a legal citizen (either legally or illegally by easily circumventing the identification methods in place), driver's licenses are not a good preventative measure. And in many states, that's all that's required to vote, so we run the risk of non-citizens voting for who-so-ever promises the most to foreign interests or to keep the borders open so their 37 relatives can also come here--illegally.

We can't tell business owners that they "shall not" employ illegal immigrants if there is no method for them to identify legal residents.

And until the job opportunities for illegals dries up, we'll never solve that problem.

Think about the cost of continuing "business as usual".

Massive illegal immigration provides a source of cheap labor to companies that would otherwise have to pay more to legal residents and citizens.
It creates a debilitating drain on our social services--such as health care--and that cost is forwarded onto all citizens and legal residents.
Illegal immigrants have been tied directly to many crimes, ranging from identity theft, to drug trafficking, burglaries, rapes and murders, not to mention the many thousands of automobile-related accidents costing our citizens financially and in lost loved ones.
Our jails are beginning to overflow with illegal immigrants. In fact, it's become such a problem, many illegals receive a virtual "get out of jail free" card for their minor infractions. This means that there is a growing double standard wherein citizens are punished more harshly for their infractions while illegal immigrants are repeatedly given second, third, fourth chances.
If we can't stop their access to jobs, the temptation will remain for them to cross our borders, which will again infuriate the citizens who in turn will push for a militarized border and the construction of costly fences and other measures to stop them.
What would be more cost effective: A thousand mile fence, or a National ID Card?
And there is a national security element to the discussion, as well. If we eliminate the numbers of illegal immigrants we also reduce the ability for terrorists to enter the country and hide among them. We provide a mechanism by which individuals who enter the country LEGALLY with the intention of overstaying their visas (and thus become ILLEGAL down the road) to be more easily identified and deported.

To review: The idea that an NBIDC poses some danger to "privacy" is a red-herring. To the contrary, it poses no greater threat than that already existing thanks to the abuse of the SSN, and in fact offers an opportunity to eliminate that abuse, save the economy trillions of dollars, reduce credit interest rates, secure our electoral system, and provide a mechanism by which employers and law enforcement can identify the illegals among us and deport them.

The REAL issue here is: how do we want to go about deporting millions of illegals? Or should we give the current millions "amnesty" in exchange for this problem-solver?

Why hunt bears, when it's snakes that kill us?

2010-01-08T10:03:00.000-08:00

Why do we think that “changing the way we live” is “admitting defeat” to al Qaeda?

Ted Koppel, in his recent interview by BBC World News America’s Matt Frei, appeared to drop a “bombshell” by declaring that the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing by al Qa’eda can be classified as “an absolute triumph for al Qaeda.”

Why? Because, according to Koppel, the United States’ reactions to the attempt has been so intense, and our attention so completely drawn to the attack, that they must be sitting back in their caves saying to themselves, “Not bad! If we can do that with a failed attempt, just think what we can do with a successful one.”

When Frei asked if the American response was an over-reaction, Koppel answered: “I think it’s an overreaction because we have spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, it is all that our media has been yapping about, it is much of what our Congress has been focusing on, the President himself has had to focus visibly his attention on it. Ironically, I think his initial reaction was the right one…I’m not going to over react publicly {but} he wasn’t able to sustain it.”

Koppel then explains that with all of the media “yapping” about “connecting the dots”, it leaves the politicians “no alternative but to make it look as though you are doing something. Well, doing something is exactly what the Terrorists want; they want to feel that they control our actions, rather than we control them ourselves.”

There is an element of truth to Koppel’s analysis. Al Qaeda intentions are clearly to attack the United States and take the initiative in the struggle. As in any chess game or war, an attack that elicits a response can be considered a successful move. What’s more, a minor attack (by comparison with major, complex and highly coordinated attacks such as the 9/11 attacks) that receives as much attention as this most recent attack did must surely be considered by the al Qa’eda leadership as a success.

Frei then quotes President Obama’s declaration that “we will not let a small band of terrorists define the way that this country lives its lives”, to which Koppel response that “this is the right thing to say, but it is not the way we have responded.”

And this is precisely where I diverge from Koppel’s absurd analysis. The thought pattern that is being promoted by Obama, as it had been by Bush and other leaders, that we should not allow the terrorists to “change our lives” or else “they win”, is infantile and dangerous. It is the mentality of the people who said, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, that we should not over-react and be drawn into war. It is the same mentality of the individuals who said we should not fight against the Taliban and al Qa’eda in Afghanistan after they had killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens in New York. And it’s also the mentality of the politically correct fools who still cling to the absurd notion that—even though we know our enemy, we know what they look like, we know their religion, we know their languages, we know their profile—we should be “fair” and “just” by treating all individuals with the same suspicion rather than focusing our attention on the individuals who match the description of our enemy.

Think of it this way. If a village in India is suffering from deadly attacks of venomous snakes, should they take measures to clean the snakes out of the village, educate the villagers about the appearance and habits of the snakes, and teach them how to kill them when they are found? Or, in order to avoid discriminating against snakes, should they tell them not to worry about the snakes, because Polar bears might attack at any time? “We do not have Polar bears here in India!” they might respond. “Yes, but what if one comes here? And if you are looking for snakes, and not Polar bears, you might not be ready.” You can imagine how the villagers would immediately identify the village idiot, and they would return to hunting and killing snakes.

What’s more, imagine the stupidity of the statement: “we should not allow our enemy to change how we live our lives.” Was this the attitude that Americans took to win WWII? Did our grandparents declare that they would not report for the draft? Did the women refuse to get jobs? Did they refuse to conserve their use of gasoline?

What if Americans had allowed these village idiots to convince them that, if we respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it would have been a victory for the Japanese?

The ultimate truth here is that this mentality is being promoted by individuals who arrogantly believe that the United States is too powerful to suffer cataclysmic attacks at the hands of "a small band of terrorists", and therefore we should treat them with indifference, a swish of a tail for an annoying mosquito. That response would be fine, if only the mosquitoes did not carry malaria. Would these same people propose that we ignore the mosquitoes, or should we drain the swamps and spray insecticide?

These people simply cannot comprehend: we are truly at WAR.

If we do not adapt, if we do not respond, if we cease hunting snakes and instead hunt Polar bears, we give a major advantage to our enemy. And this is exactly what Obama, and Koppel, are proposing. There is no strategic advantage to giving enemy combatants a civil trial, when precedent and law allows us to try them in military tribunals. There is no strategic advantage to Mirandizing enemy combatants in the field and hobbling our intelligence community. In fact, these decisions are exactly the kind of “civilized insanity” that al Qa’eda is counting on in order to continue inflicting damage on us. There is no strategic advantage to continuing the Polar bear hunt, when we know our people are dying of snakebites.

When idiots speak truths, redux.

2009-12-16T12:53:00.000-08:00

This week's truth-telling idiot? Howard Dean.

Last October, I penned “When idiots speak truths”, in which I lambasted Joe Biden for saying that, if Obama were to be elected, America’s enemies would test the administration with an international crisis within six months. I had no doubt he was right (and we’ve already seen the Obama administration fail a number of tests); I thought the statement was stupid on various other levels. But it was also amusing because it was such a great example of Joe gaffe-a-minute Biden at his best.

We now have a replay of that moment, but it’s former DNC Chair Howard Dean whose mouth “doth runneth over”. And I’m not attacking Dean for lying or obfuscating (his usual tactics), but rather using Dean’s momentary clarity against the Dems push for the “health reform” bill.

In a series of interviews with Vermont Public Radio and MSNBC, Dean has attacked the health reform bill that is nearing completion in the Senate. On VPR, Dean said “Honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."

Hey, I like that advice. For once, Dems, listen to Dean.

But what is really astonishing is what else he had to say about the bill.

Dean said that the current bill will force citizens to pay for healthcare and fine them if they don’t. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.” “IF” the bill works? Do I detect a hint of doubt?

So, did Dean just reveal that Democrats, for all their pompous statements of confidence, honestly have NO IDEA if the changes they are proposing to 1/6th of the US economy will work? Is that a gamble that YOU, Dear American Citizen, are willing to let them take with your health?

“The bill does more harm than good,” he stated.

He stated on VPR: “You have the vast majority of Americans want the choices, they want real choices. They don't have them in this bill. This is not health care reform and it's not close to health care reform."

You are right, Americans want “reform”. What we don’t want is socialized medicine. And this bill is not “reform”, but rather a path to socialized medicine. Thank you for that moment of clarity.

Mr. Dean has, in the past, uttered absurdities that solidly confirmed his status as either an idiot or a liar. For whatever reason, this idiot has finally started to tell the truth—a truth, by the way, which happens to agree with the criticisms coming from Conservatives.

One problem Dean has with the bill is that the “pre-existing conditions piece” (which would have prohibited insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage, forcing the companies to either absorb the loss—which is not likely—or spread that out to everyone else—which the companies have said they will do) has been stripped from the bill, enabling the companies to charge more to the elderly (who have a higher rate of illness than the young) and sick. Well, no kidding, Mr. Dean! So his solution is to force insurance companies to charge the same to everyone, no matter what conditions they have and how much they have neglected their health up to that point. Under his idiotic plan, the rest of us will see our rates skyrocket as a result of that insanity.

MSNBC Interviewer and liberal-apologist George Stephanopoulos tried to counter Dean’s arguments by stating all the things the bill allegedly does to “control cost:” 1) A tax on the “Cadillac health care plans”, 2) New incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality, 3) and two new Medicare panels to try to control cost.

Dean replies: “George, you just named a whole bunch of bureaucracies and a lot of promises, I don’t see cost control in this bill; I really don’t.” Now, isn’t this one of the things Conservatives have been saying? Isn’t this one of the so-called “lies” for which Democrats have attacked Conservatives? Dean has again revealed that the Dems KNOW that their plan will NOT control costs!

I’d like to say that Mr. Dean might be on the road to recovery of his senses, but other comments clearly reveal that he is not. He’s still an idiot, but for political reasons alone he has finally let the truth slip. It sounds very much like the Conservatives were right all along.

Democrats & Victory: Never the twain shall meet

2009-12-02T10:39:00.000-08:00

Current events are perpetually confusing and confounding to those who lack a sense of historical perspective. To the citizen with a reasonable education and a bit of curiosity, to he who is willing to dig and research, current events become a fascinating subject of contemplation.

I am astonished by the events surrounding the Obama administration’s handling of the war in Afghanistan. The Obama team ran their 2008 campaign not so much against the Republican presidential candidate, Senator McCain, as much as against former President George Bush, and tirelessly reiterated that the war in Afghanistan had been the “good war”, while the war in Iraq had been a disastrous misadventure and a “distraction” from the real “war on terror” (or “International Contingency Plan”, or whatever the phrase may be now).

That argument seemed somewhat reasonable and even many independents and moderate Republicans might have agreed. When Obama took office, he immediately risked alienating himself from his base when he decided to send 20,000 troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our small forces already in place. He then decided to form a “better strategy” that considered the “end game”—a swell phrase actually meaning: “how do we get the hell out of there”.

He appointed General McChrystal to head up the forces, and in March announced they had a new strategy. When General McChrystal wrote his report and requested around 40,000 additional troops in September to add to the 68,000 that were currently deployed, Obama seemed to stumble. He dithered around until December, excusing his pathetic inaction on the need “for a new strategy”—perhaps we should dub it “Obama War Strategy 2.0”.

He finally committed himself to a plan in December. Obama has decided to send—not the 40,000 troops requested—an additional 30,000. I can imagine that this must have been a tough decision on his part, since it is sure to alienate him from his far left base, which is already on the attack against him. So I feel it is fair to praise his “courage” for deciding to send additional troops and to shore up the forces.

Obama’s decision to send troops was also announced with a planned time-table for departure—or should I say, “retreat”: Summer 2011 and end in 2013.

Curiously, in his article in the Guardian UK, Ewen MacAskill, titled “Obama’s War: the final push in Afghanistan”, MacAskill wrote that “US officials said Obama wants almost all the US troops out before the end of his first term in office in January 2013, leaving behind a small contingency force. Gibbs said the president did not want to leave the problem to his successor.”

For a team that crowed that the GOP is in decline and will be out of power for the next forty years, the year 2013 should be not be considered the first year in office for “his successor”. What happened to all that confidence that Obama was “The One”? It almost appears that the Obama team has come to the conclusion that the battle can’t be won. No, not in Afghanistan: I’m talking about Obama’s re-election!

So, in one article, we find three amazing blunders by the Obama team.

First, it seems somewhat foolish to take the political risk of sending troops, an action that will irritate the left, but to send a smaller number than requested and which may not be enough—a decision that leaves him open to harsh criticism if he has to send more later on, or if he decides to abandon the effort as “futile”, since he can be accused of having provided insufficient support in order to win. His inability to make up his mind made him look weak, indecisive, and perhaps—dare I say it—cowardly. He has exposed himself thusly on both political flanks.

Second, by announcing a time-table for departure, he has not only signaled to our enemy what our plans are and the limits of our resolve, he has also boxed himself in. What if we are losing and need new troops? He won’t be able to send more without appearing foolish. What if things have stabilized but we need a little more time? He will be out of time, and will have to back-pedal in an election year. His only way of coming out ahead is if we suddenly win the war, the Taliban pack their tents and give up, and Al Qaeda is destroyed. What are the odds of that happening?

Third, it appears that, like Obama inadvertently signaling weakness and lack of confidence to our enemy, Whitehouse spokesman Robert Gibbs seems to have signaled a loss of confidence within the Whitehouse about the possibility of re-election.

There are even more bizarre statements being made by the left. When MSNBC’s analyst Chris Matthews discussed the speech, he actually called the West Point venue “the enemy camp”.

"They start with a lot of excitement. I remember the scene in ‘Gone with the Wind' where the rebels are so excited about going to war with the North, a country they can't beat because of its industrial advantage and population advantage. They are going to lose that war eventually. I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble-rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."

What is strange is that our “elite” journalists actually think that West Point is enemy territory. They must be fantastically out of touch with reality, to be surprised to not see “much excitement” among the young cadets who are facing being sent to war. Does he honestly think those kids should look forward to risking life and limb in a very dangerous engagement? Is Matthews really stating that the limit of his understanding of the military mindset was formed by his viewing of “Gone with the Wind”? He says he didn’t see much “warmth” from the older officers…well golly, Chris, when your president has left their troops without sufficient reinforcements for nine months after the initial request for troops came in, what do you expect to see? When they hear the Commander in Chief alert the enemy about the limits of our commitment, when that commander sets new and dangerous precedent by forcing troops to “Mirandize” enemy combatants and places enormous new burdens on those troops that puts their lives at danger, do you actually expect them to “get a shiver up their legs” to hear your beloved Ditherer in Chief speak?

There was another phrase in Matthew’s idiotic statement that made me raise an eyebrow. When he says that the Southern Rebels were enthusiastic to go to war against the North, “a country they can’t beat because of economic and population advantage”, he again reveals a profound ignorance and contradicts the very argument about the war that he and other liberals are making.

“Ignorance”, I say, because the “under-populated” and “economically disadvantaged” South damn near beat the North. If Matthews would read more history, he might find out that the North, which had anticipated a swift and decisive victory, was greatly surprised by the tenacity, determination and military prowess of the Southern army. The mood in the North turned decisively against the war, and President Lincoln was beset by the “Copperheads”, AKA “Peace Democrats” who petitioned him to negotiate an end to the war—without victory (I guess then, as now, “victory” was never the objective in war for Democrats).

What’s truly amazing is that Democrats have been saying that victory is “impossible” against these “insurgent forces”—even though the Afghan insurgents are challenged by a much smaller population and economic disadvantages when compared to the might of the USA. So, which is it? If the defeat of the South in the Civil War was inevitable due to these limitations, then isn’t the defeat of the Taliban also inevitable for the same reasons?

Of course not. What defeated the South, and what will defeat the Taliban, is something that none of these effete and arrogant “Peace Democrats” have to offer: true grit. That is something George Bush had in Spades, and which Obama appears to aspire to, but has no experience with.

Is it any wonder the older officers were visibly skeptical?

A stormy 2010 forecast for Honduras

2009-11-30T13:02:00.000-08:00

To recap: The Honduran President, Mel Zelaya of the Honduran Liberal Party, was deposed this year when he attempted to illegally and unconstitutionally propose a change in the term limits on presidents in order to open the possibility of re-election to himself. This created a rift in the country, but ws "resolved" when the Supreme Court determined that the referendum Zelaya had proposed was unconstitutional. Zelaya disobeyed the court orders and chose to thumb his nose at the Judiciary. The court then ordered his arrest, which occured and Zelaya was sent packing. The Honduran congress, ruled by a majority of Zelaya's own Honduran Liberal Party, agreed with the decision.

In his place, an interim president took the office. Roberto Michelleti, also of the Honduran Liberal Party, repeatedly and stubbornly claimed that the deposition of Zelaya was perfectly constitutional, and he resisted all the intense pressure that was put on the government by such Democratic giants as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and our Glorious Leader, Barack Obama.

Zelaya intensified the conflict by calling for insurrection, trying to re-enter the country and taunting the authorities, and finally sneaking into the country and taking up surprise residence in the Brazilian embassy. He encouraged his supporters to keep the pressure up, resulting in violence in the streets. An attempt to resolve the crisis was thwarted by Zelaya when he backed out of the agreement, which required the Congress to vote on whether or not to reinstate him. Michelletti, in an attempt to resolve the conflict, had agreed to the condition.

But Michelletti refused to cancel the elections that had already been scheduled, and even temporarily "stepped down" as President during the election in order to avoid the appearance of unduly influencing them.

Zelaya's one and only term was to end this year anyway, and elections had already been scheduled for Sunday, November 29th.

The elections took place, as planned, yesterday, and the Conservative Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, won. The congress plans to vote on whether or not to reinstate Zelaya this week.

Not surprisingly, a few nations still will not recognize the elections results. Argentina, Spain, and Brazil claim that the elections took place under the control of a "defacto" government and refuse to recognize the new government. For those who do not know, all three governments are run by socialists who are allies of Hugo Chavez.

The next few weeks will be vitally important for Honduras. If the Congress decides to reinstate Zelaya, it will put him in a position of power and, given his track record of abusing his authority, who knows what he will try. If they refuse to reinstate him, he will likely attempt to disrupt the government and the transition of power. Either way, Zelaya will receive help from his leftist allies from Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, and Spain.

At that point, strong and consistent leadership from Washington DC will be crucial to restoring the peace in the nation.

Sadly, "strong and consistent leadership" is exactly what is missing from the Obama administration. So it's a safe forecast for stormy weather in Honduras through 2010 at least.

Eric Holder: most imcompetent AG in history

2009-11-20T13:19:00.000-08:00

The “SMARTEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY” can’t make a decision and gets too confused to run a war. "Victory"? Please don't use that word.

Obama gets nervous when we talk about "victory".

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy
agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United
States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about
using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor
Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC
News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he
explained.

Here, listen to him as he wiggles and wobbles and waffles all over the place. Please, "victory" is too scary a word to use.

So what about Obama's decision to bring al Qaida terrorists caught on the battlefield to civilian trials? You'd think they would be able to defend their position on this. But did you see the exchange between Lindsey Graham and history's most incompetent Attorney General, Eric Holder?

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.

...
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.

They don’t understand the implications of criminalizing a war or politicizing the judicial process. DAMN but Democrats should be PROUD.

Holder got his ASS handed to him by Graham!

2009-11-08T22:14:00.000-08:00

As much as I love FOX, there is at least one guy there that I can't stand and I wish they'd lose: Geraldo Rivera.

Tonight I heard (and verified) that Senator Lieberman "an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a 'self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist' who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress."

In response, FOX's idiot-at-large Rivera argued that Lierberman is wrong about the statement, that Hasan is just a nut, and that--in Rivera's own words--"the word terrorist implies that {Hasan} was part of a conspiracy, and there is no evidence of that."

Someone at FOX needs to sit Rivera down with a dictionary. There are many variants of the definition of a "terrorist", but really it's quite simple: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities" NOTE: a terrorist usually organizes with other terrorists, but not always.

What is certain about terrorists is that they use extreme violence, or a threat of violence, to affect policy or counter an enemy they oppose. They almost always engage unarmed individuals in a location and a time where they usually feel they are safe; the point is not just to kill some individuals, but for the act of terror to undermine the feeling of safety of the survivors and their families and to inflict a painful psychological wound on society.

I should clarify that Lieberman did not say that Hasan IS a terrorist, he was more nuanced than that. Here is the rest of his quote:
"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."

Senator Lieberman, I have to agree.

Press and President cover for Muslim murderers and terrorists

2009-11-06T08:37:00.001-08:00

As details surrounding yesterday’s mass murder at Ft. Hood, TX are rapidly revealed, a pattern is already being exposed—not only in the behavior and speculated motivations behind the attack, but also in the treatment of the story by the mass media.

What we know:
1. The shooter is Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan
2. Hasan is a US born Muslim
3. Hasan received his Psychiatric training through the army, and treated US vets returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most recently at the Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood after being transferred from Walter Reed Medical Center
4. Hasan had been disciplined for a number of incidents in which he proselytized the Islamic faith to his patients
5. Eye witnesses have reported that Hasan had made a number of statements about the wars, stating that “we have no business over there” (referring to Iraq and Afghanistan). After the Muslim attack on the Army recruiting station in Arkansas last June (perpetrated by an American convert to Islam, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad), was overheard saying that “maybe this is what more Muslims need to do, stand up and attack the enemy” (implying that the “enemy” in his view was the United States Armed Forces in which he was serving)
6. Hasan had complained that he was being “harassed” for his Islamic beliefs and had contracted a military lawyer
7. Hasan got into frequent arguments with other soldiers who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently had hoped that President Obama would remove our troops from those countries
8. Hasan had just received orders to deploy to one of the war zones (there are conflicting reports that it was Iraq, others say Afghanistan), and had “been mortified” about that deployment and was trying to fight it to avoid service in the Middle East
9. Hasan had come to the attention of federal law enforcement officials six months ago because of “Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author…One of the Web postings…equates a suicide bomber to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.”
10. The day before the attacks, Hasan had emptied his apartment, giving away many of his possessions including Qu’rans
11. Hasan had been seen on video surveillance tapes entering a nearby convenience store in “full Muslim attire” the morning of the attack (to their credit, CNN did provide the video of Hasan in Muslim garb in the convenience store, the day after the attack)
12. Hasan yelled “God is Great” in Arabic as he began the attacks
13. He used to side arms in the attack and killed 12, wounded 31 (mostly) unarmed soldiers

From this information, we can begin the dangerous job of speculating about Hasan’s motive: he was a disenchanted Muslim who disagreed with US foreign policy, sympathized with the Muslim enemy in the war zones, apologized for Muslim acts of terror and verbalized his support for the murder of US troops in the United States, prepared himself for the attack as if he knew he would not survive, and chose to attack soldiers in a setting in which there would be many unarmed targets.

In short, it is a classic example of Islamic terrorism against US soldiers by a Muslim extremist.

But that is not the information you will get from many of the mainstream media who are feverishly attempting to be politically correct and cover for his actions.

On a National Public Radio broadcast yesterday, about six hours after the attack, I heard the host (I don’t recall his name) discuss the issue and carefully pronounce the Major’s Arabic name, but then he and a female reporter specifically pointed out that “Hasan is a United States soldier and a US citizen, he’s not a foreigner”. They appeared to take pains to avoid mention of Hasan’s Muslim faith or outrageous statements against the United States that were already being reported by the AP, FOX, and other sources. Later, reporters for NPR actually changed the pronunciation of his name, anglicizing it and they further sterilized the reporting to avoid any mention of his Muslim identity.

Similarly, NBC reporter Brian Williams and a reporter at the scene discussed the issue in detail—except they never mentioned that he was Muslim, nor did they touch on one single relevant detail about his outrageous and traitorous comments, instead focusing on the speculation that, because he had dealt with soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorders, he may have suffered from stress. What’s more, CNN reporters were overheard mentioning his “harassment” complaints, but studiously avoided mentioning the complaints against him for his comments.

After being advised about the brutal killings, the White House announced that they would speak out about the situation, and President Obama—fully aware that a deadly attack against unarmed military personnel had killed 13 people—went live with a light-hearted commentary in which, instead of somberly speaking about the events, he focused instead on cheerful praise of Native American leaders at the Tribal Nations Conference. His behavior was appalling, and should be considered Obama’s “Katrina moment”.

Obama’s inconsiderate and dispassionate response must be considered in conjunction with his total inability to formulate a strategy for the conflict in Afghanistan, and his shameful disrespect for the requests for additional troops that were formally submitted months ago. He called the terrorist attack a “horrific outburst of violence”, yet another attempt to downplay domestic acts of terror perpetrated by Muslims against our citizens.

So what is it with the media that appears to actively attempt to downplay violent acts by Muslims in this country in an effort to make them look like random acts of violence, or aberrations by imbalanced individuals, instead of what they are: terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims who live in this country while considering the nation and its people as their mortal enemies? They are complicit in an insidious cover-up, a form of news sanitization, and are not only covering for an inept, incompetent and unpatriotic President, but for the enemy that is killing our citizens.

Keep in mind that these are the same media and politicians who labeled Tea Party protestors "extremists", "terrorists", "Nazis", and who warned America to be vigilant for "home-grown terrorists" and new "Timothy McVeighs" (implying that we should be suspicious of conservatives and returning military). A Democrat even called conservatives "Taliban" this past week. All of this was picked up and gleefully covered by the same out-of-touch media who now bend over backward to hide Hasan's Muslim identity and his Jihadist motives.

***Update 1***

I just remembered another recent controversy that seems relevant to this issue. Remember how the Democrats were so keen to pass hate-crime bills that protect homosexuals and others with bizarre sexual proclivities, but refused to provide similar protection for military members?

"In a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, Democrats voted against excluding pedophiles from hate crime protection in a new crime bill. At the same hearing, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) lambasted Republicans for trying to add protections for veterans in the same bill. No such outrage was voiced against the protection for pedophiles. " It also brings to mind the history surrounding the "Beltway Sniper", Liberal media rounded up panels of "experts" who promoted the notion that the sniper was most likely a white conservative acting alone and then buried the facts surrounding the real killer, John Muhammed, when it was learned that he was an American convert to Islam who murdered innocent people as a form of Jihad.

The media would neither want to consider this type of violence against our military citizens as neither an act of terror, nor a hate crime. It's just a little tragedy, folks. No need to be outraged.

Maybe we have to ask ourselves, as the Liberals did after 9/11: "What did we do to deserve this"?!

***Update 2***

Obama has issued a request that we "urged people not to jump to conclusions while law enforcement officers investigate the shootings. " What?! So now analyzing the evidence for Hasan's activities, of which there is there is more than enough, is "jumping to conclusions"?

We have just learned that Hasan filled out a form for his mosque that he claimed "Palestinian" nationality, even though he was a US citizen! (Who is surprised?)

AND Newsweek has now published an article in which the author, Andrew Bast, attempts to make the claim that Hasan was a victim of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) even though he has never seen combat. "Hasan's perspective is unknown. He had yet to fight abroad. But the accusations against him can't help but bring to mind the violence scarring military bases all over the country after the duration of two long, brutal wars." To the contrary, you brainless twit, his perspective is already widely known. This may be the clearest example yet of how some Liberal journalists, instead of acting as "investigators", finding and following evidence to a logical conclusion, come to their own biased conclusions without regard to the evidence and instead pervert the evidence in order to support their own political agendas.

The threats against conservatives

2009-10-29T11:42:00.000-07:00

CNN’s Lou Dobbs has reported recently that a gunman fired a shot at his home while his wife was outside the home and entering her automobile. Dobbs stated that the mass media and pro-immigration groups such as LULAC and the National Council of La Raza have “created an atmosphere and they’ve been unrelenting in their propaganda” against him, a statement that appears to connect their activities and the life-threatening attack against his family. The shot was not an isolated event; it “followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls.”

As pointed out by NewsBusters author Jeff Poor, the Obama administration has been alerting the nation to their perceived threat that conservative rhetoric could lead to violence. But the attack on the Dobbs family reveals a very real threat that Liberal rhetoric also may instigate violence against individuals speaking out against the Obama administration policies.

Given these facts, one would assume that Dobbs’ assertion would be headline news—at the very least at CNN. Yet a visit to CNN.com homepage found no references to the events. What’s more, a search within the CNN pages returned not a single article on the attack. Think about that: one of CNN’s premier anchors and managing editors received death threats and even had a shot fired at his home, yet CNN did not apparently find that noteworthy!

While the attack on Dobbs is both concerning and shocking, CNN’s silence on the issue is stunning. One cannot imagine that CNN would remain silent if a right-wing nut threatened the life of, and fired shots at, CNN minority reporters such as Soledad O’Brien. So why the silence about the threat to Dobbs? Is it because Dobbs has taken a stance that is contrary to the clearly Liberal political stance that CNN now espouses? Could the network that has tasked O’Brien with “Black in America” and “Hispanic in America” find Dobbs’ anti-illegal-immigration stance so distasteful that they think he brought it upon himself or somehow deserves assassination?

During his October 28th radio program, talk show host and FOX commentator Glenn Beck discussed the constant threats against him, and went so far as to inform his audience that he actually considers the possibility that “something might happen” to him, that “they” might even try to shoot him, but then clarified that he believes that if something were to happen to him, “they would probably be more subtle about it”. Hinting at what he meant, he reassured his audience that he is “not suicidal, and my brakes work just fine.” In other words; if he turns up dead due to “suicide” or “brake failure”, you, loyal listeners, should suspect foul play.

Has America really reached this point? Can it be that the hyperbolic propaganda and hatred by the left toward conservatives and independents has reached such a fevered pitch that they can actually rationalize the assassinations of “dangerous” influential news anchors and talk show hosts?

An analysis of Resignation Letter by Matthew Hoh

2009-10-29T09:46:00.000-07:00

The resignation letter of Matthew Hoh, the U.S.’s Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan, represented the highest civilian official resignation over the war and has been received with some fanfare by the left, as well as trepidation by the Obama administration, who has reached out to him and tried to coax him to reconsider or, alternatively, to rejoin them by taking a domestic post where he can influence U.S. policy there.

But what has been glaringly absent is a real analysis of the absurd statements made by this young man. While we should be respectful of his service, the fact that he served honorably in both a military and civilian position for the nation should not excuse his resignation letter from scrutiny. And once the veneer of his letter is peeled back, a number of blatantly idiotic opinions become revealed.

For starters, Hoh states that “…the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries.”

This single phrase is the heart of Hoh’s ridiculous opinion. It is true that al-Qaeda agents, working in European and American cities, planned and executed the attacks, and it’s also true that these were primarily Saudi citizens. But his statement grossly overlooks the fact that it was Afghanistan where the al-Qaeda terrorists received most of their training, and served as the enclave from which their highest officers organized, funded, and ordered attacks. The Taliban were not only complicit, but were directly responsible because they provided material and moral support for the al-Qaeda terror organization. After the attack, they brazenly protected the perpetrators and responded to the world—not just the United States—with arrogant threats and challenges, instead of helping the world to get its hands on these bloodied murderers.

Hoh then continues: “The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified.”

Revealing a perverse form of the Stockholm syndrome, Hoh displays more sympathy for the Pashtun tribesmen who resent U.S. presence than he does the U.S. cause. If it was primarily the Pashtun who form the Taliban, and if it was the Taliban who supported al-Qaeda—which by its nature was primarily composed of foreign mercenary terrorists including Saudi, Georgian, Pakistanis and other nationalities—then it is fair to say that the Pashtun were not overly concerned about the presence of foreign fighters when they were initially in their midst, and it was their complicity with their actions that brought the full wrath of the United States to their lands. To say that their insurgency is “justified” is an attempt to obviate the fact that the invasion of Afghanistan was also justified, a rhetorical action that appears to undermine U.S. interests and a just response to a horrendous act of war.

Hoh says that “…this is not the European or Pacific theaters of World War II, but rather is a war for which our leaders, uniformed, civilian and elected, have inadequately prepared and resourced our men and women.”

No, indeed it is not. But like the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was al-Qaeda and its close allies in the Taliban who launched the preemptive strike on the United States. The U.S. response to the Japanese was focused, furious, and justified. Hoh’s illogical argument would have rendered the American bellicose response on Japan inutile and would have justified any Japanese response as “justified”.
What’s more, for an individual who claims to know U.S. military history, he is either staggeringly ignorant of the facts surrounding World War II, or purposely overlooks the harsh realities of that war. It is false to pretend that U.S. troops in WWII were somehow better equipped than today’s soldiers. Their equipment was far more primitive and sparse than what our troops enjoy today. Leadership vacuums existed then, as now, and many horrific mistakes were made that cost our troops thousands of lives. In a single example, known as Exercise Tiger, which was a practice drill in preparation for the Normandy invasion, lack of preparation, leadership mistakes, and a surprise U-Boat attack killed nearly as many men in one day as what the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan over the course of eight years. What’s more, that exercise alone killed nearly three times as many men as what died on Utah Beach during the actual invasion. Many mistakes were made throughout the war included troops ordered to attack non-existant artillery emplacements, paratroopers accidentally dropped far from intended targets, troops killed by friendly fire and bombed by allied planes.

War is hell, they say. It always has been and always will be. Our troops have found themselves ill-equipped since the Revolutionary War, and have suffered horrendous losses to friendly fire and other mistakes, including the incident that killed Confederate General Longstreet in the Civil War. By comparison, our troops today are far better equipped, trained, and supported than at any other time in history.

Hoh’s most egregious comments are when he begins to question the entire strategy for the war. For example, he points out that the corruption and incompetence of the new Afghan government “reminds me of our involvement in South Vietnam.” He never bothers to consider that this new, incompetent government is a vast improvement over the brutality, inhumanity, cruelty and stone-age incompetence of the Taliban government, if we dare to even call it a “government”. The problems he highlights regarding fraud and corruption can be overcome with time, and are not unique to the Afghan government. What’s more, Vietnam did not attack the United States, but the previous Afghan government was complicit in the attacks on the United States which—by the way—killed more US citizens than the number who died at Pearl Harbor.

Hoh then says: “I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc….to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan…”

To suggest that we should “occupy western Pakistan” reveals yet another foolish opinion. Pakistan is not an enemy state; they have allied themselves with the United States to combat the Taliban terrorists and have lost more soldiers and civilians in this effort than we have (some estimates claim there have been thousands of deaths in Pakistan due to their assistance, including the assassinated Benazir Bhutto). While they have been neither as effective nor as cooperative as we would like, the Pakistanis have made great sacrifices and have risked their own internal peace in the effort to stamp out Taliban radicalism. And I must again remind Hoh that, while Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen were not involved in the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan was. Yet despite that fact, the United States is in fact struggling to contain the terrorist threats that emanate from those nations. Hoh’s illogical conclusion appears to suggest that because the war in Afghanistan is difficult and costly, and because there are other threats also, if we don’t invade all the nations that threaten us, we should not invade any.

To refer back to WWII, it would be as if Hoh suggested that we should not have attacked Germany, Italy and Japan because we did not attack Spain, which had been a Nazi ally (even if Franco did remain neutral in the war). The Soviet Union, like Pakistan, was both a threat and an ally, but we did not invade Russia. So Hoh’s analysis reveals an infantile misunderstanding of strategy: if you can’t attack everywhere at once, then you should refrain from attacking anywhere at all.

Even a chess novice could see that this “strategy” is no strategy at all, but is instead an excuse for cowardice.

Hoh further reveals his ignorance when he says that “if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.”
Is Hoh unaware of our nation’s deep involvement in Mexico (not to mention Colombia)? Has he never heard of our efforts to strengthen their democracy, of our investment of time, resources and manpower in the counter-narcotic struggle?

Hoh summarizes his discontent by stating that our effort in Afghanistan “has become a cavalier, politically expedient and Pollyannaish misadventure.” To my knowledge, none of our civilian and military leaders have provided naïve positive statements about the war that could be described accurately as “Pollyannaish”.

Every assessment I have heard has been frank, forthright, worrisome, but has not promoted a hopeless and cynical call for retreat and surrender, which is what Hoh appears to promote.

The fashionable urban protester

2009-10-02T07:44:00.001-07:00

Hey, I saw an article about the protesters at the G-20 summit, and they were talking about the police using LRAD against them, and I saw this stylish young cat… it’s almost something you’d read about in the J. Peterman Catalog:

Dress tastefully for the action at Progressive protests! Our protester model sports a German wool beret ($50) that advertises his practical yet idealistic artistic worldviews. Soft yet practical white cotton gloves protect his most delicate appendages ($15) and can be used to protect sensitve ears from the damaging effecting of LRAD noise employed by the fascist police. A veteran, lightly-used East-European ammo bag ($35) provides a macho “man-purse” counterbalance for the metro-sexual street protester, while the Crimson and Gold Gryffindor scarf ($75) over a sober black all-silk T ($55) shows that even the most dedicated urban activist can mix a whimsical flair for fantasy with a dedicated passion for mayhem!

Zelaya, Chavez, and Lula: Socialist intervention in Honduras

2009-09-22T12:37:00.000-07:00

What should be one of the most important stories in the Western Hemisphere is going virtually unreported.

By now, only the profoundly and permanently ignorant can deny that former president Manuel (Mel) Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution when he called for reform of the constitution in order to give himself the option of re-election.

In a video-taped recording of a speech Zelaya gave to his followers four days before his destitution, he stated:
“Here the judges are re-elected, the fiscales (prosecuting attorneys) are re-elected, the mayors are re-elected, the Legislators (Diputados) are re-elected…the only one who is not re-elected is the President, but the Re-election is the theme of the next constitutional assembly.”

Constitutional Assemblies are organized efforts to re-write constitutions under Latin American democratic rules. The problem with this is that the Honduran constitution explicitly prohibits Presidents from requesting or even suggesting their own re-election, and he who violates this norm, according to the Honduran Supreme Court, automatically loses his mandate and is to be removed from power. This is what happened to Zelaya.

Yesterday, 21 of September 2009, Zelaya somehow slipped through the border and arrived in Honduras. The most common report states that he arrived secretly overland, while at least one other report suggests he was flown into Honduras aboard a Venezuelan military plane. He then managed to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy.

In response, the interim president, Roberto Micheletti, stated: “I can’t help but think that he’s here to try to put up obstacles to our presidential election” that is scheduled to occur in November. Micheletti, in agreement with the Honduran constitution, cannot and will not postulate himself as a candidate, now or ever again, since he served as President, even if it was for only a few months.

The most important factor in this story is that Zelaya apparently left Nicaragua with the help of the socialist Nicaraguan government of Manuel Ortega and was given protection in the Brazilian embassy. It appears that the leftist governments of Nicaragua, Venezuela and Brazil are colluding to intervene in the internal affairs of Honduras, in order to overthrow the “de facto” government there and restore Zelaya to power, in opposition to what appear to be the legal and constitutional orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, the Honduran congress (or parliament), and the standing president.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to waffle and wobble, speaking out of both sides of its diplomatic mouth. Publicly they have called for the return of Zelaya, but then in the past written letters acknowledging that it was Zelaya’s own actions that caused his removal.

It is shocking to see the UN, OAS, and United States behave in such an inept and unhelpful manner. The moral confusion that appears to run these organizations and our State Department will eventually contribute to a violent upheaval in Honduras and could result in the ultimate destruction of the Honduran democracy.

UPDATE:
Interested parties should listen to this blistering critique of the Obama policy on Honduras by none other than the great Newt Gengrich.
Selected quote:
"I think this administration may rapidly parallel Carter, in that Carter had this deep almost psychologically driven compulsion to attack America's allies and apologise for our enemies, and this administration has a very similar pattern..."{he then reviews the situation in Honduras I have outlined in my posts}..."The Obama administration has already announced they will not honor (the upcoming November elections). In fact, they went further and just withdrew the visas of the 15 Supreme Court Justices (who ordered Zelaya deposed for constitutional violations). This is waging war on Democracy."

The Obama plan to buy votes through healthcare

2009-09-18T09:03:00.001-07:00

President Obama has just revealed his darkest intentions to the country.

If you will recall, over the past couple of months, a great deal of controversy has brewed between the Democrats in power and the Republican opposition about whether or not the Democrats intended to give Health Care coverage to the 12 million illegal aliens.

The Democrats furiously denounced the Republican criticism of the plan as “disinformation”—implying that the Republicans were lying, thus (not so subtly) labeling them as “LIARS”—because there was a provision in the bill that said that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the government plan coverage. But they continued to talk about “46 million” uninsured in the country, a figure which, according to independent sources such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, included illegal immigrants in the count.

Republicans countered that there was not a provision in the bill to verify eligibility and prevent the illegal aliens from receiving coverage. They pointed to the fact that they had attempted to amend House Bill 3200 to include a provision that did just that. It was rejected by House Democrats.

Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being liars and racists every time the issue was brought up. During the President’s speech before congress (Sept 9, 2009), Obama used a new figure for the number of uninsured: 30 million. This change appeared to signal that they had recalculated the number of uninsured and subtracted the illegal immigrants. My interpretation was that this was a veiled acknowledgement that they had indeed known that the 46-million figure cited repeatedly included illegal aliens, and they knew it. But the obfuscation continued, because during the speech Obama reiterated that any accusation that the House Plan would cover undocumented immigrants was “false”.

That was when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) lost control of his emotions and—in a unique breach of House rules of conduct—he yelled "You lie!" to the President! He might have been wrong in his form of expression, but he was right—morally and factually. Despite the expressed outrage from the Democrats, they responded by amending the bill to include a verification provision—proving that the Republicans had been right all along!

Now President Obama has made another outlandish statement. In a speech he gave Wednesday, Sept 16th to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said:

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats are guilty of LYING to the American people AND the Congress repeatedly.

Democrats and Obama LIED with straight faces that there were 46 million uninsured Americans, but that this figure did NOT include undocumented (illegal) aliens--because we know that figure DID include them!
Obama LIED when he told Congress that HB 3200 would NOT allow illegal aliens to receive the new government entitlement, because they KNEW there was no provision in the bill to prevent them from receiving it. (BTW, isn't lying to Congress a Crime?)
Democrats and Obama were then caught in their lies, publicly shamed, and were forced to change the bill to prevent illegal aliens from receiving the government entitlement.
So NOW Obama wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens so they can go ahead and receive the entitlement he had wanted them to receive in the first place.

The most outrageous aspect of this is that if they grant citizenship to those 12 million people who entered the country illegally and include with it a promise of a massive government entitlement, they will be radically changing the electoral map, and buying votes at the same time.

And, as my good friend Kent pointed out to me: "Perhaps since ACORN is now out of the picture for “assisting” with next year’s census, this was the only possible way to re-draw congressional districts to ensure Democratic hegemony."

Bite your forked tongue, Speaker Pelosi

2009-09-17T14:41:00.000-07:00

Indeed, Madam Speaker, there may yet be violence. Let us hope there is not, but it is about time you take note of the rage simmering in the nation. Meanwhile, your pathetic speeches do not absolve you and your cohorts of blame.

I heard the little chat you gave to the press today, Speaker Pelosi. I heard your voice quiver with emotion, and I was glad of it. You said:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … uh…I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. But again, our country is great because people can say what they think and what they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

I’m pleased to hear you recognize this very real possibility. I hope you understand that citizens across the country have been warning the government for some time: you are out of control, and have strayed too far from the constitution, infringing on our rights and liberties, at the individual and state levels.

The recent dramatic increase in firearms purchases in the USA was not because the ultra-leftist statements made by you, President Obama and your ilk kindled a new interest in deer hunting. No. Rather, a significant portion of the citizenry is concerned about social deterioration, increased crime, and what appears to be an unrestrained government whose actions are becoming increasingly tyrannical.

The fact that twenty states have made moves to reiterate their sovereignty is no insignificant fact. Contemplate that for a moment.

It should be understood that we are in dangerous waters. The ever-expanding federal government, which habitually hefts unfunded programs upon the states and refuses them the right to nullify the policies, is an unacceptable violation of states’ rights, is creating an untenable burden upon the citizenry, and is considered by millions of Americans to be a real, and not rhetorical, cause for revolt.

So yes, you had reason to speak with emotion, Madam Speaker: there is a very real possibility of violence. For the first time in my life, I’m hearing red-blooded America-loving citizens speak of civil war.

You and your Liberal friends cannot grasp the sentiment that has been stirred, but clearly you are aware of it. But get this through your head: the people making these statements are not a bunch of “imbalanced” crazies. The people I know saying this are not like David Koresh or Tim McVeigh...or Bill Ayers, for that matter.

These are highly intelligent, highly educated individuals; some are doctors, others professors, while many are ordinary corporate workers whose patience with government intrusion is running out.

So before you point fingers and accuse everyone else of irresponsible behavior, reflect on your own! Who it is that has appointed radical Marxists to the highest echelons of our government?

Who has appointed dozens of “czars” who are unaccountable to the people? Some of these have openly suspected President Bush of conspiring to destroy the Twin Towers, sympathized with the terrorists, while others wrote books proposing forced abortions and sterilization.

Whose administration is promoting doomsday predictions about global warming and imposing incredible tax hikes on our energy, while simultaneously promoting a radical restructuring of the entire national healthcare system?

Whose administration is it that condemned the previous president for running up the debt and deficit, and then quadrupled said debt and deficit by 400% in less than one year? Who is it that has doggedly accused good American citizens of being racists, Nazis, hypocrites, and liars for opposing the radical agenda?

Was that what you meant when you promoted “change” in America? Was that what President Obama meant when he promised “fundamental transformation of America”?

I’ve seen all of this before. It is what has been happening in my wife’s country of birth, Venezuela (she's now a US citizen), ever since they elected another “progressive” named Hugo Chavez. Watching you and your minions at work, I have been struck by the similarities in your policies and outlandish behavior. Chavez was able to trash the 40 year old Venezuelan constitution after only a few years in office, implant a neo-Marxist totalitarian regime, all without any real violent resistance.

But this is not Venezuela. Americans are not pacifists. We are, by nature, tolerant and peaceful when possible, but bellicose when necessary. We love our Constitution as much as others love their god. Patrick Henry’s demand, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death”, still reverberates in our hearts. We understand that sentiment and value those same values. We are still ready to fight and die so that our children may live free.

You seem to be living under the delusion that your intentions are good, so therefore the results of your actions must also be good. But your good intentions are paving a road to Hell, and your stubborn determination to take us on that journey with you clashes with our determination to preserve this, the most perfect of imperfect nations.

Let me make clear that I am not inciting violence, so bite your forked tongue before you accuse me of that crime. To the contrary, I am hopeful that the Democrat super-majority in control today will tame its hubris, restrain its giddy arrogance, and that reason will prevail. But meanwhile, heed my warning; the People who recently assembled peacefully in Tea Parties , town halls and marches were not a “mob”. No, when the “mob” comes knocking, you will instantly recognize the difference!

More Obama Stupidity

2009-09-15T06:38:00.000-07:00

More stupidity in the Obama speech Let’s talk a moment about the $3800 fine that penalizes people who choose to NOT carry health insurance.

According to the Obama plan, it would now be “illegal” to NOT have health insurance, punishable with up to $3800 fine. So a 22 year old, healthy male straight out of college will have no right to choose to go for a couple of years without insurance while he pays off his bills, because—in Obama’s words—“those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.”

“Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.
There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.

The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved. That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

In response, let me remind anyone who reads this, that auto insurance is NOT required for anyone who does NOT drive a vehicle! In other words, driving is a privilege, and those who choose to drive are required to carry insurance—LIABILITY INSURANCE—in case the cause an accident and injure a third party.

But unlike health insurance, auto insurance is much less regulated, is portable, can be sold across all fifty states, and no one who chooses to NOT drive is penalized for not paying for someone else’s choice to drive!

This issue of forcing individuals to carry health insurance is the most obscene violation of individual liberty I can think of. Everyone should have the right to make his or her own decisions and then DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

Otherwise, where does it stop?

I guess next year the government will declare that riding motorcycles is a "risky behavior" and make it illegal, because motorcycle accidents cause more severe injuries, at the expense of society.

Alcohol causes disease and accidents, so clearly we must either issue yearly fines on alcohol users, or ban it entirely.

And of course, the cause célèbre of the Liberals: marijuana legalization! How can you talk about a $3800 fine on people who choose NOT to carry health insurance because it causes a harm to society, but then want to legalize the use of marijuana and other drugs, since we KNOW that these substances cause harm?!

I tell you what: I'll agree to government health care when they include mandatory drug tests for all government healthcare participants, also ban those recipients from engaging in dangerous activities such as 1) unprotected sex, 2) driving motocycles 3) skydiving, 4) hang-gliding, 5) trail-riding on mountain bikes, 6) skiing and snowboarding, 7) whitewater sports, 8) alcohol use, 9) tobacco use, 10) excessive masturbation (because too much masturbation by young males can increase prostate cancer risks later in life) 11) long distance running (causes damage to knees resulting in inevitable government funded knee replacements) 12) tennis (causes tennis elbow) 13) mandate computerized vehicular speed controls so that no vehicle can go faster than 55 MPH (speed kills), 14) mandate a minimum weekly exercise regimen for every citizen.

Yes, I KNOW those are absurd and silly suggestions. They are as silly (but no more so) as the Democrat plan to FORCE every individual to carry insurance.

Truly, the word "LIBERTY" means nothing anymore.

Obama’s ongoing lies about illegals and health care

2009-09-11T08:12:00.001-07:00

A keen listener to Obama’s health care propaganda plug before Congress should have noticed something important: he lamented that there are “30 million” people uninsured in the country.

According to the Washington Examiner, Obama was quoted back in July as saying "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all…"

Ain’t that a curious thing?

The explanation for this is quite simple: the numbers cited previously (46 to 47 million) corresponds to the numbers provided by think tanks such as the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because Democrats insisted—in fact, they damn near screamed—that they were not including illegal immigrants when they quoted the 47 million estimate, I contacted Kaiser to ask them about it. One of their research assistants responded:

“Our uninsured figures includes {sic} legal and illegal immigrants, including those with green cards, student visas, and people waiting for citizenship papers to be processed. We do not have a breakout of illegal and legal immigrants at this time, though you might find Jeffrey Passel's report on unauthorized immigrants in the United States useful.”

This is proof positive that, during the majority of the discussion on the Health Care reform efforts, the Democrats were inflating the numbers of “uninsured Americans” by including illegal immigrants, and were lying through their teeth about how they arrived at that number. Obama’s sudden change to quoting only “30 million” reflects an un-spoken admission of this fact on his part.

Representative Wilson’s impromptu challenge of Obama’s honesty, while impolite, was warranted. Obama has been lying about the number of uninsured and the composition of that group for many months. He is still lying when he asserts that illegals will not receive health care benefits, because while the bill does explicitly say that they should not receive coverage, there is a glaring absence of provisions to verify eligibility. Until the Democrats solve that problem, we are forced to assume that they had an intent to lie about the issue until they were caught, and still intend to provide care for illegal immigrants by leaving loopholes in the law.

Healthcare and Universities

2009-09-10T15:01:00.000-07:00

Just a quick thought on that Obama speech.

First of all, Representative Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, because an omission of truth is still a lie. What Obama said is technically correct, in that HB 3200 does specifically state that undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive care under the government option. The problem is that HR 3200 contains to method of preventing it from happening anyway. Republicans tried to amend the bill in order to apply the same safeguards currently used for social security and other benefits, but the Democrats struck it down—and Obama knows it. So, in my opinion, although Wilson’s behavior was a bit out of the ordinary, he was right. And why should he apologize? Democrats booed President Bush in his 2005 State of the Union address.

On another note, I’d like to draw attention to a little detail of Obama’s misleading and silly speech, taken from the full transcript.
“… The insurance companies and their allies …argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.”

Mr. President, I’m so glad you brought up public colleges and Universities. Because in the context of your speech, you claim that government interference in the marketplace is going to reduce costs. And you point to state run universities…well have you looked at tuition costs lately?

According to a Money Central article on the rising costs of education, “the price tag for a college education rose again last year. Tuition and fees increased 14.1% for public four-year institutions and 6% for private schools, according to the College Board. The retail cost of a college degree has more than doubled in the past two decades, far outstripping the regular rate of inflation.” The average annual increase has been between 5% and 8%.

The author points to the work of Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, who “describes a kind of arms race among the nation’s top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.”

But what is the main cause for the increase? Financial Aid. Why? Because “most people dont pay the sticker price for college. Scholarships, grants and loans reduce the out-of-pocket cost for the majority of students. …As we’ve seen with the health-care system, if people aren’t feeling the real cost of their purchases, they have less incentive to change their behavior.”

Now what do you think will happen when you have government paid healthcare? If government-run universities can’t keep down their costs, and they continue to rise at rates far above the national rate of inflation, what do you think will happen with medical care under your plan?

The Obama Propaganda Machine

2009-09-09T09:15:00.000-07:00

In his article entitled “The Artist Formerly Known as Dissent”, Patrick Courrielche wrote of his growing discomfort with the role that artists are playing under the Obama administration. He warns: “the art community is not meeting its duty of always questioning those in power. And I say duty because the art community, as a counterpart of the press, has been given special rights written into the Bill of Rights, known broadly as freedom of the press, for the explicit purpose of keeping power in check.”

He continues: “Throughout modern history, art typically enters politics on a mass scale in two fashions: first, as a check on power; second, as a tool used by those in power.”

Courrielche then examines the hysterical and furious response to the only artistic challenge laid against the Obama administration—the infamous image of Obama as the Joker from the Batman series—and responds to the attacks on the anonymous creator. “Can you blame the artist for wanting to remain anonymous given the irrational and racially-charged criticism the poster has received?”

He ends his article with a brilliant admonition to the artists who continue to produce art celebrating Obama, rather than applying their talent to question “the ruling class”:

“It's time for the art community to return to its historical role in political affairs, which means speaking to power, not on behalf of it. Which leads me to the second case where art enters politics on a mass scale. The power of art, in combination with the suppression of free speech or a free press, has been used as a tool by authoritarian governments to control their citizens. From Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, art has been used to deify leaders while preserving the position of the ruling class. Most artists would not want to be referred to as tools of the state, but in the case of Obama's administration, that's exactly what they've been so far.”

Courrielche’s article, it turns out, was both timely and insightful, for reasons I shall explore in a moment. But before I do, and because Courrielche mentioned him in his article, I’d like to quote der Furer’s philosophy on propaganda, as stated in Mein Kampf.

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.”

Courrielche has initiated what I hope will become a national dialog among American artists about their roles either as a “counterpart of the press” in defending democracy and our Liberty. But I fear that today’s artists—just like most of their counterparts in the mass media—have gleefully surrendered their independence from the current administration. The situation is growing so dire I dare say that it appears that McCarthy was right; Hollywood truly has become a socialist propaganda machine!

Consider the new film by Michael Moore, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, in which Moore “sums up his disgust with corporate America and its devastating effect on the lives of ordinary people…Ending on the notes of the ‘Internationale’ as Moore theatrically encircles New York banks with crime scene tape, the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise.”

In keeping with Hitler’s advice for creating quality propaganda, Moore does not try to simply show a number of failures in order to fix capitalism. No, he creates a one-sided, emotionally charged piece intended to encourage the abandonment of capitalism and implementation of socialism, employing a nearly cartoonish montage of images to drive home his propagandistic point:

“Simplifications are Moore's stock-in-trade, and his documentaries are not known for their impeccable research and objectivity. But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema by contrasting a fast-moving montage of 50s archive images extolling free enterprise with the economic disaster of the present.” And as you might expect of a Nazi propaganda piece, it would not be acceptable to criticize the Führer: “Though it blames all political parties, including the Democrats, for caving in with the bailout, the film is careful to spare President Barack Obama, who remains a symbol of hope for justice.”

Lest you think this is an isolated case, Moore is not the only Hollywood film-maker producing socialist propaganda: Now we find out that Oliver Stone has just completed his new film (“South of the Border”) that glorifies Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Like all the great socialists before him, Chavez is a student of history and has always directed a well-oiled propaganda machine employing the best liberal artists he can find in Venezuela. This propaganda machine has had two major intents: 1) to create the appearance within Venezuela that he is a man of the people waging a tireless struggle against the evil forces of capitalism and “the Empire” (AKA: the USA), and 2) to counter growing international concern that he has supplanted Venezuelan democracy with totalitarian rule.

To this end, Chavez has carefully orchestrated a number of events to present himself to the world as a great champion of human rights, defender of the environment, and a soldier for the people. His ultimate goal has been to win the Nobel Peace Prize, for which his loyal followers have nominated him. Stone has apparently bought into this hook, line and sinker. “If you look now, there are seven presidents, eight countries with Chile, that are really moving away from the Washington consensus control. But in America, they don't get that story." When asked if he had tried to portray a realistic view of events in Venezuela, including Chavez’s “dark side”, Stone responded: "A dark side? There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? …He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region… He's not a dictator."

One must wonder why Stone failed to mention that the Chavez regime recently shut down over 40 radio stations that broadcast opposition perspectives to his policies, and this week his ministers warned they were about to close another thirty. Would Stone have overlooked similar excesses from the Bush administration?

Film-makers are not the only artists who are openly propagandizing for socialism. And in a new and deeply disturbing revelation, the Obama administration may actually be conspiring to convert the National Endowment for the Arts into an unofficial propaganda bureau.
For our good friend Patrick Courrielche has written another article in which he warns that the NEA is reaching out to the art community to create art that supports the Obama agenda. Courrielche reports:

“I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to take part in a conference call that invited a group of rising artist and art community luminaries ‘to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.’”

“Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were ‘health care’ and ‘energy and environment.’ The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans. “
Courrielche intuitively and quite accurately senses the moral (and probably legal) conflict of interest: “In my view, power tends to overreach whenever given the opportunity. It’s a law of human nature that has very few exceptions. …Could the National Endowment for the Arts be looking to the art community to create an environment amenable to the administration’s positions?”

He reports that during the call, there was much talk about “‘leveraging federal dollars’ to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.”

If this is true, then the Obama administration appears to be secretly re-writing the NEA’s mission statement, redirecting its purpose from supporting the arts to instead supporting his personal political agenda! What’s more, it’s a covert method of directing federal dollars into a propaganda effort without asking for or receiving permission from the Congress.

We must issue a Clarion Call to the citizens.

Not only did the socialist threat not die off with the collapse of the Berlin Wall; it is back, in a more dangerous and insidious form than ever. Our national media and our art community are conspiring with socialist politicians to destroy America’s capitalist economy and undermine the constitution. They are using our own tax dollars against us as they unleash new weapons to beguile and confound us. And just as Oliver Stone said, why should we consider the “dark side” to their methods, when they intend to “do good things”?

The ends justify the means.

Wake up, America!

***UPDATE***
Blogger Ben Smith reports that the NEA communications director has had to resign after issuing the communication that the NEA would help redirect federal dollars to artists so they would "work to further President Obama's legislative agenda."

Smith adds that "Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported that Sergant had been "asked to resign," and played it as another scalp -- like Van Jones' -- for Glenn Beck." Additionally, "Senator John Cornyn had also pressed the White House on the issue in a letter Tuesday."

When homosexuals guard the gate

2009-09-04T14:47:00.000-07:00

In one of the most bizarre and offensive twists to the war in Afghanistan, new photographs revealed embassy guards engaged in heavy drinking and lewd sexual acts, such as licking each other’s nipples, grabbing each other's testicles, apparently buggering each other anally, and pouring alcohol down the backs of other guards and drinking it from the buttocks of other guards.

ABC News reports:
“Private security guards at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul were pressured to participate in naked pool parties and perform sex acts to gain promotions or assignment to preferable shifts, according to one of 12 guards who have gone public with their complaints.”

Photos of the behavior have been released that show naked men engaging in sexual “play” with other men. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that “the alleged lewd behavior of guards at the US Embassy in Kabul is ‘offensive’ {and} inexcusable’.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has requested an investigation into the behavior.

Ironically, the one aspect of this issue that has gone unmentioned is that the offensive behavior was not just “lewd”; it was homosexual. At the same time the Liberals and the Obama administration have been talking about overturning the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military that would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, America has just suffered a tremendous disservice by men engaging in homosexual behavior while they were supposed to be guarding our Embassy.

Not only will this serve as a tremendous propaganda boon for the Islamist extremists who want to portray America as a sinful nation, it will also damage the reputation of the US military and civilian guards, even though apparently no US military were engaged in the acts. This type of orgiastic indulgence is not an exception to homosexuality: it is quite typical of it.

These incidents should serve as a warning to everyone. This is exactly why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve “openly” within the military.

Yet again, American values have been embarrassingly undermined by the Liberal tolerance of homosexuals.

Is health care a “right”?

2009-08-31T12:54:00.000-07:00

Members of the left have repeatedly stated that “health care is a fundamental right”. When challenged on the constitutionality, I have seen several refer to the most-quoted phrase: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But this is erroneous and misleading. That phrase does not come from the constitution; it comes from the 1776 Declaration of Independence. That document was written as a declaration of American values and, more importantly, a laundry lists of grievances about the abuses by the autocratic British government under King George, and was essentially a “gentleman’s advisory” to the King and his minions that the frequent and unjust treatment of the colonies had violated the colonists’ perceived “inherent rights”.

By contrast, what we now know as “the Constitution,” was the agreed-upon limitations of powers for the newly-established government of the United States of America. As James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45).

Anyone who has attempted to read the current health care bill (HR 3200) will immediately be struck by the obtuse language and expertise required to read and comprehend it. It is a perfect example of the incredibly complex, opaque language used by lawyers to legislate and cover all the many facets of a program they wish to create, and is written in a style that is so difficult it requires a great deal of legal expertise to read. To wit; it is written by lawyers, for lawyers (and bureaucrats).

But upon reading the constitution, it will become apparent that nearly any person with a reasonable education can understand the enumerated rights, and although much ado is made by the elite that you must be a “constitutional scholar” to form a valued opinion on the issue, it was never intended that way: it was written by the people and for the people. It was not written in French, which was the international diplomatic standard in those times, nor was it written in Latin. It was written in common English, in a manner comprehensible by the average, educated citizen. Why? So that the everyday voting citizen could be empowered with knowledge of his rights and would remain vigilant for any attempt by the government to usurp rights and powers from the citizenry.

Concerned that, in the distant future, the government might interpret the rights stated within the Declaration of Independence and the early constitution to be the limits of individual rights and attempt to expand its “jurisdiction” and usurp powers they did not intend it to have, the framers added the “Bill of Rights” in the first ten amendments to the constitution (introduced by James Madison). The ninth amendment advised that the first ten amendments were not to be interpreted as the “universe” or entirety of “rights” of the citizens: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” And the tenth amendment specifically stated: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).”

The Bill of Rights is, essentially, a list of what are known as negative rights. In brief: “Positive Rights” are those which permit or oblige action. That is to say: the government has the right to levy taxes, and therefore may take action to that regard. A “Negative Right” informs the government that it has no right to take action in that area: The congress cannot establish a religion, nor can it infringe upon the individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, for example.

So what of this “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: Does it apply to the notion of a government option to health care?

Proponents of a government-controlled health care option claim that the word “life” meant that the government has the right to create bureaucracies to provide access to health care for all citizens.

The only place in the Bill of Rights where “life” appears is in the Fifth Amendment, regarding due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and eminent domain: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This amendment made no reference at all to providing goods or services to the people; it was instead another limitation on government powers to protect the individual from tyrannical abuse of powers. The phrase “deprived of life” simply meant that the government shall not execute an individual without due process of law.

The constitution itself never states that the government has either the power or the responsibility to provide all the needs to sustain a life. Let us consider the most basic needs to sustain a life: 1) Shelter, 2) Food, and 3) Water. It is not within the government’s mandate to provide any of these “needs”. It is left up to the society at large and the ingenuity of the individual to make do to the best of his needs to provide those things. It is not up to the government to provide houses for the citizens. Nor does the government have the powers to create nationalized farms and ranches. Nor does the government have the responsibility to guarantee water to all individuals, regardless of where they choose to live; if an individual chooses to build a house in the middle of Death Valley it is incumbent upon that individual to satisfy his need for water. *(See footnote)

Health care should be considered a similar “need”. If any citizen believes that he or she cannot live a life of quality without health insurance, then let that citizen work diligently to earn sufficient money to pay for the service.

The states, on the other hand, do retain the rights to provide these additional services, if the citizenry agrees to collectively carry that burden.

In my opinion, therefore, any attempt by the federal government to create a bureaucracy to provide “affordable” health care is a violation of the constitution, and an unacceptable expansion of federal powers. To allow the federal government this latest indulgence would open Pandora ’s Box to similar compassionate consideration to provide a never ending list of “needs”. Shall the government provide transportation to all citizens? Shall it also provide mechanical services on the individuals’ vehicles? Shall it guarantee “affordable” food, creating mammoth new bureaucracies to provide subsidized sustenance? Shall it fund those conveniences upon the backs of other, more industrious individuals?

The love of Liberty requires that the individual accept the burden of personal responsibility. To demand that others sacrifice their Liberty, or their prosperity, in order to provide for your conveniences and needs, is a selfish and unconstitutional violation of the rights of other citizens. It should not be encouraged, nor shall it be tolerated.

*Footnote: Proponents to the health care plan will argue that, although the government "does not have a mandate to provide public housing", it already does so, just as it does provide education, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. This does not contradict my point in the least. Just because the federal government has previously expanded its powers beyond its constitutional mandate does not suddenly mean that to do so again is NOT another constitutional violation, or that it is made less reprehensible. Imagine that the driver of an automobile was caught driving 5 miles per hour over the limit, but the police officer only gave him a warning. Then later he is caught driving 30 miles per hour over the limit, and argues that because he was let off for speeding once, he believes that he has been exempted from speed limits. It's like the government saying: "Hey, we violated the constitution and gave the citizenry a bunch of expensive services and the citizenry didn't complain much about them, so we have the right to expand even further now."

Just because the camel got its nose under the tent does not mean it can now come live under the tent!

Obama's State Dept. reverses itself AGAIN on Honduras

2009-08-28T13:35:00.000-07:00

On August 17th, I published a blog entitled "Earth to Obama", in which I wrote:

For a man whose intelligence has been praised as being “off the charts”,
Obama appears to be absolutely clueless. It is astonishing that the US President
missed a phenomenal opportunity to pressure the despotic regime in Iran, then
leapt blindly into Honduran politics, had to reverse himself, and has yet to
formulate any stated policy at all regarding Hugo Chavez, who is notorious for
his nefarious interference into the affairs of weaker nations throughout the
hemisphere...Under President Obama, American foreign policy is a rudderless ship, perilously adrift amid the bergs.

The point of that article was that the Obama foreign policy seems to drift dangerously, illogically, and unpredictably. While Obama had first stated that the removal of Zelaya had been an "illegal coup", they then appeared to rethink that decision, and in an article published in McClatchy, the Obama administration wrote a letter to Republican Senator Lugar, which was reported to mark a change in the policy. According to McClatchy, "the Obama administration has backed away from its call to restore ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power and instead put the onus on him for taking "provocative actions" that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28. "

And now, Reuters reports "U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation...The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon."

What in the name of God is going on in this Obama administration?

Because Obama's too incompetent to be compared to Hitler

2009-08-28T08:51:00.000-07:00

Apparently, It was too offensive to sensitive Liberals for protesters to use the Swastikas in order to suggest that the Liberal policies resembled National Socialist policies under Nazism.

So here is my own suggested alternative for posters...

“Earth to Obama…”

2009-08-17T12:53:00.000-07:00

Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez criticized President Obama recently, and although it pains me personally to ever agree with Chavez, I have to admit he is right: “"President Obama is lost in the Andromeda Nebula, he has lost his bearings; he doesn't get it."

While Chavez’s comment could be applied generally to nearly every Obama policy, from a public option in his Health Care reform to his attempt to have citizens report each other via the infamous White House website, he was specifically criticizing Obama's position on the democratic crisis in Honduras.

Even Bill Maher has piled on, stating that “Obama needs to get a little George Bush in him, personality-wise.” Maher seemed to think that Obama was just being “too nice”, and needs to get tough in order to get his policies through. The silly thing about this is that, while Bush managed to get his way even during the last two years of his presidency when he had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obama can’t seem to get anything right despite the fact that his own party controls both houses and the presidency.

Could it be that executive experience does trump "coummunity organizing"?

The reason has nothing to do with Obama being “too bi-partisan”. No, it’s because he truly has lost his bearings, if he ever had any to start with.

The Honduran and Iranian cases prove the point.

When the presidential elections in Iran were allegedly stolen by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, resulting in massive protests and extremely violent oppression of protestors, Obama wobbled on his feet indecisively. By the time Obama finally got his bearings and was convinced that a grave injustice was being perpetrated, it was too late. He looked like good-guy Bob Barber from the 1985 satirical film “Rustler’s Rhapsody”, bellying up to the tough-guy bar to order a warm-milk—except that Obama wasn’t even tough enough to threaten to shoot the guns out of the bad-guys’ hands.

Shortly after, when Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (who just happens to be one of Chavez’s great buddies) was ousted by the Honduran Supreme Court, congress and the attorney general for violating the constitution, the Obama administration didn’t hesitate to step knee deep in caca, by immediately condemning “the coup”.

This only helped the Latin American leaders who were eager to restore the leftist Zelaya, and put Obama squarely within the ranks of such esteemed leaders as Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega. As usual, the Democrats proved that they were so busy looking like “good guys”, they had lost all moral compass.

A few weeks later, we get a new headline: “US drops call to restore ousted Honduran leader”. Not only have they stopped calling for his return, they “instead put the onus on him for taking ‘provocative actions’ that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28.”

My experience with lobbying Washington regarding the dangerous influences of Hugo Chavez’s regime convinced me that the Republicans were far more pragmatic about the new crop of leftist leaders in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez than were the Democrats. All it took to pull the proverbial wool over the Dem’s heads was for a Latin president to claim that he was determined to help the poor and promote “social justice”. Our Democrat “leaders” gobbled up that populist swill without hesitation, and it was nearly impossible to get them to see past the socialist window-dressing.

The Republicans, meanwhile, were quick to notice those same leader’s attempts to overthrow their nations’ constitutions, create civilian paramilitary organizations, undermine elections, bribe the poor with promises of free money, free land, increased minimum wages, etc. It was as if the Republicans still remembered the horrific events in Panama under Noriega, while the Democrats had somehow forgotten them.

In keeping with this historical context, Republican Senator Richard Lugar R-Ind. and other Republicans protested the Obama position by threatening to hold up nomination of a number of key positions (Arturo Valenzuela for Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs and other ambassador positions). Facing tough challenges, and probably more informed about the details of the events, the Obama administration has changed its position 180º. They wrote a letter to Lugar that detailed the change in policy, and “also rejected calls by some of Zelaya's backers to impose harsh economic sanctions against Honduras… While condemning the coup, the letter pointedly failed to call for Zelaya's return.”

More importantly, the Obama administration has finally verbalized a criticism of President Zelaya’s actions: “We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal.”

How could Obama take any other position? Since his removal, Zelaya has threatened the interim government with violence, and Chavez threatened to take military action in Honduras, either through direct military conflict or by arming an insurrection. Zelaya supporters shut down the schools and a number of hospitals in protests that turned violent, forcing the Honduran police to seize school after 2nd day of violence. These protestors attacked local businesses such as Popeye’s Chicken, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, and other local shops, smashing windows and even throwing firebombs at the offices of a local news station. All of these actions directly mirror the actions of Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivarian Circles”, and considering his threats, should generate suspicion that perhaps Chavez himself is helping to organize and fund the violence.

For a man whose intelligence has been praised as being “off the charts”, Obama appears to be absolutely clueless. It is astonishing that the US President missed a phenomenal opportunity to pressure the despotic regime in Iran, then leapt blindly into Honduran politics, had to reverse himself, and has yet to formulate any stated policy at all regarding Hugo Chavez, who is notorious for his nefarious interference into the affairs of weaker nations throughout the hemisphere.

Under President Obama, American foreign policy is a rudderless ship, perilously adrift amid the bergs.

Health Care for illegals?

2009-08-14T13:16:00.000-07:00

A quick note on healthcare and illegal immigrants...

I read a comment by a liberal recently that stated that "all of the civilized nations cover everyone living in their country, even illegal immigrants." The same commentor also praised the British model, so I thought I'd do a quick check.

The United Kingdom population I found was 60,975,000. They had an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants. That means that the illegal immigrant population in the United Kingdom was just 0.82%.

The United States has 303,824,640 residents/citizens. We also have an estimated 12,000,000 illegal immigrants. That means that the illegal immigrant population in the United States is 3.95%.

We have four times the problem that they have in Great Britain, and logically, the cost of treating those illegal immigrants would be at least four times what it is there.

The Huddle Study found that if you compare what they generate here versus what they COST, the net cost per illegal immigrant is FAR greater than the NET GAIN, by an estimated $24.44 per individual.That was BEFORE "Obama Care" was considered. Give them all access to health care, and Lord only knows how much that will go UP.

My "Turn in Pelosi for 'Disinformation' Email"

2009-08-14T08:13:00.000-07:00

And here is the content of the email I sent reporting Nancy Pelosi's "Disingormation Campaign":

Example:
To the esteemed manager of the Flag effort to identify disinformation about the Obama Healthcare Plan, I found a site where there is consistent and blatant disinformation.

It is the Web Page of Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi has published false statements that clash with the facts.

She says:
“that we are moving closer to a place where we will lower costs, we will improve the quality of care, we will expand choices, and we will give peace of mind to the American people”

The falsehoods are:
1. Because the bill appears to be stalled, the statement that “we are moving closer” is purposely misleading.
2. According to the Congressional Accounting Office, the Obama plan will not only not decrease costs, but will increase costs. So this statement is purposely misleading
3. Mrs. Pelosi states that “we will improve the quality of care”. This is yet to be seen, but analysts examining the bill have concluded that the direct result of the bill will be rationing and a reduction of care, which is the opposite of “improving the quality of care.” So this statement is also misleading.
4. Mrs. Pelosi then states that: “the CBO has reported and disputed claims by the Republicans about what our legislation will do”. However, the CBO released a report estimating the cost of a leading healthcare reform proposal at more than $1 trillion, but that figure looked only at a portion of the bill. The analysis falls just within the most expensive cost scenario sketched out by Democratic leaders in recent days, but does not include an estimate for a highly contentious government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The CBO has actually disputed claims by the Democrats, and I demand that the White House correct this blatant disinformation.
5. Mrs. Pelosi makes a very harsh and misleading statement about the Healthcare Insurance companies, denouncing “the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry”. This statement was bolstered by President Obama, who remarked about the healthcare insurers making “record profits”. However, this is false. PolitiFact.com researched it and found that profits this year across the board are DOWN for Healthcare insurers. Please be sure to have Mrs. Pelosi and the President correct this in their statements.

These are but a few of the blatantly false and misleading statements made by Speaker Pelosi. This type of disinformation is poisoning the otherwise healthy debate on this vitally important issue. As a concerned citizen, I demand that you contact Mrs. Pelosi and have her review all of her published statements and make sure they accurately represent all of the known facts.

The David Axelrod email

2009-08-14T08:10:00.000-07:00

Well, now we know!

When the White House started its little “report on disinformation campaign”, directed from the Whitehouse, I fired off an email reporting “disinformation” I found at the web page of a VERY questionable character: Nancy Pelosi.

I mailed my report to the “Flag” email address at the Whitehouse. And guess what? I got one of David Axelrod’s emails in response!

What this confirms is that 1) they ARE storing the emails (we knew they would; they are bound by law to do so), and 2) they are compiling a list of what they perceive as “allies”.

You see, below, I got one of the now infamous David Axelrod emails. Confirming the White House’s confusion, however, is the opening term applied to me as “Friend”, which is false, obviously. I wish they would correct that and put me on the “Foe” list, but knowing what government bureaucracy is, it may take a while before they implement that change.

David Axelrod's email:
Dear Friend, This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important. Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions. As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.” So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now. Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email. Thanks, David David Axelrod Senior Adviser to the President P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ 8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq 8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

We would be fools to turn over healthcare to this government

2009-08-11T13:35:00.001-07:00

In an August 6th, 2009 article titled “Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon”, journalist Susan Donaldson James describes a horrifying event that occurred to Oregon resident Barbara Wagner.

“The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay. What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50. “

When I first wrote this article, I was under the impression that it was a private insurance company that rejected her service. But I was wrong: it was the state-run healthcare plan!

Why would the state-run do healthcare system do this to a person? Well, to put it quite frankly, in order to eliminate waste (and increase profits). “…Under [Wagner’s] insurance plan, she can the only receive ‘palliative’ or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the ‘five-year, 5 percent rule’ -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.”

Oregon is a state that has passed Doctor Assisted Suicide laws, called the “Death With Dignity Law”. Obviously intended originally to give terminally ill patients the ability to choose death on their own terms rather than languish in suffering for years, the law may appear on the surface to be a compassionate solution to one of the most difficult decisions a person can make.

But, in this case, instead of offering expensive care, the health plan offered a death pill instead.

I believe that it is the perfect example of how, given the option, the Federal Government will inevitably promote suicide or even euthanasia instead of “wasteful” care.

I have been researching euthanasia in Europe for a while now, and have published blogs on the topic in which I cite analysis showing how in some European states (principally Holland, although Switzerland also to a lesser degree) have begun to use euthanasia as part of their “health care” practice. No matter how well documented my sources are (even when government agency statistics are cited and links provided), I get responses from liberal friends who immediately dismiss the articles as “ridiculous lies”. Most simply refuse to read the articles. Others read parts, but then dismiss them outright.

When asked why they will not consider the articles, the response I get is: “You have a view, and you find whatever you can to support that view. Example: you hate socialism. Therefore, socialism kills the innocent.” So you just dismiss the concept from the start? “You’re absolutely right. When I hear that countries are killing their elderly, and we’re going to start doing the same, I just dismiss it.”

The next dismissal is predictable: “We would never have euthanasia in the United States.”

This was said in the context of my allegation that if we implemented single-payer healthcare in the United States, the government would inevitably head down this same morbid path, exactly as have the governments where they have socialized medicine: it is already happening.

Liberals scoff at concerns about section 1233 of the Healthcare Bill in the house currently (HR 3200), in which doctors are encouraged to discuss “end of life options”. In his article, “Undue Influence”, Washington Post writer Charles Lane explores a number of concerns people have about the government option, and openly questions whether or not the Federal Government’s plan would “force everyone over 65 to sign his…own death warrant.” Lane boldly states that his is “rubbish”.

“Federal law already bars Medicare from paying for services "the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing," suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. Nothing in Section 1233 would change that.” May I point out that laws can be changed?

However, Lane adds that, having read section 1233, “it is not totally innocuous.”

“The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives… Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”

When we have examples like the current one, in which the “villainous” health care insurance companies not only refuse care, but suggest death instead, it is clear that the argument “it would never happen here” is moot, to say the least. There are those who are already testing the waters, right here.

So, how radical of an idea is it to suggest that, if state-run health care programs are already suggesting suicide instead of care, the Federal Government will someday do the same thing? Why are we to believe that only states will apply cost-saving analysis to care, but the Federal Government will not?

We are talking about the same US government that didn’t want to send the recommended number of troops to Iraq, in order to save money. The result? A prolonged war and unnecessary number of dead soldiers.

It’s the same government that didn’t properly equip all of the troops it sent—again, as a cost-saving measure. How many troops died unnecessarily due to these “frugal” policies?

It’s the same government that has had a “trust responsibility to provide health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives, {and yet} the Indian Health Service is substantially underfunded and understaffed.” There is no shortage of documentation supporting the allegation that our federal government has seriously underserved our Native Americans.

To quote an article by Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota who recently wrote "How Will Universal Health Care Affect Native Americans?":

"Those Americans opposed to it compare it to Canada's or Britain's health care systems, which they say are nothing but socialized medicine. The Indian Health Care system, deemed a "historic failure" by Sebelius, has also been labeled as socialized medicine, and the fact that she would label it as a failure does not place much faith in an even larger universal health care system. It just seems that every time the federal government takes total control over anything, failure is almost assured. Watch out General Motors."

He ends his article: "If you think the government can solve all of our problems ask an Indian."

Why should we believe that a government that has allowed its troops and the Native Americans to “go without” will suddenly change its stripes when we hand over the entire health care industry?

How our government makes “civil debate” impossible

2009-08-05T12:42:00.001-07:00

CNN Political Analyst, Gloria Borger, published a criticism of the “hecklers” at the many town hall meetings across the country, in which citizens who are concerned, even infuriated, about the Obama Healthcare plan, are vocalizing their opposition to the plan in a way she describes as “bad behavior.” She says: “Their bad behavior is a derivative of the questionable quality of the political debate they listen to every day. Indeed, if there's one thing we've gotten really good at over the years, it's this: reducing complicated problems to bite-sized slogans.”

Bite-sized slogans? You mean like "HOPE" and "CHANGE"?

She then tries to reassure us: “The effort on Capitol Hill has been serious…members of Congress are actually doing some real work.” Well they apparently are not working hard enough! They haven't read at least TWO of the major legislative pieces they've drafted and admit as much publicly.

As an example of the alleged misbehavior, she specifically refers to a recent town hall meeting organized by Senator Arlen Specter with the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.”In attempting to answer questions, they were shouted down by folks more interested in venting than discussing.”

Other examples can be seen all over the news, such as this confrontation between a “Democrat Tea Party Protester” who confronted the House Majority Leader, or another meeting in St Louis, or the one in Austin. And following the Hugo Chavez model of governance, rather than accept that the people are furious at the government and leaders, the Obama administration has instead lashed out and accused the protests as being “manufactured”— that is to say, according to the ruling elite, they are being artificially generated and staged. This was also the same accusation they leveled at the hundreds Tea Party protests a few months ago.

What’s more, the administration is accusing groups of passing “disinformation” about their “plan”, and have even created a mechanism by which private citizens can report sources of “disinformation” directly to the White House –effectively creating a form of domestic spying network reporting directly to the President (yet another tactic eerily reminiscent of Hugo Chavez).

On the White House website, you can read: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

What are they calling “disinformation”? How about the video of Obama stating that he wanted Single Payer healthcare, published on Drudgereport.com? Or articles such as this one, in which the President was quoted: “ ‘If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.’ ” These comments have also been recorded on video. They additionally call “disinformation” the videos that have been assembled showing the many times that Obama stated that he wanted a single-payer healthcare system.

More importantly, Obama and other "leaders" have been caught saying that, while they acknowledge that the public would not support going directly to a single-payer system, their plan would eventually lead us there. They then state in other forums that this is not their intention, and that they want "competition". They say that the "plan" (which they admit they have not fully read and with which they are "not familiar") would NOT eliminate private healthcare insurance. Analysts who actually HAVE read the bill are warning that the opposite is true.

So what should we believe? Should be believe what they say they didn't say after they have said the thing they deny having said? Or should we believe the analysts who are telling us that what is in the bill will lead us directly into the situation they said they wanted before they said they didn't want it?

What Borger fails to comprehend is that it is the government’s fault, clear and simple, that “discussion” has degraded into furious screaming matches. Democratic dialog can only occur in an environment in which all sides can feel that they are being mutually respected, and in which the leaders who are answering to their constituents understand that A) they work for the people, not the other way around, and B) the information they provide is true, to the best of their knowledge.

But when government leaders have stated, on camera, a position that later they say they never said, and then accuse the citizens of “manufacturing” dissent and spreading “disinformation”—which implies they are lying—the government has alienated itself from the people it pretends to govern. It also has undermined the necessary conditions for “civilized debate”.

These government officials are just like the criminal who is caught on tape robbing a store and later claims “I wasn’t there when they caught me”; their credibility is shot from the start. When they then turn around and claim that the people who have seen the video are “liars” for reminding them of what they have seen, they are engaging in a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack on the citizens.

The Democrats, who proudly bragged that they were part of a young and hip generation that understands modern technology such as Twitter and Facebook and the Internet, have apparently misjudged the overall sophistication of the average citizen, and have ironically overlooked the fact that their previous statements are out there for all to see. The Democrats have repeated the mistakes made by the Iranian regime that thought it could silence the opposition by quashing journalism, only to have their criminal exploits exposed via the new information media.

Americans have lost respect for their leaders. These leaders are bewildered that we don’t just trust them, even though they are exposed every time they make contradictory statements to different audiences (remember Obama’s “guns and religion” quote? Or his gaffe about the police “acting stupidly”?). Instead of admitting that they misspoke, or admit the mistake, they act as if we are all stupid, and explain themselves by saying something to the effect of; “I know what I said but what I meant was the opposite.”

The citizens are screaming because they are honestly angry. They are yelling because they do not believe what they are being told. They are heckling because they know that it is impossible to have “civilized debates” with arrogant government officials who disrespect them, ignore them, and lie to them.

And if this does not change, soon, the screaming, yelling, and heckling may morph into actions a great deal more serious. Remember that the 1773 Boston Tea Party was not the start of the Revolution: it was just a warning that was not heeded by the arrogant and bullying British aristocracy.

Democracy requires citizen action.

2009-08-04T12:00:00.000-07:00

Democracy requires citizen action. Are you doing your part?

My experience as founder and President of a non-profit 501c-3 taught me that the “leaders” of our Republic can truly be influenced by direct action of their constituents. While many people cynically underestimated the effects that a small group of activists could have on the colossal US government, we stubbornly moved forward.

We formed action groups, wrote analysis white-papers that we faxed to the representatives on a regular schedule, and met our representatives whenever they were in town. Our persistence paid off. When we started, the Democrat representatives thought that Hugo Chavez was a “harmless clown”, or a “democratically elected leader” who was “honestly concerned about the poor.” They didn’t take us seriously at first. But over time, we won a few key Congressmen and Senators over to our side. Eventually, they told us that they even found our analysis more credible than the analysis they received from the Department of State, and our understanding of the issues deeper and more reliable than “experts” such as the Carter Center.

Our nation is now at another crossroads. If concerned citizens sit idly by, waiting for the leaders to lead in the right direction, they will be disappointed with the results. Democracy requires direct citizen action. And you need to do your part.

Many people want to help, but don’t know how. So here is a step-by-step plan to get you started.

1. First, create a list of your representatives.
a. Click on the link to Congress.org
b. In the box titled MY ELECTED OFFICIALS, input your ZIP code and click GO.
c. The names of your Congressmen and Senators will appear.
d. Make a list of these Representatives.
e. Click the link to each of them.
f. Click the Contact tab, and gather all the contact information about the individual. Put it in your list. Be sure to get the FAX number!
2. Each representative also has a link to his/her website. Go to their homepage and search for dates of their Townhall meetings they are going to have during the recess.
3. If there are no meetings scheduled, call the local office for the representative and demand a schedule of those events.
4. Identify your two or three top concerns.
a. Research those concerns. Find articles and analysis written by journalists or organizations you respect and trust. Do NOT use blogs. Use only respected news and analysis sources.
b. Create a document on each of those topics, and cut and paste the best pieces of analysis, quotations, statistics, etc. from the articles.
c. Always include the SOURCE, in case you are challenged on the veracity and quality of your citations. Trust me: when challenged publicly, they will often try to belittle the constituent in order to make you look incompetent or misinformed. The ability to quote directly from trusted sources will stop that immediately.
d. Create a folder of these documents, and carry them with you to every meeting so you can refer to them.
5. Plan on attending every townhall meeting you can.
6. Create a network of people who share your opinions, and disseminate the dates and locations of the meetings, and encourage your friends to join you. Strength in numbers!
7. Create a brief, respectful but forceful letter on each of your concerns.
a. Address all letters directly to each of your representatives.
b. Save the letter as a form letter that you can use to send to each representative so you don’t have to waste time re-writing the letter.
c. Create two copies of each letter: one signed by you, and one with the signature space blank.
i. Give the blank signature page to friends and family and ask them to FAX it to the representative.
d. Do NOT send it yet.
8. Call the representative’s office, and ask for the names of the Aids that focus on your two or three concerns. They will give you those names.
a. Ask to introduce yourself to those individuals.
b. Explain who you are, and inform the individual that you would like to fax a letter to the representative, and to be expecting it shortly.
c. NOW FAX and mail the letter to the representative.
9. The most effective but time consuming thing you can do is to form a group.
a. You will be asked when you call the representative’s office if you are an individual or represent a group. If you can say (honestly) that you have dozens, or hundreds, or even thousands of constituents in your group, they will be eager to please.

Now, get off your ass and go put pressure on the idiots ruining the country!

I'm black and I'm proud!

2009-07-30T12:44:00.001-07:00

I don’t know if you saw the discussion about Professor Louis Gates and his “nemesis”, Officer Crowley, sharing a common ancestor. I thought this was amusing.

Professor Henry Louis Gates share the same Irish heritage, both apparently having traced their ancestry back to the famous Irishman “Nial of the Nine Hostages.” Gates was quoted as having said, “I’m descended from a white man. A white man who slept with a black slave. And we know from the analysis of my DNA that ….goes back to Ireland.”

I chuckled about this because it reminded me of the 1991 film “The Commitments”, in which the film’s protagonist, an Irish singer named Jimmy Rabbitte, wants to form a band that plays American rhythm and blues music. When he is trying to explain his concept for the band, he says:

“Do you not get it, lads? The Irish are the blacks of Europe. And Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And the Northside Dubliners are the blacks of Dublin. So say it once, say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud.”

So, don’t you see? Gates and Crowley are both Black and White…Now why can’t we all just get along?

Obama embraces our enemies and rebuffs our friends

2009-07-29T09:23:00.000-07:00

I continue to be fascinated with the Obama administration’s handling of the Honduran political “stale-mate” (my term). The latest twist in the sordid tale is that, while ousted President Zelaya continuously taunts the interim government there by making frequent visits to the border, stepping one foot inside Honduras and then backing away before he can be arrested (generating lukewarm condemnation from US Secretary of State Clinton for his “provocative behavior”), the United States has decided to revoke the visas for officials in the interim government. (Read my previous analyses: Here, Here and Here)

As reported in the Washington Post, “the U.S. government revoked the visas of four members of Honduras's de facto government Tuesday, escalating the pressure on officials there to reinstate the president, who was kicked out of the country a month ago.” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly “indicated that other officials also could have their visas revoked.” Not only that, but he added that “U.S. authorities were reviewing the visas of all members of the current government and their dependents.”

This latest move is yet another example of how the Obama administration slaps its friends and allies, while coddling tyrants and enemies. Obama has not revoked the visas of the Iranian officials, who last month brutally oppressed protestors who claimed the presidential election was a fraud, resulting in untold number of deaths and injuries. Nor has he revoked the visas of North Korean officials, who have repeatedly threatened the destruction of the United States and provocatively launched missiles toward Hawaii. No, to the contrary: Obama believes in “engagement” with our enemies, and repeatedly opens his arms wide to them, turning his other cheek when those tyrants rebuff his entreaties and slap him down.

In keeping with that absurd policy, Obama has picked up the cause for President Zelaya, who was a part of the cabal of “Bolivarian” Marxists who openly called for the downfall of America, and has rejected the pleas of the interim Honduran government that wishes to befriend the United States.

Obama’s racial prejudice was recently on display with the Gates-Crowley brouhaha, when Obama precipitously and publicly prejudged the white officer and, quite frankly, got it all wrong, as has been indisputably proven by subsequent events and analysis.

The Honduran debacle reveals Obama’s parallel anti-American prejudices: his automatic sympathy toward world leaders who vociferously criticize the United States or accuse it of being an evil empire. It appears that Obama is predisposed to believe the historical interpretation that the United States has repeatedly and wrongly supported “dictators” in Latin America, and in a desperate effort to distinguish his Presidency and display his presumed “moral superiority”, he has ironically decided to meddle in the internal affairs of Honduras. Obama could have called a summit in the United States, in order to hear both sides of the story and try to find a way to reconcile the differences. Instead, he farmed that out to Costa Rican Nobel Laureate Oscar Arias, who failed to achieve progress. And far from remaining neutral, the Obama administration sided with the Castros and Chavez in demanding the reinstatement of a President who has been accused of various crimes, including treason.

Obama not only has ushered in a dark period in American race relations. He has also undermined our credibility in international affairs and proven yet again that the American government simply cannot keep its meddling mitts out of Latin American affairs.

Obama's mouth will be the end of him.

2009-07-24T08:26:00.000-07:00

"It’s the mouth that kills the fish."

President Obama’s accusation that the Cambridge police “had acted stupidly”, responding to a question about the incident involving Cambridge Police Officer Crowley’s arrest of black Professor Gates by stating “off-the-cuff”, was just the latest example of Obama’s most serious character flaw: his tendency to opine forcefully before knowing the facts.

His statement illustrates the Venezuelan phrase I often quote: “El pez muere por la boca”. Roughly translated, this means “It’s the mouth that kills the fish.” In other words, it is the fish’s instinct to open its mouth and take the bait without hesitation that results in its ultimate demise.

The details of the event can be found through various sources, starting with the police report. A short version goes like this: A white, female neighbor, Ms. Lucia Whalen, saw two black males wearing backpacks trying to shove their way through the front door of a house in an up-scale neighborhood. Concerned that her neighbor’s house was being burglarized, she called 911. Officer Crowley responded and found Mr. Gates in the house. Crowley spoke with him, told him he was responding to call that suggested the house was being robbed, and Gates asked him for identification.

Gates at first refused, and launched into his tirade “Why, because I’m a black man in America?” According to the officer, Gates was verbally aggressive and conflictive throughout the event. A report filed by a second officer (Off. Carlos Figueroa) reaffirms this assertion. Gates then tried to call the Police Chief from his home phone in order to escalate the issue. He continued yelling at the officer, calling him a racist and asking him for his name (which Crowley asserts he told Gates several times). Crowley warned Gates several times to calm down. Crowley alleges that he asked Gates to step outside, because the acoustics within the house, combined with Gates’ yelling, prevented him from communicating via radio with the station. Gates stepped outside and continued his yelling. Crowley warned Gates that he was beginning to disturb the peace, while he withdrew his handcuffs. But Gates did not take the hint: he continued yelling at the officer. At that point, he was placed under arrest for disorderly conduct.

It should be noted that Gates was the first “fish” to fall victim to his own loud mouth. Had he simply calmed down and explained the situation to the officer, he never would have been arrested. But this professor in the W. E. Debois Department of Black Studies clearly had a chip on his shoulder, a false sense of his own importance, and—knowing that he was a personal friend of President Obama—told the officer “you don’t know who you’re messin’ with”, and “you haven’t heard the last of this.”

But Obama apparently didn’t know the full story when he called Officer Crowley “stupid”, as he himself admits.

It is fascinating that Obama, who was a trained lawyer and has been praised for his legal knowledge, failed one of the most basic tenets of practicing law: know the facts of the case!

Officer Crowley is not the only person being vilified by black activists. Ms. Whalen, the woman who placed the 911 call, has been accused of being a racist, by various imbeciles opining on the case and ignoring basic facts. One blogger wrote: “I believe that the media would be remiss not to focus at least some of their attention on Lucia Whalen, the woman who initially called 911. Her racism was the catalyst that put all of these other events in motion.”

“Racism”? While it is clearly true that she was mistaken, and that Gates was a resident trying to force open his front door, and not a burglar, it is hardly racist for her to be concerned about her neighbors’ safety and call the authorities. What’s more, it is now known that the reason why Gates was trying to force the door was because, after returning from a trip, he found the front door damaged. Gates has apparently said that it looked as if the door had been damaged in a previous burglary attempt.

This often overlooked fact shines an important light on the events: the neighbor, it turns out, was right to be concerned. Gates had been victimized, but not by the police: his residence had apparently suffered an attempted break-in which, unfortunately, had not been observed and reported.

We have to ask ourselves; had the White House failed to properly brief Obama on this issue? We are being told that they had not.

Had Obama done due research before opining? He said that he was not there and did not know the details.

So why did Obama feel that he needed to blurt out an emotional response to an issue for which a simple “No Comment” would have been more appropriate? Could it be that he actually has been listening to the sermons of his infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and is a proponent of black victimization?

While that may be true, what cannot be denied is that Obama has demonstrated, over the past few weeks, a disturbing tendency to make firm public statements about issues that he admits he knows little about.

When asked about the impacts of the H.R. 3200 Health Bill that he has been championing, Obama admitted: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” He then went on to defend the bill and promote “his plan” (which is not really his plan, because he has farmed it out to a cabal of radical Democrats to write in his stead).

It is peculiar that Obama would propose a radical idea that would enact massive restructuring of a major component of the American economy, then decide to let others write the bill, then not familiarize himself with the bill, openly admit that he is not familiar with the bill, and then defend it!

A couple of weeks previously, when the Honduran Supreme Court ordered President Manuel Zelaya deposed due to his unconstitutional behavior, Obama leapt into the fray, declaring that the actions taken were an illegal and unconstitutional “coup”. I analyzed the events there in depth through two posts, and concluded that Obama’s assertion is false; the process appears to have been legal, constitutional, rational, democratic, and does not constitute a “coup”.

But again, Obama believes himself to be so wise that facts are irrelevant. Events are what he says they are, and “damn your lying eyes!”

A President who speaks too soon once has committed a forgivable error. When he repeats that mistake within a week or two, it is a very real cause for embarrassment and should cause him to rectify his behavior. But when it occurs a third time in as many weeks: you have identified a dangerous trend.

Just like the fish that automatically snaps at a baited hook, Obama has proven himself incapable of assessing the impact of his impromptu remarks. His narcissism drives him to seek attention, and he does so without the slightest reflection as to the outcome. The truth to the matter is, that while Joe Biden’s frequent gaffes are generally harmless and amusing, Obama’s screw ups will ultimately undermine his own credibility.

Deposing a President is not the same as a "coup"

2009-07-20T13:27:00.000-07:00

I would like to take just a moment to reflect upon the events in Honduras, and the media’s obtuse use of the term “coup” (as in: “coup d’etat”) to describe it.

I have read commentators describe the ouster of President Zelaya as an “illegal coup”. President Obama (who in the first six months of his Presidency has shown an uncanny knack for being on the wrong side of History) has also stated that the “coup” was unconstitutional and illegal. They argue that President Zelaya should have been “impeached” rather than overthrown in a “coup”, a statement that is silly on multiple levels (I’ll explain shortly). Even commentators who support the Honduran government’s actions—some of whom I respect greatly, such as Charles Krauthammer—also refer to the events as a “coup”.

Even though I am not a legal scholar, I am confident that a cursory examination of the terminology and events will reveal that the term “coup” has been bandied about irresponsibly. “Irresponsibly”, I say, because it erroneously lends credence to the notion that the President was unjustly removed from office and should be returned to power by the organizations of the international community.

The term “coup d’etat”, or “coup” for short, “is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military.”

Note that the removal of the official is “sudden” and “unconstitutional”.

Without getting into the minutia of the events, please recall that former President Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution by unilaterally calling for a referendum that would ask the people if the constitution should be re-written in order to give the President multiple terms (currently they are limited to one four-year term, in order to prevent future dictatorships). The constitution makes this very action illegal and the official who requests it loses his mandate immediately. Only the congress has this authority, and refused to do what Zelaya asked, so he did it unilaterally. He violated a number of other laws as well when he called for an insurrection, illegally fired his chief of staff who refused to obey the illegal orders he’d been given, raided the military compound where the ballots were stored in order to go forward with the referendum in spite of the orders to desist by the Supreme Court. The Congress, Supreme Court, and Federal Attorney General all agreed that Zelaya had violated the constitution and the constitution stated the outcome: loss of his authority.

The subsequent action to depose the President was therefore neither “sudden”, nor “unconstitutional”. It was deliberative, involving multiple branches of government, and spelled out in the nation's Magna Carta.

There are a number of terms that would be preferable, and more accurate, to employ in this instance. The President was “deposed”, “unseated”, “overthrown”, or even “dethroned” (if you will allow that he was acting like a tyrannical monarch, rather than a President).

I have also noted criticism that Zelaya should have been “impeached”. The very term “impeach” means “to accuse of a crime, especially to accuse a person who works for the government of a crime against the State.” Clearly, when the opposition appealed to the courts regarding the illegality of the President’s actions, they did “impeach” the President. And the court did what courts do: it judged the merits of the accusation and decided against the President. This was not an issue where there could be a prolonged trial by jury: by the time this occurred, the constitutional order would have been in disarray, and the national security already would have been adversely affected. What's more, the critics presume that the "impeachment process" in Honduras should look exactly like the one that we have in the USA. Without having read their constitution, they (and I include Mr. Obama in this) have decided that if the process doesn't look like ours, it must not have been legal.

My point is that the events in Honduras did not constitute a “coup”, and that term is being detrimentally applied. It would be preferable to use the term “removal” or “deposition” instead. Every time anyone—including those of us who support the removal of Zelaya—use “coup” to describe the legal and just sacking of the President, it simply adds credence to the arguments of people like Chavez and Castro—and the newest member of the gang of leftist nuts—Barack Hussein Obama.

***UPDATE***
I have learned new information which reaffirms my conviction that it was NOT a coup, and the Obama administration's position is wrong.
1) The interim president, Roberto Micheletti, is a member of Zelaya's Liberal Party. So control of the government was NOT transferred to an opposition party, nor maintained by the military.
2) The reason the VP was not put in that position was that he had resigned as VP in order to run for President next November. Micheletti was the next one in line per constitutional order of power.
3) The Liberal Party--Zelaya's and Micheletti's party--controlled and still controls the majority of the Parliament. No transfer of power or restructuring occured there.
4) the Parliament voted and found that Micheletti is the legitimate President.

If you speak Spanish you can read about it HERE.

Euthanasia as a solution for Health Care Rationing

2009-07-17T12:40:00.000-07:00

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” The Hippocratic Oath

I was shocked, although not surprised, to learn that the medical profession in Netherlands (Holland) has not only legalized euthanasia, but has expanded its use recently. Shocked, I say, because it is horrific to think that the medical profession, which once swore by the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, has adopted values that are in direct conflict with the oath. But I was not surprised, because this seems to be a logical outcome to the liberal philosophy that has taken control of much of Europe, and whose “humane” attempt to provide affordable access to medical care has been tempered by the practical need to reduce costs.

And what has been the logical, although horrific outcome? Euthanasia has become an acceptable alternative to expensive treatment.

The story was exposed to me by the great conservative radio host, Mike Gallagher. I wanted to verify the veracity of his statements, so I began to search, and found no shortage of corroborating articles.

What had started out as a “humane” ending of suffering for the terminally ill morphed, over time, to include an ever widening list of conditions. Recently, doctors there have even begun to euthanize the elderly, and children.

In “Euthanasia in the Netherlands”, I read a personal story about a man whose Dutch parents returned to their homeland to visit relatives, and shrugged off a story about a woman who chose euthanasia over treatment for depression following the death of her last son. Her physician did not even try to treat her depression: no, he decided she wasn’t depressed, just deeply saddened by her loss, and had the right to die—with his assistance, of course—instead of finding a new reason to live at the ripe old age of 50.

The author pointed out that many survivors of the Holocaust had managed to find new meaning in their lives after the loss of their entire families, but that was apparently unimportant. He reports:

“Over 50% of Dutch physicians admitted to practicing euthanasia, most often on cancer patients. Only 60% kept written records of their euthanasia practice and only 29% filled out death certificates honestly in euthanasia cases…”

While that statistic alone was alarming, I then confirmed that “Only half of Dutch doctors report euthanasia, report says.” In 2001, the study focused on 5500 deaths, of which 41% to 54% of those cases were patients that had been euthanized.

Proponents of the practice will rally to say that these cases provided a humane ending for individuals suffering chronic pain, with terminal illnesses, who chose to end their lives under their own terms. But that, it turns out, is not always true.

80% of Dutch now support euthanasia, in a nation that, during World War II, resisted Nazi orders to euthanize patients, actions that later resulted in the hanging deaths of Nazi “war criminals”.

But today, the practice is so widely accepted, doctors have begun to euthanize many others. In his article, “The Dutch way of Death” (2001), Richard Miniter points out that, in 1990 alone, of the 130,000 Dutchmen who died, 11,800 were “killed or helped to die” by their doctors. An estimated 5,981 people were killed by their doctors WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT—according to the Dutch government.

But if that was not shocking enough, prepare yourself: “other groups that are put to death involuntarily: disabled infants, terminally ill children and mental patients. Some 8% of all infants who die in the Netherlands are killed by their doctors, according to a 1997 study published in the Lancet, a British medical journal.”

These facts prompted the Catholic Association of Doctors and Nurses to issue a statement protesting the decision of Groningen University Hospital to euthanize children under 12 when their pain is “intolerable, or if they have an incurable illness.”
“The ‘decision proposes a death solution in situations which could be addressed by modern palliative care”, and “raises the suspicion of a financial interest of the public authorities, since it decreases the 'burden' of prolonged and expensive care in clinical conditions for which any extension of life duration is considered meaningless.’ The association continues; ‘it opens the door on a national scale to the 'mercy killing' of other mentally incompetent persons, to be eliminated without their consent for reasons based on an external appreciation of their quality of life."
In “Now They Want to Euthanize Children” Wesley J. Smith explains that, “In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the ‘consent’ of parents.”

"In 30 years Holland has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for mental illness, from euthanasia for mental illness to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia or as the Dutch prefer to call it ‘termination of the patient without explicit request’.
It is now considered a form of discrimination against the chronically ill to deny them assisted death because they will be forced to suffer longer than those who are terminally ill and it is considered bias to force endurance of psychological pain when it is not associated with physical illness. The next step, non-voluntary euthanasia, is then justified by appealing to our social duty to care for patients who are not competent to choose for themselves. "

Smith sums up the horror quite eloquently:

“It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg.”

“Blame the radically altered mindset that results when killing is redefined from a moral wrong into a beneficent and legal act. If killing is right for, say the adult cancer patient, why shouldn't it be just as right for the disabled quadriplegic, the suicidal mother whose children have been killed in an accident, or the infant born with profound mental retardation?”

You may well ask what this has to do with us here in the United States.

According to the authors, a primary driving force in this barbaric shift from euthanizing only as a means of ending insufferable pain and misery to euthanizing patients ranging from the mentally disable, to Alzheimer’s patients, to the depressed, was the implementation of Socialized Medicine. The financial costs of treating the sick grew to the point that society might rebel against the ever increasing taxes necessary to support it. The government began to ration care, and pressured doctors to make decisions that would reduce care to those for whom it would not heal, in order to reduce costs.

Bureaucrats, in a single payer system, have been given the power of God over the public. Their actions now echo the policies of the Nazis, whose efforts to “strengthen the strain” resulted in the mass murder of millions across Europe in order to weed out the weak, the feeble, the retarded, and the incurably sick—not to mention those whose ethnic background was simply “unacceptable”.

It is logical to conclude that, as genetic testing for inherited diseases improves to the point that fetuses and babies can be identified as carrying the genes that will trigger future illnesses, doctors may decide to euthanize otherwise healthy infants or abort fetuses simply to avoid even the remote possibility of having to treat them in the future.

Obama, let Honduras sort out its own problems

2009-06-30T16:04:00.000-07:00

President Obama has yet again erred in his policies; this time however, his ignorance of international events threatens to impose a possible dictatorship on Honduras.

On June 30th, President Obama declared “that the United States still considers Manuel Zelaya to be the president of Honduras and assailed the coup that forced him into exile as ‘not legal’.”
"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," Obama continued. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past."

This sounds very good, but it appears that Obama, who hesitated for over a week to make any comments following the electoral crisis in Iran, has decided to impetuously plunge into Honduran internal affairs without analyzing the situation first. I believe that his rash involvement is a way of differentiating himself from President Bush who, after the 2002 overthrow of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, remained conspicuously silent and was accused of “winking his approval” to the Venezuelan military that overthrew Chavez.

Recent Latin American history is rich with coups. The 2002 coup in Venezuela was a direct result of Chavez’s abuse of power over weeks leading up to a massive protest march on April 11th. Chavez declared that he would organize a “counter march” that he would address at the Presidential Palace. When the opposition asked for permission to march to the palace, Chavez declared that only his supporters had a right to go there. The unarmed masses deviated from the original course and headed toward the Palace. At that moment, Chavez ordered a “cadena” (a mandatory broadcast of his discourse on all radio and television channels), effectively blocking coverage of the march. He also ordered his generals to declare “Plan Avila”, a military defense of the Palace designed to protect the President from an armed attack. The generals explained that the unarmed masses would be slaughtered, that the march was legal and peaceful, and that it would be illegal to enact Plan Avila. Chavez reiterated the order, which was refused. So Chavez then went on television calling on his supporters to “defend the Revolution with blood, if necessary”, an invocation of violence that again violated Venezuelan law. When his supporters began firing into the unarmed crowd (killing 20), the generals rebelled and arrested Chavez. Chavez eventually was freed and was returned to power by other generals supportive of his revolution. The international community at the time ignored Chavez’s crimes and his invocation of violence upon unarmed citizens.

In 2005, Ecuadorian President Lucio Gutierrez had managed to isolate himself from his own party and grew increasingly abusive of his powers. He had initially run as a leftist, but slowly began to moderate and ally himself with the United States. He responded violently to the civil unrest, increasing popular dissent. The socialists within the National Assembly, who were friendly to Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution, declared that Gutierrez should be stripped of the presidency for “abandonment of his post”. The military declared that they did not support Gutierrez, who was forced to flee the country. The international community was remarkably silent about these events. No one questioned the legality of the process, even when Gutierrez later complained to the OAS and UN that he was the victim of an illegal coup.

So now we must look into the events leading up to the Honduran coup.

Zelaya, who is another socialist ally of Hugo Chavez, was limited by the Honduran constitution to just one term, chose to follow the example of Chavez, who changed the constitution once to allow himself two terms, and now wants to modify it to give himself possibility of “indefinite reelection.” Zelaya wanted to form a “constituyente”, an assembly to rewrite the constitution. The Honduran Constitution allows for modification by constituyente, but Zelaya didn’t have the supported needed to do it the legal way. So instead, he decided he would do it himself, via popular referendum, and ordered ballots made by Chavez’s government.

The Honduran Supreme Court declared the process a violation of the constitution and therefore illegal. Zelaya mocked the court, and publicly called for insurrection, to which a mob of his supporters responded.

Zelaya then ordered his friend and Military Chief, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, to help him proceed with the referendum. But the Supreme Court had been very specific: the planned referendum was illegal, and anyone who continued with it violated the law. Vásquez Velásquez was later quoted as saying: “Friendship ends where duty begins…Sadly, we could not disobey the order of the court.” He refused the order.

Infuriated by Vásquez Velásquez’s refusal to obey his (illegal) order, Zelaya relieved him of duty.

The Attorney General, Luis Rubí, declared that firing Vásquez Velásquez was also illegal. “You cannot fire an officer for refusing to obey an illegal order. No one can be punished for obeying the law…The President cannot be above the law, and his actions expose him to be subject to what the law demands.”

The Supreme Court ordered that Vásquez Velásquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused. And three more military generals, of various branches of service, resigned in protest.

Attorney General Rubí declared on Channel 5 television: “No one can capriciously destabilize the country. He cannot just do what he wants. We won’t permit (Zelaya) to continue undermining Democracy.”

But Zelaya miscalculated the depth of his support, and declared that he would personally carry on with the referendum. The Supreme Court declaration was clear: to do so was illegal and a violation of the constitution. The military assessed the situation and decided that Zelaya had to be removed from his position.

How Zelaya ended up leaving the country is still unclear. The military say he resigned, Zelaya denies this. (The exact same thing happened with Chavez; the military said he resigned under pressure, Chavez said he never signed anything.)

The Supreme Court issued a formal statement on June 29th, explaining that the action by the Honduran military was in accordance with Honduran law and was in defense of the constitution.
The Spanish legal-ease is a fairly difficult to translate to English, but in essence it says: “The Supreme Court issued an order to the Armed Forces last Friday, June 26, so that, because of the disobedience of the Executive Branch, the military take control of all of the poll {my note: or “referendum”} materials that would be used for that activity which had been declared illegal previously. This decision gave the Armed Forces the authorization so that, with the intervention of the attorneys of the Public Ministry, they proceed to prevent the illegal poll promoted by the Executive Power, who never responded to the orders emanated by the Constitution and Law.

The Judicial Power considers that their actions were realized within the legal margins. The Court also believes that the Armed Forces, as defenders of the Constitution, have acted in defense of the Will of Law, and forced those who previously publicly disobeyed the law and Constitution to submit to the law.”

Now, whether or not the Honduran Supreme Court interpreted the Honduran Constitution correctly should and will be a subject of intense study and heated debate—within Honduras. But it is astonishing that President Obama, in a matter of a couple of days, somehow has already and unilaterally determined that the steps taken were “illegal”. What’s more, despite the fact that just last week Obama repeatedly declared that the United States would not meddle in the internal affairs of Iran, he suddenly decided that the United States is perfectly capable of interfering in the internal affairs of Honduras.

Obama is wrong to rush in and support Zelaya, who had clearly, publicly and repeatedly violated Honduran laws and disobeyed orders by the Supreme Court to rectify his actions. Zelaya's beligerence, his calls to his supporters to form an insurrection, threatened the peace and stability of the nation. And if the military restore order, and if the interrim President Michelleti keeps his promise to allow elections to go forward in seven months, as scheduled, then Honduras will have resolved its own problems without outside interference.

Obama should instead focus his attention on the threats by Hugo Chavez to invade the country or support an armed insurrection there.

How liberals dismiss racial discrimination

2009-06-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

What in the world is “Hispanic” or “Latino”, anyway?

My wife, who immigrated to this country (legally) from Venezuela and is now a US citizen (and conservative Republican, I’m proud to say), recently ran into an interesting conflict with her “Chicana” boss. This boss took issue with my wife and another Latina teacher, a Chilean working here legally on a visa, because they discovered some problems with the program that was negatively impacting the “Hispanic” children.

When they naively went to their boss, who was the principal who formed the program and so is “married” to the program and is sensitive to criticism, offering suggestions about some changes that could be made to improve the program, she exploded. From that moment on, she began to display a hostility toward them that at times included only lightly veiled attacks on their nationality and immigration status—both of which fall under workplace ethnic discrimination protections.

A number of commentaries by the principal caught our attention for being ethnically discriminatory. But her ultimate act, asking my wife and the other teacher about their immigration status, really alarmed us. The principal had seemed disappointed when informed that my wife was a US citizen. At first, we didn’t understand why she had asked, or why she had been disappointed by the answer. Shortly afterward, we discovered that the principal had called Human Resources to demand that the other teacher—the one working on a visa—be kicked out of the country the day after the school term ended. (She was told that she didn’t have that authority, and that her contract ran through July, so she could not be forced to leave the country).

The situation deteriorated to the point that grievances were filed, the principal punished both teachers with “Non-Renewal with Cause” recommendation to the district, which in turn blacklisted them both. (Come to find out, 11 teachers had left the school the year before out of frustrations built up over time centering on the exact same issues. Two of those teachers were also blacklisted and had to move across the state to find work--both of them were Hispanic...).

The most interesting exchange occurred when we met with another Chicano from within the district, in order to explain our problem. We outlined the commentaries and steps taken by this Chicana principal, and clarified that we felt these two teachers were the victims of discrimination based upon ethnicity and immigration status. His response? “Mrs. Gonzales (not her real name) is a Latina, and you are Latinas, so it’s not possible for her to discriminate against you based on ethnicity!”

My shock was not that anyone could say something so ignorant: it was that a so-called “Hispanic” could harbor such a shallow and clearly fallacious opinion. Let me clarify.

What is “Latino”? What is “Hispanic”? On US documentation, these terms are used interchangeably as an ethnic or racial choice. But this is patently absurd. “Hispanic” comes from a term referring to the Iberian Peninsula, also known as Spain today, and implies that persons belonging to this group share a common language, known popularly as “Spanish” but which is, in reality, Castellano, or a dialect thereof. Mexicans and Chicanos take offense at being called “Hispanic”, because they resent being classified as part of the ethnic group that includes the Spaniards who colonialized Mexico. Likewise, “Latino” is a term implying that the individual is part of a group whose linguistic origins are “Latin Based”—for this reason, Brazilians and even Portuguese can be lumped in with Spaniards, Mexicans, Venezuelans, etc. Ironically, Italians and French are not included in the grouping.

But these definitions are based upon Linguistic, rather than ethnic or racial traits. Latin Americans can be Black, Asian, Native American, or European, racially. So to try to say that everyone who is “Latino” is ethnically homogenous is as absurd as saying that everyone who speaks English is white.

What’s more, anyone who knows anything about Latin Americans knows that, while they constantly deny the existence of racism in their countries, they regularly exhibit behaviors that belie that claim. Mexicans openly despise Guatemalans or Hondurans, who in turn despise each other as well. If you win the trust of Costa Ricans, you may be regaled with stories about how horrible Nicaraguans are. And everyone in Latin America treats Argentines as the “Polack” of every joke. In short, hatred for ethnic groups is often disguised as “nationalism”, but it still is based upon ethnicity.

When I asked him if it would be racism if a Spaniard hated Mexicans, he quickly responded “Yes.” When I asked him if it would be racism if a white Cuban hated black Cubans, he also nodded affirmatively. So when I asked him if a Mexican hated a Venezuelan, would that be racism, he paused, clearly startled by the implication. He didn’t want to answer. “And how about a person of Chicano descent who hates blacks, or Puerto Ricans, or Cubans? Isn’t that racism?”

The point here is that while it is convenient for Latinos to claim that they are not racist, and to deny that they can discriminate against each other, the truth is that it is a regular occurrence.

He tried to wiggle out of the predicament by throwing me a curveball. “But it’s only racism if the person is in a position of power.”

“So if a Latino police officer hates Blacks and abuses his power, is that racism?”
“Of course.”
“And if that police officer was a white Cuban, and abused Mexican immigrants, racism or not?”
After a pause… “Yes.”
“So if it’s a Chicana principal with the power to destroy a career, and abuses her teachers based on their ethnicity?”
No answer.

Does it surprise you to find out that the gentleman in this story is a Democrat Union Representative and a hard core liberal?

And thus we illustrate an undeniable truth: People of color can be racists, abuse their power, and victimize other people—even of their same “ethnicity”. But Liberals will never admit it. And when a Latino is victimized by another Latino, Liberals will simply ignore the racial undertones and allow the abuse to continue.

So much for protection from ethnic discrimination!

A victory for justice and common sense

2009-06-29T10:24:00.000-07:00

Headline: “Supreme Court rules for white firefighters in bias case”

“A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that the city of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters, repudiating a key decision by court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.”

The Supreme Court Decision (read it here) is a victory for the White firefighters, and a resounding defeat for the Liberals whose blind support of Affirmative Action has led them to apply race-based decisions to hiring and promotions.

But I’d like to break open the story just a bit, and provide additional support to the firefighters who passed their exams, met the requirements for promotion, but were discriminated against.
The article states that the reason why the firefighters were not promoted was because "the city rejected the test results because too many white and not enough minorities would be promoted," as mentioned by Justice Kennedy. "Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision-making violates Title VII's command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual's race."

The New Haven officials explained their decision by blaming the exam: there must have been an inherent bias in the test that essentially victimized the Blacks and Hispanics that took the test.

I contend that this explanation does not hold water. The exam result was not an aberration: it is entirely consistent with Connecticut standardized test results in public schools.

Let me provide a disclaimer at this junction: my analysis is not a scientific study. Out of curiosity, I did what the reporters should have done; I pulled up the Connecticut State Education standardized test scores to see if the pass rate on the firefighter’s exam was grossly out of synch with education results, by ethnicity. Due to limitations on time, I could not perform an exhaustive study of all grades over multiple years. But that study should have been performed by Defense attorneys (I don’t know if it was) and by journalists who actually want to dig into stories and provide some substance. Unfortunately, most reporters lack basic curiosity and reasoning skills.

Let’s look at just one result, as a starting place for comparison.

On the Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation for Grade 8: 2008, only 9.4% of Whites scored at or below “basic”. 16.8% scored Proficient, and 73.8% scored “at Goal” or “Advanced”. By comparison, 42.4% of Blacks scored below “proficient”, 29.3% scored proficient, and 28.3% scored “at Goal” or “Advanced”.

It is logical to assume that only the best and brightest of firemen are expected to advance to become Chiefs. Since how they perform their duties, how well they understand the laws, rules, protocols, and procedures will directly impact the safety of their crews and the public they serve, there are lives on the line. So it is also logical to assume that a great deal of the material they must master is not just firefighting methods that can be learned on the job, but also book learning that must be mastered through study. It is therefore not only conceivable, but quite logical, that a firefighter who is exceptional at a fire may not have “the right stuff” to be a chief. The individuals one would want to become a fire chief would belong to the groups that, when students, would have met or excelled at the goal scores.

The Connecticut state scores indicate that Whites excel academically at a rate greater than twice that of Blacks. If you combine “Proficient” with the “Goal and Advanced” categories, the gap narrows slightly, but still only 57.6% of Blacks scored Proficient and above combined, compared to 90.6% of Whites. (80.7% of Hispanics scored Proficient and above combined)

So, New Haven developed a written test to determine the extent of mastery of these subjects, but then balked at the results of the tests. According to the article: “The African American pass rate on the written exam was roughly half that of white applicants. …None of the top 19 scorers in the competition for captain's and lieutenant's positions were African American.”

Why is that a surprise? The test results for African Americans on the firefighter’s exam were wholly consistent with the scores of African Americans on state educational standardized tests.
Justice Kennedy astutely assessed the situation and declared: "There is no evidence that the tests were flawed."

The real failure here is the educational system that, despite decades of influence by the National Education Association, has yet to figure out how to better educate minorities. It is common knowledge that across the country, when minorities fail to meet standardized test expectations, they are “passed on” anyway. Principals regularly pressure teachers to adjust their students’ grades to allow them to graduate and keep the number of failing students at a politically acceptable level.

Sotomayor’s appeals court decision would have allowed the New Haven officials to implement a double standard. They had created a test that would have determined which applicants would have received a promotion based upon their score. But when bureaucrats decided that too many Whites had passed, these same bureaucrats would have gone back, figured out how to rig the test so that more minorities passed, and tried again.

Sotomayor’s intention, is to utilize the courts as a tool for social engineering. Just like the principals who tell their teachers to change their students’ scores, similar race-based decision by activist (possibly even racist) judges would institutionalize discrimination against citizens whose skills make them qualified for positions, but who are nevertheless disenfranchised based solely upon the color of their skin.

Mr. President: Inaction is not a strategy.

2009-06-22T13:40:00.000-07:00

In response to the recent crackdown by the Iranian regimes against millions of protesters in defense of what they perceive was a corrupt and stolen election, President Obama has tended to be remarkably silent. So quiet, in fact, he has been accused by some as “voting Present”.

Obama, in response to growing pressure, has finally made a new statement (from The Belgravia):

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion... Right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

In short, Obama has only committed to “bear witness” to the actions of the Iranian regime. But what consequences are there? The Mullahs must be thinking: “So what?”

Obama recently took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement to Iran that coincided with their new year, known as Noruz. In that statement, Obama made one very important point:
“The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.”

This was just weeks before the Iranian elections that triggered the upheaval. Considering the stunning courage on display by unarmed Iranian citizens who have continued to march while they are gunned down by government snipers, I feel that the “true greatness” of at least one sector of the “Iranian people and civilization” is on clear display. To this, we bear witness, but should we stop there?

While some on the left have stated that the United States should not do or say anything that would be interpreted as “meddling” in the “sovereign” affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, because “the Iranians don’t want our interference” (overheard on radio commentaries), we should also “bear witness” to the fact that the protestors carried innumerable placards written in English—the language in Iran is Farsi, not English. So why would they do that, if they were not sending a message out to the rest of the world, that they are fighting for freedom, and hope for support? On a twitter page I read the comment sent by an Iranian that stated (in English): “Thank you for paying attention to our struggle.”

In a speech Obama made speaking to the Wisconsin Democratic Party Dinner in Milwaukee on the campaign trail, he said:
"Don't tell me words don't matter," Obama said. "'I have a dream.' Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words?

The sentiment behind that speech was that words that bear undeniable truths are somehow more than simple, hollow phrases. They are powerful, capable of changing minds, nations, even the world.

And it is clear that Obama, who has been lauded as one of the great political speakers of our time, has a love affair with words, although he apparently cannot commit them to memory, and must have them displayed for him on a teleprompter.

It may be fruitful to review the words he uttered in Egypt, while promoting himself as the American ambassador to the Muslim world. His intention there was not just to apologize for America (he had done enough of that in Europe and Turkey), but to smooth over the differences—both perceived and real—between the Muslim world and our nation. And he started by reiterating some of the concepts that he believes are universal truths.

“…Recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.”

How right you are, Mr. President. Words alone are useless. We must act boldly. And when he stood upon that dais, it would have been easy to imagine that he would follow up those words with brave acts. After all, he continued: “We must face these tensions squarely.”

Obama had set the stage for bold actions that would support Muslims who sought peaceful progress toward democracy. In citing the case of Israel and Palestine, he urged the Palestinians to seek justice through peaceful means, because “resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.”

I myself have stated the same point, although certainly not as eloquently as Obama, his staff of writers, and his reliable teleprompter were able to do. “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace,” he promised in the same speech.

His message appears to have been especially prescient, foretelling the upcoming electoral clash in Iran. Bear witness to the following two paragraphs of rhetorical brilliance:
“I …have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”

Elections alone do not make true democracy.

I wonder if the Iranians, who are dying by the score in the streets of Tehran, had heard this speech. I wonder if they took heart in these words, so courageously uttered from the safety of a well-guarded dais at a major university in Egypt, and if they wrote their English placards for him.

So what, Mr. Obama? So you went out of your way to tell the world that America is not at war with Islam. So what? And then you travelled around Europe apologizing for what you perceived as the errors of American arrogance, we who dare to “impose our values” upon other nations. So what? And then you, with the unique heritage of Christian and Muslim roots, who saw Islam from the perspective of three different nations, you who recognize that our American values are international, are human rights, and that elections are not legitimate if the will of the people is quashed by coercive means. So what? Are these “just words”?

What the Iranians want from you now, is not just the empty echo of truisms read from a teleprompter; what they want from you now, what the entire world is waiting to see, is how you convert your beautiful prose into meaningful actions.

Rhetoric is the tool of rabble rousers, propagandists and flim flam artists. American Presidents cannot rely upon rhetoric alone. They must lead through action—action that is often unpopular among some quarters, action that angers the tyrants who coerce and oppress their people, action that may have unpredictable outcomes, but actions, nonetheless.

Mr. President: Inaction is not a strategy.

***UPDATE***
Obama has now made new statements...words...
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared the United States and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent, a clear toughening of his rhetoric as Republican critics at home pound him for being too passive.
Obama condemned the "threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. "
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared the United States and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent, a clear toughening of his rhetoric as Republican critics at home pound him for being too passive.
Obama condemned the "threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. "
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House.

"I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran's affairs," Obama said. "But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."

"We have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets," Obama said. "While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."

**SO WHAT? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? WHAT DOES YOUR TELEPROMPTER SUGGEST THAT YOU DO?**

Immigration Lawyers should not be above the law.

2009-06-16T11:41:00.000-07:00

Imagine, for a moment, two scenarios involving lawyers giving legal advice.

In the first, lawyers are contracted by the government to provide legal advice on the limits of interrogation for terrorists who may have important information that could prevent an imminent attack.

The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “The law prohibits the use of interrogation techniques that fall under the definition of torture. Torture, according to our law, is defined as acts of Intent that meet characteristics X, Y, and Z, where the conditions are 1, 2, and 3. In order to use more forceful techniques and yet not violate the laws, you would have to do Alpha through Zed. If you do this, then the techniques your interrogators have requested would NOT violate the law.”

In the second scenario, an illegal immigrant approaches a lawyer and tells him that he entered the country illegally, was caught and given a court date.

The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “You should not appear before the court, because they may arrest you and deport you. Continue to hide.”

The first scenario describes the well-known circumstances surrounding the Bush administration’s lawyers who advised the President about how to adapt interrogation techniques in such a way as to still use some coercive methods while not violating torture laws. As a result, Liberals are in an outrage, and are demanding prosecution of the lawyers who wrote the opinion.(*)

The second scenario is a real incident I found in the June 11th edition of the Spanish-language Viva! Magazine published by the Denver Post, in a section called “Escribe y Pregunta Sobre Migración” (Write and Ask about Immigration), written by immigration attorney Rafael Salgado.

In the advice, a Honduran man claims to have “immigrated” (illegally) to the United States, was caught and given a court date. He sought legal advice, and another immigration attorney instructed him to NOT appear before the court. In brief, an attorney clearly directed the man, who had already violated US laws by sneaking into the country illegally, to flaunt US laws AGAIN by ignoring the court summons.

The man then informed Mr. Salgado that he had married a Puerto Rican citizen (and therefore a US citizen), and had fathered a baby with her. They want to re-open the case, but Mr. Salgado instructs the immigrant to NOT attempt to reopen the case, because “if you knew you had to go to court and didn’t go—upon the advice of a lawyer—and they gave a deportation order, you do not have much possibility of reopening the case. And if you request reopening the case, you will have to tell them where you live, give them your personal information and domicile address, and the risk is high. I advise that you do not do it and way to see if Congress approves a migration reform.”

In this scenario, we have a man who violated the law once of his own volition, again upon the instructions of an immigration attorney, and who is about to continue in violation of the law thanks to the advice of a second attorney.

It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy of the liberals. How is it possible that they promote the prosecution of lawyers who gave advice about how to proceed with interrogations in a manner that would be consistent with the law, but not prosecute lawyers who blatantly advise their clients to violate the laws?

The American Bar Association has published a set of guidelines that states, in Model Rule 1.2(d) holds that, "A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent."

Clearly, these immigration lawyers are violating the Model Rule 1.2(d). And this practice is surely very widespread among immigration lawyers, as this is certainly NOT the first time illegal immigrants have been advised to go to ground and not appear before the court.

In this example, we are confronted with the oft-cited double standard, a set of rules of behavior that are expected of US citizens—especially conservative Presidents and their legal advisors—and another that applies to illegal immigrants and their immigration lawyers.

(*): Additional Information: In the case of Lynn Stewart, the lawyer who represented the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and was convicted (1996) of obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism when she transmitted instructions from the Sheikh to his Egyptian followers to resume attacks, it should be noted that George Soros' Open Society Institute also donated $20,000 to Stewart's legal defense fund in 2002. In 2009, Soros stated that he believed the investigation into the Bush lawyers should be expanded to include Vice President Cheney's involvement.In other words: he defends lawyers who helped terrorists, and wants to prosecute officials that combat it.What team is George Soros on?

“Those who are ignorant of their history…

2009-05-29T10:18:00.000-07:00

…are condemned to repeat it.” No truer words have ever been uttered.

In researching the situation with Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, I came across a little footnote in American history about which I was previously ignorant, and that I found astonishing and alarming. If you do not know the history behind the phrase “The switch in time that saved nine”, you might want to read this article.

It should be obvious to any thinking individual that History does not truly “repeat” itself, not exactly. But like musical phrases from a symphony, certain themes do reappear and build upon themselves. Our current economic crisis, coming at the end of a roaring period of growth in the 1990’s and 2000’s, is reminiscent of what historians now call the “Roaring Twenties”. America at that time was truly entering modernity. Our “manifest destiny” was being realized, our nation was beginning to jell. We no longer had a “Wild West” suffering frequent Indian wars, industrialization was at its peak, we had recovered from the expensive (both socially and economically) disaster of the Civil War, and our participation in World War I had resulted in America sitting as the preeminent and wealthiest nation on Earth. Deep ethnic divisions were festering and would eventually result in the explosive Civil Rights Movement which, gratefully, would be resolved “peacefully” thanks to the wise Christian leadership of Martin Luther King forty years later.

But in the meantime, the bloodiness of WWI mixed with a heady sense of relief, pride, optimism, and a healthy dose of disenchantment: after all, millions had died during the war, and intellectuals began to question the traditional values that had led the world to that “war to end all wars”. The cynicism felt by many found expression in the nihilist art form known as “Dada,” which was “anti-art” (if Art had the intention of appealing to the sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend them. Simultaneously, the relief of the end of the war resulted in an exuberance that created the “Flapper” movement, redefining the woman’s role in society, and openly disdained popular perception of what was “proper” behavior for women. The Jazz Age was born, and it should be noted that at that time Jazz was looked upon with the same disdain that Rap is now: it was hedonistic party music associated with drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, and open sexuality.

So, while Europe was rebuilding after the war, America was prospering, and “experimenting” with new and “progressive” ideals. This hedonistic attitude would eventually spread to Europe and alter their cultures as well.

But it was not all “wine and roses”: the end of the war meant an end to government spending and a deep recession, perhaps even a depression. Unemployment reached 20%. Runaway inflation was destroying the economy. Three consecutive Republican Presidents combated this trend with debt reduction, tax cuts, reduced spending, and a close relationship between government and industry. “Consumerism” was born, and while some benefitted, large portions of the population saw no real increase in their overall wealth. To use today’s Progressive jargon: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Or remained equally poor, to be fair. The normalcy of the economic boom in the 1920s resulted in an explosive growth of government and spending that would eventually come to haunt the country. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover, real per capita federal spending increased by 88%.

The Republican policies worked. For most of the decade, the economy not only recovered, but also began to boom. Overconfidence resulted in a speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The Republicans tried to maintain a government role as “arbiter” and avoid direct intervention.

But when the stock markets crashed, and banks collapsed, the mood in the country understandably shifted, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs (there were actually two) are the historic inspiration for President Obama’s contemporary Reinvestment Act. The first New Deal was aimed at helping the Banks and the railroads, the key industry at that time. He abandoned the gold standard, and enacted “work relief” programs, in which the government would provide jobs to millions of Americans. The second act included labor union support, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid the agricultural sector, particularly tenant farmers and migrant workers.

Take a moment to reflect upon that history, comparing what you know about the period in US history from WWII, through Viet Nam, to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the sweeping reforms he enacted, to the two decades of prosperity of the ‘90s through 2007. An historical theme runs through both periods, to be punctuated poignantly by the current economic collapse and election of President Obama. From exuberance and economic glory, to excess, moral decline, a willingness to redefine the nation's values based upon whimsical fancy, to the heady and uncontrolled expanse of government, while the investors drunkenly and greedily set aside better judgement for a quick profit.

Returning to the New Deal; Roosevelt’s plans ran afoul of the Supreme Court. That court repeatedly shot down Roosevelt’s plans for perceived constitutional violations, because the reach of government was expanding far beyond the limitations to Federal Government powers stated within the constitution.

Infuriated, Roosevelt devised a plan. The US Constitution does not expressly limit the number of justices on the court to nine justices. So Roosevelt created the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, also known popularly as “The Court-Packing Plan.” He would expand the court to 15 judges and appoint six new, liberal judges to swing the court in his favor and allow him control the Supreme Court.

About the time the Court-Packing Plan was about to be enacted, Justice Owen Roberts, who had consistently voted against most of the New Deal provisions, changed his votes and started approving the plans. This is the source of the phrase, “a switch in time saved nine”: by changing his vote, acquiescing to the dominating mood at the time, Roberts avoided a major overhaul of the Supreme Court.

The implications for today’s America are not trivial. The level of disenchantment caused by the economic collapse following on two decades of economic prosperity is deep and radical. The common mantra that “we must act to avoid disaster” has allowed politicians to leverage off the people’s fears, and guide the nation onto an unprecedented path. The Obama administration, enjoying an almost cult-like following, has been given free rein to spend more money in less than 100 days than previous administrations combined. The government has interfered with the contract obligations of investors and given unwarranted ownership to unions in today’s auto-making industry.

But the Obama administrations goals are far grander than this. The Progressives want to force the nation to redefine marriage, remove limits on even the most reprehensible forms of abortion, radically alter the medical industry, and force through “transformational” policies based upon hysterical fears about global catastrophe that would fundamentally alter American society in every respect. They have repeatedly suggested their interest in controlling access to guns, and nominated as a Supreme Court Justice a woman who believes that gun ownership is not a “Fundamental Right”. They want to grant amnesty to tens of millions of people who entered the country illegally and oppose local and state police forces from working with the federal government to enforce immigration policy.

Annoyed that Americans would dare to defy them and instead rally around popular media spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, they float the idea of imposing a “Fairness Doctrine” that would force radio stations to essentially subsidize unpopular beliefs and create “popular commissions” to monitor and report on compliance. And at a time in which our national security is threatened by a cabal of rogue states and radical terrorist organizations, they are gutting the national defense, hamstringing our intelligence organizations, and persecute the previous administration’s officials for the tactics they used to keep us safe.

So, if the wheels continue to come off the cart, what’s to say that the proposals will not become increasingly radical? This administration has already admitted that their philosophy is to use “crisis” as an “opportunity”. As the Obama administration looks back at the radically populist policies of the Roosevelt administration, who is to say that Obama could not “resuscitate” the Court-Packing Plan in order to lock in control over the Supreme Court?

When the effects of Obama’s massive spending results in inflation, when the dollar has collapsed due to their uncontrolled printing of worthless money, as fuel prices rise and the cost of basic necessities such as food, energy, and transportation necessarily rise and result in greater unemployment, hunger, desperation, a natural outcome will be for the administration to use the next crisis as an opportunity to enact even more desperate “temporary” measures.

Everything I’m describing is exactly what happened in Venezuela over the past ten years. Step by step, President Chavez took control of the Congress, then declared a crisis and took control of the court, then expanded the court from nine to thirteen judges. He decreed price controls that forced private industries to deliver “basic goods” at below cost. When they could not do that, he nationalized them, giving them to his friends and supportive interest groups, such as unions. He closed down the largest opposition television network by refusing to renew their “broadcast concession,” and has now threatened the last major free network with the same. He funded community activist groups that performed acts intimidation, as well as electoral fraud. All the while, he maintained popular support by saying that he was doing this in the interests of the poor, the unemployed, the ethnic minority victims of capitalism, even “to save the world” because capitalism is destroying the environment. His next step was to attempt to alter the constitution to give himself perpetual re-election.

So, tell me: is what I described about Chavez, and Roosevelt, all that different from what we know about Obama?