News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs
Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions
Internet
Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles
(2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)
|
|
Why would Soros say that? Because it helps Newt—(Jan. 30, 2012)—Newsmax.com reported on Jan. 29 that billionaire financier George Soros thinks that if Mitt Romney wins the presidency, there will be "little difference" between a Romney presidency and having Barack Obama in the White House for four more years. Since Soros is Obama's handler, what does he gain by making that statement? If it takes votes away from Romney, and gives them to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Soros and Obama win. The people who are backing Gingrich, believing he is the caretaker of the Reagan mantle of conservatism, are being deceived. Gingrich, like Sen. John McCain in 2008, agreed to be the designated loser—run hard enough to win the nomination but not hard enough to win the presidential election. In a taped interview with Reuters, Soros—who needs Obama reelected to win his private war against the free enterprise system—said: "...Either you'll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum...If it's between Obama and Romney, there won't be much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them. Romney," he said, "would have to bring Gingrich or Santorum as vice president, and you would probably have some pretty extreme candidates for the Supreme Court." Then he told Reuters that many hedge fund managers in the United States are backing Romney because Obama wants to raise taxes.
Which, of course is a flat contraction of his previous statement that there "won't be a great difference" between Romney and Obama. You have to ask which side of the great divide Newsmax.com (a Florida company) is on. One imagines that Chris Ruddy is backing Newt because anyone who hasn't poked out their own eyes with a sharp stick can see the political ruse in Soros' statement—he's trying to help the designated loser win the GOP nomination so he can lay down and let Obama win. Like McCain, Gingrich will pick a scapegoat as a running mate. McCain picked first term Alaska governor Sarah Palin and rode her skirttails to defeat as Republican pundits criticized how she spoke, how she dressed and finally, how she spent hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars on fancy clothes that would have been better spent hammering the community organizer. If he somehow snags the nomination, Gingrich will pick either Sen. Santorum, a guy too nice to be US Senator; or, term-limited Texas Gov. Rick Perry who understands how to create jobs but has a terminal speech impediment—he has a bad habit of stepping on his own tongue.
Ann Coulter summed it up best in the headline of her page 16, Jan. 30, 2012 article in Human Events. "Reelect Obama: Vote for Newt!" "To talk with Gingrich supporters," Coulter correctly opined, "is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as the candidate being pushed on them by the "Establishment"—with "Establishment" defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn't support Newt. 'Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that,' Jon Stewart says, 'when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles Newt,' but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging "the Establishment"—because again, "the Establishment" is anyone who opposes Newt. This is the some of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small town pharmacists refer to as "drug seekers" and Ron Paul supporters."
In reality Gingrich, not Romney, is the "Establishment." The establishment is NOT a former one term governor who opted not to throw his hat back in the ring because the Romney who would have been seeking gubernatorial reelection in 2006 was not the Romney who sought, and won it, in 2002. Unlike Gingrich who will pose as whatever chameleon he needed to be to win the vote of whatever group of voters he is talking to, Romney is a man of character who neither lies to himself nor his constituents. Romney, who was pro-choice in 2002 became pro-life after seeing what an aborted baby looked like. By the way, that was the type of experience that made both my wife and me pro-life. Buckets of random baby body parts, hacked to pieces by a butcher with a scalpel is a life-altering imagery you never forget. When Romney says he used to be pro-choice, but had a life-altering change of heart, you should know what he means. I do.
Obama's "Jobs bill" is a State sovereign-immunity killer—(Sept. 25, 2011)—The first thing I learned about Obama's American Jobs Act was that it contained a "severability clause" in it. You know there are bad, unconstitutional things buried in a piece of legislation when you find a clause that says: "If any provision of this Act, or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by the invalidity." That the lawyer way of saying, "This legislation is unconstitutional." That, by the way, was Section 1, Title 3, Part III, Subtitle D, subsection 378.
The shocking provision is in Title 3, Part II, subtitle D, subsection 376. It's what you might call a "congressional zinger." Under Sec. 376 we find the heading: "Federal and State Immunity."
The "zinger" is not even disguised. It begins with:
(a) Abrogation of State Immunity— A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act.
(b) Waiver of State Immunity—
(1) IN GENERAL—
(A) WAIVER— A State's receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under 375(c) of this Act.
(B) DEFINITION— In this paragraph, the term "program or activity" has the meaning given the term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d-4a)
Section 374 of the Jobs Act appears to mandate that people currently and/or chronically unemployed (which, by character, implies impoverished minorities who likely are not be qualified for the jobs for which they apply cannot be arbitrarily excluded from consideration because they are not qualified if they are [a] available for work and [b] are actively searching for work). Employers may not run ads that exclude, by implication, those who are unemployed. Employers, under Obama's jobs act, may not screen, fail to consider, or refuse employment to an individual because he or she is not currently working or does not has a current employment record. The employer or hiring agency must consider the applicant if, in the applicants prior work history, he or she had a similar or related job. If the applicant feels he was denied the right to compete for the available job, he or she can sue in federal court can sue under Sec. 376 of the American Jobs Act.
Where prior civil rights acts excluded small sole proprietor Mom & Pop companies from job discrimination claims, under section 606 (3)(A) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is tied to Sec. 374 of Obama's Jobs Act, an applicant who who is denied the job for which he or she applied, can sue a corporation, a partnership, or the owner of a sole proprietorship.
Obama, who has been steadily losing the support of his base, has actually created a minority jobs bill because the American Jobs Act , tied to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, will prevent small business owners from denying jobs to unqualified people if they claim they are honestly looking for work. Section 376 waives the sovereign immunity of the State and allows disgruntled job seekers who are denied work because they have no experience, to sue for damages because the federal law precluded experience as a qualifying prerequisite for employment. Under the American Jobs Act, the only qualification you need to be hired is a willingness to work.
Obama
assumes judicial right to deport
illegals on a "case-by-case" basis in order
to hold the Hispanic vote in 2012—(Aug.
19, 2011)—House resident Barack Obama,
whose popularity with Hispanics is plummeting like the stock market, bowed
to pressure from social progressive immigration groups and announced he
would halt the deportation of some 300 thousand illegals and proceed,
in the future, on a case-by-case basis. Because he needed the votes of
centrist voters in 2012 before his popularity nose-dived with the economy,
Obama rejected the pleas of Hispanic groups in the past by telling
them that he lacked the "broad categorical authority" needed
to halt the mass deportations of illegals and that he had "...to
follow the laws as Congress had written them." Surprising he
would say that since he has spent three years ignoring not only the laws
as Congress wrote them, but the Constitution as the Founding Fathers wrote
it.
But with his plummeting popularity and a need to find voters—legal or illegal—Obama decided maybe he did possess that broad categorical authority after all. In a letter to Congress on Thursdays, Aug. 18, 2011 Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano advised Congress that Attorney General Eric Holder had advised her that she possessed the discretion to halt deportations and focus on priorities on a case-by-case basis. "This case-by-case approach,' she said, "will enhance public safety. Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority, such as those involving convicted felons." These are the no-brainers, Janet.
You load them on a Hercules C-4 cargo plane and fly them to Puerto William in the Commune of Cabo de Hornos (Cape Horn) at the tip of Chile, the Drake Passage, where sailing masters used to go to circumvent the globe. Since most illegals return to the United States within days or weeks of being deported, we need to give them a longer walk back to the border. And, the knowledge of what happens to them when they get caught, Obama's lack of "broad categorical authority" notwithstanding, will slow the penchant of illegals to leapfrog the border at will. The average temperature at Cape Horn is 41°F. Drop a planeload of illegals off at Puerto William in the summer—January or February—and the temperature could be as high as 57°F. Drop off a planeload of illegals in the winter—July—and your average temperature will be around 29°F without the wind chill since gale force winds are prevalent 30% of the time.
Of course, that's not the solution Napolitano or Obama had in mind. Illegals shivering at Cape Horn, in Chile, don't vote unless, of course, the .Immigration Control Enforcement agency has them fill out absentee ballots before they disembark from the plane. The Obama plan is not about solving the problem of illegal aliens who are consuming what few jobs are left in this country. For Obama, it 's about winning enough votes to remain in the White House on January 20, 2013.
Obama's decision was immediately praised by immigration activists—and Democrats facing tough reelection campaigns in 2012 who need the Hispanic vote. Both legal and illegal. Attorney General Eric Holder decided the Administration had the authority to do whatever he felt compelled to do as long as Congress was deadlocked on the issue.
Congress, however, is not deadlocked on the immigration issue. The party bosses are. Congress wasn't deadlocked in 1952 when the Democratically-controlled Congress enacted the toughest immigration law in US history. In fact, it was so tough they had to enact the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act [Public Law 82-414.66 Stat] over President Harry S. Truman's veto. The Senate in 1952 was evenly divided, 48 Democrats and 48 Republicans. The vote, and overriding Truman's veto, was bipartisan. With 235 Democrats in the House and 48 in the Senate, overriding Truman's veto in both Houses required strong bipartisan cooperation. Thus, it can honestly be said that representative America enacted the solution to the immigration dilemma in 1952, but the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who are determined to create a seamless, faceless global society, had other plans. No president from Truman to Obama has ever enforced the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Public Law 82-414.66 is a duly-enacted law which the Executive Branch has nullified by simply pretending it does not exist.
On May 26, 2011, in a 5 to 3 ruling, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Arizona's immigration law, SB1070. What made it legal, the high court said, was that Arizona's law derived its authority from the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Supreme Court said that "...as long as the State relies upon federal definitions of immigration status, then that State is not in conflict with federal law. That is exactly what SB1070 does." In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that "...while federal law makes the checks voluntary, it does not specifically bar States from making them mandatory."
Obama was correct when he was chasing middle class white votes. He said he lacked the "broad categorical authority" to act on his own. Under Section 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A)[iv][b](iii) law enforcement officers who have reason to believe that suspects they stop for any reason may be illegal, and do not check their legal status, and detain them if they are here illegally, will be guilty of a federal felony. Under Section 274 of Public Law 82:414.66 it is a felony for anyone to assist an illegal. You are guilty of a crime if logic tells you it's reasonable to assume the person you are helping is, or could be, an illegal alien and you do nothing. Employing them, providing them with shelter, transporting them from place to place, feeding them, or assisting them in gaining employment—or even by encouraging an illegal to remain in this country, is a felony. In the case of social progressive cities, counties or States, that create sanctuaries where illegals can live without fear of arrest and deportation, those city, county or State officials who provide those safe havens can—under the 1952 law—be held financially liable for any crimes committed by illegals who has been provided safe haven by the sanctuary city edicts.
What all this means is that Barack Obama does not have the legislative authority to deal with illegals on a case-by-case basis regardless what Eric Holder's non-binding, unofficial view may be. Nor, by the way, does the White House have the power to implement the "Dream Act" by Executive Order since doing so would violate federal law. Any member of the Executive Branch who followed the dictates of the "boss of the Executive Branch" to his employees (i.e., interoffice memo from the President to his staff: a textbook definition of an Executive Order) means that federal employee is actually violating the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. While you might argue that the Executive Order could be construed as a waiver that exempts the federal employee from being prosecuted, it can also be argued that no where in the Constitution of the United States is the Chief Executive exempt from the law of the land.
When Obama made the decision to treat illegals on a "case-by-case" basis, pro-border security and anti-immigration policy advocates blasted the Administration for failing to uphold existing immigration law. Pro-amnesty, pro-Dream Act Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez [D-IL] said the "...announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws.". (Bad laws in the view of Gutierrez are laws that protect our borders and treat illegals as illegals.)
Immigration legislation has been stalled in Congress for years because Republicans favor strict enforcement of existing immigration law—particularly the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, amended in 1987 to provide for temporary agricultural workers who were allowed into the country for planting and harvesting of crops, but whose employers who had to account for each temporary worker, and were required to return them to their native countries at the end of the planting or picking season.
Democrats, on the other hand, believe that anyone who is able to sneak into the country in the dead of night without breaking their legs climbing over a border fence, drowning in the waist deep Rio Grande, or being hit by a fast moving vehicle as they run the gauntlet of the four football field-wide Trans-Texas Corridor, I-35 in Laredo, Texas are entitled to live free on the expense of those who, by birth or legal process, live and work here legally.
As Gutierrez lauded Obama's ploy to ignore existing immigration law while pretending none exists, Congressman Lamar Smith [R-TX], Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said what Obama is trying to do is grant backdoor amnesty to illegals. "The Obama Administration," he said, "should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them. The Obama Administration should not pick and choose which laws to enforce. Administration officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land."
In 2009, shortly after Obama took office, the US Citizenship & Immigration Service prepared a draft memo arguing that Obama had the broad powers through the use of an Executive Order to create a non-legislative version of amnesty. In June of this year, ICE issued new guidelines which, effectively, did just that by expanding its own authority to decline to prosecute illegal aliens who have not committed other crimes, or are gang members, completely contradicting Janet Napolitano's statement that by using the "case-by-case" approach, her department and the DOJ would be able to move more swiftly to adjudicate those cases which involve convicted felons or those who are gang members.
In point of fact, since
the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act exists, Obama cannot
constitutionally issue an Executive Order that would repeal any provisions
of that law since he has no legislative authority to overrule Congress
other than to veto current legislation passed by that body. He can't
repeal existing law. Since the problems this nation faces with illegal
aliens were solved in 1952, its time the people of the United States demand
that the White House, together with all federal, State and local police
angencies enforce that law to its fullest extent. If they don't, its
times to start recalling a whole big bunch of politicians.
Did Clyburn give Obama a 14th Amendment "right?"—(July 28, 2011)—Did former C.A. Brown High School teacher and sitting Congressman James Clyburn [D-SC} provide White House occupant Barack Obama with a constitutional loophole that will allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling without the need to get Congress' approval? Not only does Clyburn and Obama think so, which suggests that neither of them nor the liberal media has apparently ever read the 14th Amendment. It was, after all, only that "slave amendment" that came about at the end of the Civil War. It point of fact, it was not the "slave amendment." The slave amendment was one of the three 13th Amendments. The one that begins: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States..."
The 14th Amendment applies to the States the same rules which apply to the federal government. It is the longest Amendment. It has 5 sections. Section 1 deals with citizenship and the creation of the House of Representatives. Nothing about the President taking control of debt from the House of Representatives. Section 2 deals with the apportionment of representatives in the House, eliminating the 3/5th apportionment found in Article I, Section 2. Nothing about the President taking control of debt from the House of Representatives. Section 3 deals with the creation of the Senate and the role of the Vice President. Nothing here about the President taking control of debt from the House of Representatives, either. Section 4 deals with the validity of the public debt. Ah-hah! Here it is. Or is it? The purpose of Section 4, while discussing the validity of properly authorized public debt—including pensions that Obama is now threatening not to pay—actually deals with debt the Jacobin Republicans were renouncing, That debt financed the South's war against the North.
Clyburn left a big chunk of Section 4 out when he "found" Obama's authority to bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling. Clyburn's "discovery" was a few words with "..." deleting the balance of Section 4. Clyburn's authority stems from what we all recognize as liberal foreplay before the social progressives rape the rest of us. "The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned," when in fact what it says is: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law..." (this means Congress) "...including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrections or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce the Amendment through legislation.
So why have so many people—particularly network media types with adequate research staffs to open up their own pocket copies of the Constitution—accepted this rubbish as fact? Because the leftwing media is in bed with Obama's goal of destroying this nation. Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle who want the debt ceiling crisis to pass without staining them either as someone who voted for raising the debt ceiling, or voting against the debt ceiling being raised want a scapegoat to blame. Clyburn's illusionary debt ceiling right solves the problems of both of them—someone else is to blame. That's why Congressmen and Senators let presidents issue Executive Orders and treat them as though they are binding on Congress and on the American people when constitutionally they are interoffice memos from the boss of the Executive Branch to his employees.
Boehner says NO to Obama debt deal—(July 10, 2011)—House Speaker John Boehner rejected the smoke and mirrors debt ceiling sleight-of-hand chicanery proposed in a White House meeting on July 7. Boehner telephoned Barack Obama on Saturday, a day before a scheduled major White House meeting with the joint Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate.
Obama proposed a cornucopia of ideas that will rub against the grain of conservatives and, if enacted, would likely end the careers of several of the 2010 freshmen members of Congress—and perhaps even Speaker Boehner. The White House believes that while some of the grand gratuities they're asking for to jumpstart the economy again—in particular raising the debt ceiling by a trillion dollars and adding $100 billion per year in new taxes—might be unpopular with the GOP, but thrown in with several concessions demanded by the Republicans (like putting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare cuts on the table) the package might pass the House. If it passes the House, Republicans in the Senate who are traditionally more liberal than House conservatives, will pass it.
The major part of the Obama "concession" to the GOP (who demanded spending cuts equal to three times any new spending) was to put three trillion in spending cuts over the next decade on the table. The only problem with Obama's spending cuts is that much of them aren't spending cuts. Some of the "cuts" are from spending bills that have been proposed by the Left but have not yet been enacted. Some of them are spending measures in bills that were so radical that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] couldn't enact in the 111th Congress when they had a super majority. While they are still considered fresh veggies on the plate of the vegan left, their only value is as a negotiating chit.
While the left insists their deal is the Republicans best chance to roll back spending on social programs, the Republicans expected the Democratic spending cuts were supposed to come from existing programs that are already funded. Instead, it appears that much of the $2.4 trillion in spending cuts are coming from proposed spending measures and not enacted spending measures.
When word leaked from the Obama-Boehner meeting that Obama was putting entitlements on the table, House Minority Leader Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid kicked their opposition to Obama's decision into high gear. Pelosi made it clear that if Obama put Social Security or healthcare on the table, the left would vote against any measure that came up for a vote. Democrats always insist on having their cake and eating it, too—especially when the mainstream media can be counted on to blame their duplicity on the Republicans. After the Pelosi challenge, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor [R-VA] made it clear that "...[i]t just doesn't make sense for Americans to suffer under higher taxes in an economy like this. There is no way the House of Representatives will support a tax increase."
As he rejected the Obama compromise, Boehner said: "Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase."
The
far left jumped on Boehner's statement as their best chance to
blame the GOP for killing Obama's deal. Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-NY],
obfuscated the truth as only a social progressive can, when he said that
Obama "...called the Republican's bluff by offering them
exactly the type of grand bargain they said they wanted, only to have
it rejected...Some on the Republican side would like to confuse the issue
by pretending it was tax hikes on the middle class that they were trying
to prevent, but none were ever on the table."
Schumer, of course, was lying—something most social progressives do with panache. Schumer suggested the GOP was simply "...defending tax breaks for millionaires and other special interest tax loopholes." However, among the new taxes in Obama's proposed trillion dollar tax hike will be the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction on everyone who owns a home and is paying a mortgage. It is, of course, primarily a middle class tax. If Obama manages to get the home mortgage interest deduction eliminated, every middle-income taxpayer will see a bigger tax bite. How much? Let's say you paid $6,554 in mortgage interest in 2008. Without that deduction, your taxes that year would have increased by $983. In 2008, had I not had the mortgage interest deduction, my federal taxes would have increased by $2,964. And, believe me when I say that my annual income is no where near Obama's $250,000 per tax payer threshold. This is the "rich man's" loophole that Obama is determined to close. Closing that "loophole" will generate about $170 billion in new tax revenue without the need to add new tax brackets or lower the income thresholds to increase the taxpayer's tax load.
In an honest 2012 vote, Obama loses—(May 25, 2011)—Since the Election of 2008 was the most corrupt, dishonest election in the history of the United States, it's already obvious there will be nothing different about the election of 2012 except Barack Hussein Obama's need to steal even more than 35 million votes to win this one. And, since there was not so much as a whimper of of outrage from the American people in 2008, I suspect there won't be a whole lot more protest to the theft this time around.
Since Ronald Reagan poised the question: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" that query has become the yardstick by which the success of all presidents' first terms are measured. So let me ask you—Are you better off today than you were four years ago? Let me answer that question. Unless you work for the government—or you are an Obama major donor—you are not.
The conservative pundits
who understand, in honest elections, the answer to the "are you better
off" question frames the vote, also understand that for Obama
to honestly win reelection in 2012, he has to perform several herculean
miracles before Labor Day, Sept.3, 2012. First, he needs to [1]
undo about 5 million home foreclosures and keep any more from happening
between today and Election Day, Tues., Nov. 6, 2012 because if you have
lost your home in the last four years, you definitely are not better off
today than you were on Jan. 20, 2009. Second, Obama needs to
create about 15 million private sector jobs between now and Labor
Day, 2012 and get the unemployment rate under 8%; and [3] Obama
needs to cut our $14.3 trillion debt to less than $7 trillion since
those are the promises he campaigned on in 2007 and 2008 when the Islamo-fascist
community activist promised the masses he would change America. 
That
he did. That is the one promise he kept. Obama has radically changed the
face of the United States. We are no longer the most powerful economic
force in the world. The value of the US dollar is about half of what it
was two years ago. And, the nations of the world that used to view the
United States with respect now view us with contempt. Obama
has become Jimmy Carter.
Carter did not win reelection. He did, however, constitutionally win the White House from Gerald Ford in 1976, Which is more than we can say about Obama's "win" against 2008's designated loser, Sen. John McCain.
In early 2009 attorney Leo
Donofrio brought a Quo Warranto lawsuit against Barack Obama
to attempt to force him to produce his long form birth certificate. A
Quo Warranto lawsuit is used to force the defendent of an action
to explain by what right, or what authority, they act. Donofrio
was asking by authority Obama assumed the power of the presidency,
expecting
to force Obama to produce his birth certificate as proof. Instead,
Obama
arrogantly posted the FEC election results on the White House website.
Only, there was a glaring mistake on the FEC report which they would
"correct" once I pointed it out on Nov. 28, 2009. The report
displayed on the White House website, and the companion report on the
Federal Election Commission website reported that there were 169
million registered voters in the Election of 2008. The
percentage of registered voters who voted: 56.8%. The actual number of
registered voters who voted: 96,992,000. Then came the interesting statistic:
Total number of ballots counted: 132,618,580. The problem? 35,626,580
too many votes. When you deduct the excess votes (which appear to be from
the get-out-the-vote activism of groups like MoveOn.org and A.CO.R.N.)
we find that Obama lost the Election of 2008 by some 22 million
votes. Yet, he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.
The National Voters' Registration Act of 1993 (more commonly known as the Motor Voter Law), which was spearheaded without success by Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward in the 1980s, was rammed through the Democratically-Congress by then House Speaker Tom Foley [D-WA] and Senate majority Leader George Mitchell [D-ME] and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 20, 1993.
The legislation should have been called the National Vote Fraud Act because it virtually eliminated the check and balance system that required identity verification and voter eligibility. Over the last 15 years, as the left needed increasingly more votes to win, they erased the ability of voting precincts to verify voter eligibility by registering voters and allowing them to cast absentee ballots at the same time. The problem with that procedure was, when the voter was found to be ineligible (their name was wrong, or the voter was found to have a criminal tecord, or the address was nonexistent, etc.), the registration was nullified, and removed from the sytem. But the private, sealed vote which was already cast and deposited in a sealed ballot box, couldn't be withdrawn since it was now impossible to tell which vote the ineligible registrant had cast.
The only way to absolutely prevent Obama and his handlers from the pyramid of power from prevailing in the Election of 2012 is to repeal the National Voters' Registration Act of 1993 before the Election of 2012. Since Obama needs that legislation to be the law of the land to keep the keys to the White House, it's not likely he would sign any legislation to repeal it. Nor, for that matter, would such a bill ever make it through the US Senate.
The only way to keep rampant fraud from controlling the outcome of the Election of 2012 if for every State in the Union to enact two laws before February 1, 2012. First, enact laws that require scrupulous verification of the eligibility of candidates for federal office—House and Senate as well as the presidency. Had such a law existed in 2004, Obama would likely have never been elected to the US Senate, and thus he would not have had a springboard to launch his campaign for the White House. Second, requiring all voters to produce a photo identity to verify they are who they claim to be when they come to cast their vote. And third, mandate that all States confirm voter eligibility before newly registred voters are given absentee ballots. If it's too close to election day, the new voter will have to do what the rest of us do—stand in line at the polling place with photo ID and valid voter registration card in hand.
If the States don't act to protect the most sacred act its citizens perform, LaRaza, ACORN (under whatever name they are using then), and MoveOn.org will supply the 40 million non-citizen voters Obama will need in November, 2012 to keep the keys to the White House.
It's official. Fox and Beck, parting...part way—(April 18, 2011)—The rumors about conservative TV and radio talk show guru Glenn Beck being axed by Fox News first flirted with my ear drums around the last week of March. I couldn't confirm the story and did not post it—particularly since Beck was still on the air, hammering Obama mentor and campaign supporter George Soros. Soros was reported to be the person behind the loss of several lucrative Fox advertisers.
While the Glenn Beck Show will end with Beck's expiring contract, according to reports, he's still on the payroll—like former evening news anchor Britt Hume. Which suggests that while Fox could not control Beck, he's still a valuable member of the Fox family. The buzz has it that Beck will continue to appear on Fox as guests on other Fox shows; and that he will also produce—and appear on—programming that appeals to Fox's core conservative audience which loves Beck.
While the leftwing media insists he was fired for his scurrilous attacks on people like George Soros, Beck insiders put a slightly different spin on the breakup. Beck's contract with Fox expires later this year. If Beck had wanted to keep his daily show on Fox, friend and co-author of Beck's 2008 best seller, "The Christmas Sweater" Jason Wright, observed that Beck would have simply signed a new contract "...and continued clubbing the competition." The word on the street is that Beck and his production team at Mercury Radio Arts have been planning the next phase of Beck's career when his Fox contract ran out and he became, essentially, a "free agent."
Beck's 5 p.m. rating nose-dived in the last year not because, as Beck supporters claim, the Obamacare debate is over, and a portion of the audience that was interested in that topic stopped watching, but rather I suspect most stopped watching because Beck's rides his stories right into the grave. I know. I'm one of them. But it's important to understand that even though Beck's audience slipped, 2 million faithfuls tune in every evening at 5 pm, expecting Beck to drum Soros or take on the Muslim Brotherhood; or reveal the latest truth about Obama and ACORN or Obama and SEIU or Obama and the social progressives who are behind the surrender of our legal system to Shari'a law. But, when you are counting Beck out remember this—his 5 p.m. audience is largely east coast since his west coast viewers just got back from lunch and are still busy working—or, at least, they re in their work place since it is only 2 pm in LA when it's 5 p.m. in the Big Apple.
My personal choice to
fill Beck's time slot? Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Gold hits new high...silver breaks $40—(April 12, 2011)—You don't need the gold and silver barometers to know the economy of the United States and Europe are in trouble when you see socialist financier George Soros holding his own Bretton Woods Conference and his own attempt to convince the world powers to dump "Obamabucks" as the world's reserve currency and replace it with a basket of currencies of his choosing. Those who watch the financial markets—both domestic and transnationally—are reaching the same conclusion. Its time to cut spending. It's time to cut government. And most of all, it's time to get government out of the private sector and, more important, it's time the private sector out of government. (What that means is making political campaign contributions illegal by criminalizing the practice.)
Those who earn their living in the financial markets have long looked at the bellwether factors which have long predicted the market moves that precipitated the financial tsunamis which sweep away the stock portfolios and IRAs of those who live in "la-la-land" and believe the good times rhetoric of the script readers of TV News. The uncertainty in the financial markets is not about whether the news is good or bad, but only "how bad is it?" We don't seem to know anymore only because we are no longer watching the precious metals bellwether as a bellwether. Instead, we are looking at it as an investment commodity like grain, oil, beef-on-the-hoof, or textiles and the warning signs that tell us the economy is going belly-up are seen only as "buy" and "sell' signals because the money barons on Wall & Broad Street in New York have convinced us there cannot be another "1929 Stock Market Crash" because we have weathered several market "corrections" in the last few years that dwarfed 1929, and the Market recovered in a few days and continued to flourish.
If we were watching the sudden downward spirals of the market and comparing them with the bellwether spikes in precious metals that are being blamed on geopolitical tension and not the inherent weaknesses of the financial markets themselves, we would be doing what the rich guys are doing—diverting a large portion of our personal investment portfolios (our 401Ks and Retirement IRAs into gold and silver. If you recall when the junk bond industry crashed, the biggest victims were working class investors who were still buying as the big money investors were quietly trading their stock portfolios into gold and silver. And, when the subprime and traditional mortgage investment business collapsed, it was working class stiffs who discovered they could not retire when their 401Ks were decimated.
If
you are watching the bellwethers, they are talking to you right now. They
are telling you to buy gold and silver. On Friday, April 8, gold reached
a new high—$1,474.19 an ounce. Today it is at $1,463.00, but it is
expected to break the gold sound barrier before the end of this month—the
magic, elusive $1,500.00 per ounce rate. Silver broke the elusive $40.00
per troy ounce marker and, today, is sitting at $40.65 an ounce. What
makes this most interesting is that, with past flurries, there was a limited
inventory of gold and silver for consumers to buy. Which
means consumers were buying at the same time as the professional investors.
Now both the gold and silver markets have a surplus supply. The demand
for silver is strong, fueled by investors rather than industrial use,
which suggests the mom and pop investors who are apprehensively preparing
for a currency collapse are buying with a degree of trepidation because
of the cost as they hesitatingly invest with retiremenet nest egg money,
worried that the price of gold and silver will buckle after they buy,
leaving them with a negative investment and no money in their pocket and
none in their 401Ks. And once again, the rich guy walks off with the working
class stiff's money, widening the gap between the haves and the have nots.
I personally suspect those days are probably now gone. Fed watchers recognize that the latest round of quantitative easing in the money markets is about to end. The stagnating American economy will continue to flounder due to the overbuilt housing market and persistent unemployment (due to the exportation of America's industrial strength to the third world where tomorrow's consumers live), the dollar will continue to weaken and, with a lack of employed people in the work force, higher taxes are more likely than tax cuts to stimulate what economy we have left. That will be followed by the next round of socialist Rooseveltian missteps as dangerously-improverished taxpayers demand relief and a new round of Monopoly money stimulus programs are quickly debated and swiftly enacted by Congress. Regardless who ends up with the money, hyperinflation will no longer be a theoretical discussion. It will be the world's worst nightmare and $500 thousand per troy ounce silver and million dollar per ounce gold will be the reality. So, by the way, will gold and, very likely, silver, seizures. (To understand how seizures happen, and how much the government is required to pay for seized gold and silver coins, please refer to Survival Savings Plan and the planned redistribution of wealth. It is worth the read.)
US Senate holds hearing on Muslim rights—(March 24, 2011)—The House Committee on Homeland Security, chaired by Rep. Peter King [R-NY] held the first of what he said would be several hearings on the radicalization of Muslim Americans on Thursday, March 10. On March 7, King was criticized by the Left and accused of being Islamophobic, and unfairly targeting an entire religious community. King responded on Fox & Friends that his goal in holding the hearings was to "...show the extent of radicalization within the Muslim community; how dangerous that is, how serious that is, and also how it happens and whether or not the Muslim community responds to that. And whether or not the cooperate with law enforcement ." King went to say the witnesses he planned to call would show that this is a real threat, a growing threat, and he added, "It's not just me saying this, it's the Attorney General Eric Holder who says he can't sleep at night because of the growing amount of radicalization among young Muslim American men. Janet Napolitano says its threat level is as high as its been since September 11." King ended by saying that was the reason he was going ahead with the hearings.
On Sunday, March 6, a protest rally was launched in Times Square to denounce King and his hearings for singling out Muslims—they said—instead of extremists. The orchestraters of the rally were Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (one of the World Trade Center Mosque promoters) and Hip-Hopster Russell Simmons. The group protesting King's hearing was the Committee on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] and, in his Fox News interview, King said, "The media constantly quotes CAIR as though they were the Knights of Columbus, B'Nai Brith, or the Masons, but the fact is CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist funding case."
When
King's hearings were announced, the Obama Administration
jumped into the media spotlight in an attempt to [a] show they
did not support King's hearings, and [b] that they believed that
while King was planning to demonize Muslims, the Administration
planned to continue defending them. On Sunday, March 6, Deputy National
Security Director Denis McDonough spoke at a mosque in Virginia,
saying "...we must resolve that in our determination to protect
the nation we will not stigmatize or demonize an entire community because
of the actions of a few. And in the United States of America we don't
practice guilt by association. And, let's remember that just as violence
and extremism are not unique to any one faith, the responsibility to oppose
ignorance and violence rests with each of us."
Because the media construed the King hearings to be politically incorrect, the mainstream TV news largely chose to ignore them. The Washington Times, not the Washington Post, took the lead in reporting on the hearing
To counter King's Homeland Security hearings, the Democratic majority in the US Senate announced on Tuesday, March 22 that they would hold hearings to examine the civil rights of Muslims and, one imagines, whether or not Congressman King is trampling them with his politically-incorrect hearings. Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin [D-IL] announced that when Congress returns from its 10-day vacation—which ironically began the day before Barack Obama committed American military forces to an undeclared state of war with Libya with the advise and consent of Congress.
In a press release on Friday, March 18, Sen. Durbin said: "Our Constitution protects the free enterprise of religion for all Americans. During the course of our history, many religions have faced intolerance. It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights."
Durbin's hearings will be the first ever held under the Senate Judiciary Committee's new subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights which the Democratic majority created this year. (Sounds like a United Nations committee.) I wonder if that means the Democrats are finally going to read the Constitution?
It should be noted that the Washington Times recently reported that, in 2009 (the last FBI statistics available), anti-Islamic "hate crimes" accounted for 9.3% of the 1,376 religiously-motivated crimes—far less than the 70.1% that were anti-Jewish.
Walker issues ultimatum...Democrats snub him—(March 2, 2011)—On Feb. 28, Wisconsin's Republican governor, Scott Walker, issued an ultimatum to the 14 Democratic State Senators who are still hiding out in Illinois to keep from having to vote on the State budget which includes a provision that will gut collective bargaining rights in the State. "Failure to return to work and cast their votes," Walker said in his well-phrased ultimatum, "will lead to more painful and aggressive spending cuts in the very new future. This is the Senate Democrats; 24-hour notice." On March 2, Walker released his new budget that will cut $1.5 billion from the school and state government budgets. The budget cuts 1,200 State jobs. According to Walker, "...this is a reform budget. It is about getting Wisconsin working again. To make that happen, we need a balanced budget that works—and an environment where the private sector can create 250 thousand jobs over the next four years." As Walker addressed the Assembly, union protestors heckled him by screaming, banging on drums and blowing horns.
With the Wisconsin political stand-off entering it's 13th day, Walker believed—or rather, hoped—that the truant Senate Democrats would return to the State in time to vote on the restructuring of the State's $165 million debt payment that is due on May 1, 2011. They did not.
To meet that obligation, the State's budget-overhaul bill needed to be enacted no later than Feb. 25 since, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, because the issuing of new bonds takes at least two weeks. And, to meet all other deadlines, the restructuring needed to be complete by the March 16 deadline. Restructuring that debt would have added $42 million in interest payments to the current debt load over the next decade. It is unclear now how the State solves that problem.
The
14 Democratic State Senators fled the State on Feb. 17, refusing to return
to Madison until the Republican majority stripped the collective bargaining
provision from the bill. With Walker promising to arrest any of
the truant State Senators if they returned to Wisconsin, the Republican
leader of the State Senate, Scott Fitzgerald, revealed on Tuesday,
March 1, that he met secretly with a couple of the 14 missing State lawmakers
in Racine for a two hour meeting. Minority Leader Sen. Mark Miller
was not among the attendees. Sen. Fred Risser acknowledged the meeting
to the Racine Journal Times, noting that he was not there, but
he understand that "a couple" of Democrats showed up. What appears
to have brought them out of hiding under a flag of truce was Walker's
announced deep cuts in funds to schools and local governments to the tune
of about $1 billion. In the past, the Democratically-controlled Wisconsin
legislature simply pushed the problem off on some future State legislature
by borrowing more money and paying millions of dollars in interest to
avoid dealing with the unpopular issues that created the problem Wisconsin
now faces
Walker's budget reconciliation, according to the Huffington Post, will reduce the money available to Wisconsin's 424 school districts by about 7%—about $600 million—and will trigger pink slips. Even before the Walker's cuts were rolled out, the Darien-Delavan School District (where Walker's alma mater, Delavan Darien High School is located) issued pink skips to 41 teachers on Feb. 24. (Under Wisconsin law, the deadline for school districts to provide final notices of non-renewal of teachers' contracts is March 15. The terminations can be rescinded after that date, but no new terminations for the 2011-2012 school year can be made after March 15.)
In Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor Angel Traveras sent termination notices to every teacher in the public school system on Feb. 24, creating a wave of anxiety in the nearly 2,000 teachers who were technically "fired." The teachers will continue to work throughout the school year. Those whose firings are not rescinded will have no job in September. Union officials accused Traveras of "anti-union maneuvering. In a standing room only city council meeting on Thursday, Feb. 24, the city's school committee voted 4 to 3 to back the Mayor's decision to send out the termination notices.
The pink slip tsunami is spreading across the country. The Elk Grove United School District in Elk Grove, California will pass out 970 pink slips to teachers, counselors, librarians and other school staff despite a triple-digit protest turnout at the Feb. 21, 2011 school board meeting. Again, as in Providence, the school district has to send non-renewal notices out by March 15 or forego terminations for the next school years. So, like Providence, Elk Grove terminated everyone. San Francisco did the same. Only, in their case, the School Board selectively picked slightly over 400 school employees. Again, with the March 15 filing deadline, none of the teachers and/or staff who received the non-renewal notices will actually know the fate of their jobs for months.
Washington Getting in the Way of Jobs—(Feb. 8, 2011)—It is refreshing when an honest man speaks in Washington. It's so rare, in fact, that the media more often than not ignores what he says because his words seldom sell newspapers. Too bad. But then, in the nation's capital, lies always sell better than the truth. Take Congressman Jim Jordan's [R-OH] Republican Study Committee press release this morning. I didn't hear ABC, CBS, or NBC mention what he said about government spending and job growth. But then, since it tears at the root of the trite myth that government spending creates jobs, I can see why. What I don't understand is why FOX News didn't quote him.
Since they didn't, let me—since I agree with what he said. "If massive government spending truly solved the problem of unemployment," he said, "our economy would be booming. But, nearly two years after...Obama signed his massive stimulus package into law, millions of Americans are still struggling to find work. More spending," he added, "isn't the answer; it's actually part of the problem. Massive deficit (three straight years of $1.3 trillion or more) erode confidence in the private sector and create expectations of higher taxes down the road. Between reckless spending and regulations that cost many small businesses an average of $10,585.00 per employee every year, Washington is quite simply getting in the way of economic growth."
Since Jan. 5 the empowered House GOP has been trying to push the disenfranchised Democrats out of the way so they can start reversing decisions made by the Obama fiat dictatorship enforced by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV]. The first thing they did—with four Democratic crossover votes—was repeal Obamacare in the House. (The Senate voted along party lines to defeat the measure—47 Republicans votes to repeal it and 51 Democrats (Joe Lieberman [I-CT] and Mark Warner [D-VA] abstaining voted to uphold it.)
Next, the House is taking
a hard look at the impact that federal regulations have on the creation
and sustainability of jobs in our troubled economy. All of this is well
and good. Eliminating the expensive red tape that kills jobs. Good. Voting
to cut Congress' budget and freeze spending. Very good. Taking
the first leg of the journey to repeal Obamcare. Excellent. But somewhere
in that good stuff the devil in me was hoping there would be just a little
impish political revenge. Nothing really mean-spirited—just a fitting
gotcha! Whatever the GOP does or does not do with its newfound power,
do not—I repeat—do not force Democrats to wait until
the regular sessions are over and have to speak their objections to Republican
legislative ideas to an empty chamber with the C-Span cameras rolling.
Nothing makes a worthless politician appear to be worth something more
than massive TV exposure.
Since 2007 the House Democrats, who did not need a single Republican vote to enact any piece of legislation they wanted, saw no need for Democrats to have to listen to Republicans bellyache about legislation they could not affect, blocked Republicans from being recognized by the chair during the regular session, and forced them to enter their comments in the Congressional Record after the sessions ended.
In 1980 an upcoming political upstart named Newt Gingrich—and his followers, a group of Republican insurgents known as the Conservative Opportunity Society—quickly learned how to use the Democratic weapon against them. Speaking to an empty chamber (but with the C-Span video tape rolling), Gingrich and the Young Turks would promote their positions on a variety of issues, building their own ID brands with the voters. Smart. Particularly since Gingrich parlayed his new identity to the Speakership. In 1984, then House Speaker Thomas "Tip O'Neill figured out the game plan of the Young Turks. To make them look inept, O'Neill ordered the cable TV cameras to continually pan the House Chamber to show the audience that Gingrich and/or any of the Young Turks was speaking to an empty House chamber
So when Pelosi became Speaker in 2007, she unwisely ignored the benefit of allowing Republicans to rant to a TV camera that generated miles of YouTube footage, and made Republicans deliver their rebuttals to that same empty House chamber. By this time, the Republicans didn't bother to pretend there was anyone listening in the chamber. They were all talking to a C=Span audience and, more important, the YouTube audience. If Speaker of the House John Boehner [R-OH] is as smart as I think he is, he won't give the loyal opposition a crack at the YouTube audience—even though, I suspect the only place they would be aired will be the Huffington Post or as audio clips on Air America.
GOP unveils Spending Reduction Act—(Jan. 29, 2011)—House Republicans, keeping their pledge to repeal all remaining unspent stimulus dollars and to reduce all non-military spending by the 112th Congress, introduced the Spending Reduction Act of 2011. The Spending Reduction Act will roll non-security discretionary spending back to 2008 levels (pre-Obama) and non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 levels (pre-Pelosi). The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 calls for a decade-long "hard" spending freeze through 2021. (Which is why, during his State of the Union address on Jan. 25, Barack Hussein Obama mentioned a self-imposed "soft" spending freeze of an indeterminate time frame that sounds good to voters who stupidly believe that the ultra-far left social progressive who occupies the Oval Office actually moved to the center). Obama needed to short-circuit the GOP spending freeze timeline. What better way to do that than to beat the Republicans to the punch and publicly mandate one so he can claim credit for their's if they somehow get anything that resembles their bill out of GOP Black Hole in the US Senate?
Third term Congressman Jim
Jordan [R-OH], the new head of the Republican Study Committee,
noted the national debt is now sitting at over $14 trillion and H.R. 408,
the Spending Reduction Act of 2011 is a $2.5 trillion head start
in the race to reduce that debtload on the next ten generations of Americans.
Jordan noted that if Congress does not act now to curb spending,
the national debt by itself will spark a new financial crisis. "In
my time in public life," Jordan said, "I have
never seen the American people more receptive, more ready for the tough-love
measures that need to be taken to help this country. The
American people get it," Jordan observed. "The
real challenge for elected officials in this Congress, at this point in
history, is to live up to the standard the American people have displayed
over the last year and a half."
Since Barack Obama traded his US Senate seat for the pomp and prestige of an overstuffed leather swivel chair in the Oval Office, he has added $5.4 trillion to the national debt. To put that in perspective, it took the US government from 1789 to 2007 for the national debt to climb to $8.6 trillion. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending trifecta added $5.4 trillion to the debt—something that should have taken about a hundred years with a reasonably responsible Congress. And the social progressive trifecta did it in four short years. Given free rein to empty your pockets and spend your great grandchildren's legacy, and if the taxpayer drain continues at its current rate, the national debt will stand at $16.5 trillion when a President is inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2013. Should the Democrats steal back the House of Representatives and the retain the White House, the national debt would stand at $22.5 trillion on Jan. 20, 2017. And, this is not taking Obamacare into consideration. Obamacare will add another $250 to $400 billion per year to the debt. Social Progressive spending is unsustainable. Period. Anyway you look at it, that means raising the debt ceiling at least twice before the social progressive nightmare finally ends in 2017, or until the American people get tired of being financially raped and fire the rapists in 2012.
Congressman Scott Garrett [R-NJ], who along with Jordan and Sen. Jim Demint [R-SC] who proffered the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, noted that the legislation would "...accomplish what the American public wants us to do, and that is reduce spending. Principally, we hit on three—about three or four—different points. The three major ones are mandatory spending, emergency spending, but primarily, it's in the area of discretionary spending.."
The bill, when and if it becomes law, will return spending to its 2006 levels (pre-Pelosi) with the spending regression kicking in on January 1, 2012. Spending would remain frozen for ten years. At that time the law would begin to shrink the size and cost of the civilian work force of the US Government not through layoffs, but through attrition. As federal employees quit, retire or die, their jobs will simply no longer exist. It is the most painless way to downsize the federal government—with the Service Employees International Union [SEIU] and the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO being the only losers.
Which, of course, makes
it a win-win for everyone else since currently, federal employees
illegally spend some 2.9 million official work hours—on the clock—engaged
in some forms of union activities at a cost to the taxpayers of approximately
$120 million per year. While
most people don't think of it in this light, SEIU and AFGE are running
private businesses inside the US government on our dime. As America prepares
to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Ronald Wilson Reagan's birth
on Feb. 6, 2011, the 40th President of the United States, who fired America's
air traffic controllers when 13,000 striking Professional Air Traffic
Controllers Organization [PATCO] members walked off the job on Aug.
3, 1981. When Reagan ordered them back to work, only 1,300 did
so. Reagan gave the striking air traffic controllers 48-hours to
return to work. Those who did not were fired.
PATCO was decertified on Oct. 22, 1981. Both SEIU and AFGE need to be decertified as well. There could be no more fitting tribute to Ronald Reagan than to celebrate his 100th Anniversary by restoring a semblance of sanity to Pennsylvania Avenue by decertifying both SEIU and AFGE because goverment employees work for the taxpayers of the United States—or better stated, for 138,950,000 "mom and pop" home-based employers who are exempt from unionization.
Senate convicts federal judge—(Dec. 9, 2010)—On Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2010 the US Senate removed US District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous from his seat on the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The House of Representatives unanimously impeached him on March 11, 2010. The impeachment trial in the Senate commenced on March 17. Porteous, a Bill Clinton appointee, is barred from holding any office or honor, or to profit from any government position
Porteous was the Special
Counsel to the Louisiana State Attorney General from 1971 to 1973, and
Chief of the Felony Complaint Division of the Jefferson Parish District
Attorney's office from 1973 to 1975. He was in private practice from 1975
to 1984. From 1982 to 1984 he also served as City Attorney of Harahan,
Louisiana. 
Porteous
served as a judge in the 24th Judicial District Court of Louisiana from
1984 to 1994. Clinton appointed him to the federal bench on Aug.
25, 1994. Porteous was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 7, 1994.
Porteous was a controversial judge almost from his appointment. In a landmark 1999 decision, Porteous overturned a Louisiana law that banned late term dilation and extraction abortions (in which live fetuses or fetuses burned to death in a saline solution are then hacked to pieces and extracted from the mother piecemeal). In 2002, in a direct assault on the President George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative in which taxpayer dollars were given to Christian-based soup kitchens and other church-linked community outreach programs, Porteous ruled that when federal money was used to promote a sex-abstinence program they are promoting a religion. Porteous ordered the State of Louisiana to stop giving tax dollars to individuals or organizations that convey religious messages or otherwise advantage Christianity with tax dollars. Also in 2002, Porteous overturned a drug paraphernalia law that outlawed the easy-access sale of things like glowsticks, dust masks and pacifiers that were commonly used to ingest such recreational drugs as Ecstasy.
His financial troubles and questionable ethics questions began to surface in 2001 when Porteous filed for bankruptcy—under a phony name. Porteous' problems, however, stemmed from a decades old drinking and gambling problem that were concealed by the then State court judge during his Senate confirmation hearings. Among the charges leveled against him was that of lying to Congress during his appointment hearing. Because of an extravagant lifestyle that he could not afford on a judge's salary, Porteous purportedly began accepting cash and other favors from attorneys and bail bondsmen before his court. It was also alleged that he accepted cash, or gambling debt cancellations from those who profited from his vices.
The Judicial Conference that brought the charges against Porteous presented their affidavit which alleged there was substantial evidence that Porteous "...repeatedly committed perjury by signing false disclosures under oath, thus concealing 'cash and things of value' that he solicited or received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him. In one specific case," the report stated, "he denied a motion to recuse himself from a case based on his relationship with lawyers in the case...and failed to disclose that the lawyers in question often provided him with cash. Thereafter, while a bench verdict was pending, he solicited and received from the lawyers appearing before him, illegal gratuities in the form of cash and other things of value, thus depriving the public of its right to his honest services."
As they impeached him, House prosecutors said that evidence showed a decades-long pattern of corruption. They advised the Senate that leaving Judge Porteous on the bench would erode public confidence in the courts, and make a mockery of the federal judiciary. After nine months of deliberation, the Senate met in closed session for more than two hours on Tuesday, Dec. 7 and deliberated Porteous' fate. In the end, the far-left controlled Senate made its decision to expel one of their own. In a solemn, ceremonial vote on Wednesday, one by one, every Senator rose to his feet at their desks and voted "guilty" or "not guilty."
US
District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous was the first judge removed
from the bench since 1989 when two federal judges—US District Court
Judge Walter Nixon of Mississippi and US District Court Judge
Alcee Hastings (now Congressman Alcee Hastings [D-FL]) were
removed from the bench. Nixon was impeached for perjury when he
lied about his role in the drug prosecution of Drew Fairchild,
the son of a business partner of Nixon's, Wiley Fairchild.
(While the Fairchild case was being held in a State court, Wiley
Fairchild asked Nixon to speak to the prosecutor of that case
about his son. Nixon did. The prosecutor dropped the case. Nixon
was appointed to the federal bench by Lyndon Johnson.)
Hastings, on the other hand, was removed from the bench for accepting a $150 thousand bribe to hand out a lenient sentence to Frank and Thomas Romano who were charged with 21 counts of racketeering. (Hastings was appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter.) The State of Florida, which seemed to object to crooked judges, apparently like crooked politicians. The logic is based, I guess, on the adage that a crooked judge steals for a himself and a crooked politician steals for his constituents. And, Lord knows, Democrats do like experienced thieves representing them in Congress. But, there is apparently one life lesson the people of Florida, and elsewhere where voters allow crooked politicians to stay in office, have forgotten. A politician who will steal FOR you will just as quickly steal FROM you.
Federal
Judge rules against Thomas More
Law Center's anti-Obamacare lawsuit—(Oct.
10, 2010)—On Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010 a federal judge in Detroit ruled
against a lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor
on behalf of four individuals who do not have private health insurance
and object to being forced to buy it from the federal government. The
Thomas More Law Center argued in their filing that the federal
government does not possess the constitutional authority to impose legilslative
edicts under the Commerce Clause. In point of fact, there is no "Commerce
Clause." It does not exist. It never did. Do you have a pocket copy
of the Constitution? If you do, now is a good time to read it. Begin with
Article I. Read it. Find a clause delegating authority to anyone that
says the central government has "implied powers "to regulate
commerce." Now, don't cheat by checking out the views of the left
on where they think this power is.
The text that constitutionally divvies up the power in the central government is found only in Articles I, II, and III. No where else. Particularly not in the preamble, which contains neither enumerated or implied anything. The preamble is nothing more than a nonspecific statement of purpose. Federalist Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers, was among those who wanted to create a strong central government with the authority to control its creator—the States. Hamilton convinced his colleagues that the Constitution needed a preamble to explain to the world its purpose. Hamilton hoped (and reasonably expected) that future generations of US politicians would convert the introductive preamble into an implied rights it does not possess since the authority of the federal government was too limited for it to assume authority over the States.
Article
I, sections 1 through 10 delegates responsibilities and authority to Congress.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to grant itself power
not given to it by the Constitution. Its powers are enumerated. Article
II, sections 1 through 4 delegates the only authority to the Executive
Branch possesses. In fact, the 10th Amendment specifically denies it the
right to add to its authority. As you read Article II you will see how
limited the power of the Presidency is constitutionally.
The
Executive Branch does not have the constitutional authority to grant itself
power. Authority not specifically enumerated to Congress and to the Executive
Branch is specifically denied them. In
other words, those powers belong exclusively to the States—and to
the People. Period. The Constitution is not an evolving document that
social progressives can "update" to fit their totalitarian wishlist.
Any federal judge that
does not know that, needs to be impeached and removed from the bench.
On Oct. 7 US District Court Judge George Caram Steeh for the Eastern
District of Michigan rejected the attempts by the Thomas More Law Center
of Ann Arbor to kill key provisions of Barack Obama's socialized
medicine scheme by upholding a provision in the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which mandates that everyone to have
health insurance—or be fined the approximate cost of coverage. 
The
Thomas More Law Center attempted to undo that specific mandate
(which shows conclusively that Obama is not interesting in protecting
people, only robbing what little wealth they have left). Steeh
dismissed their action by ruling that the mandate to get insurance by
2014 was legal, and the financial penalty that would be assessed by the
government (a new form of illegal taxation that violates the Constitution
by singling out one segment of the public and levying a special, punitive
tax against them) was also constitutional. Steeh should have known
better than that. Since he doesn't, he does not belong on the bench.
Congress needs to impeach him and remove him from office.
Judge Steeh, if you recall (SHORT TAKES, July 29, 2010) the former president of the Arab-American Bar Association, dismissed a lawsuit filed by a African-American Christian grad student, Julea Ward, against Eastern Michigan University [EMU] for discriminating against her because, acting as a student counselor, she refused to affirm that homosexual behavior was normal. Ward asked her faculty supervisor if she could refer a homosexual client to another counselor because of her religious views. She was told she would have to undergo a "remedial reeducation program" in order to remain at EMU. When she declined, she was told that because her conduct violated the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics, they were justified in expelling her from the program. In Steeh's view, Christians who express explicit Christian views and tenets under a host of different scenarios can be discriminated against. Judges who do not understand the Bill of Rights, or feel they have the authority to abridge the Constitution with a judicial eraser, need to be impeached and removed from office.
In his ruling in the Thomas More action, Judge Steeh said: "Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times. As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it. In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums." Steeh concluded his argument by saying, "Without a minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times...This would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums." The Washington Post reported that federal workers will be getting between an 8.9% and 10.5% premium hike next year.
While Steeh's views
in contemplating his decision in the Thomas More case might have
been true on their face, and imperative for the Obama Administration
to force all people into the social progressive healthcare system, the
Administration's "legal" argument before Judge Steeh
was not a legal argument at all. It was the reiteration of a social progressive
mandate based not on constitutional health "needs" but political
control "needs." Steeh should have known the difference.
That's
what Article III of the Constitution says judges are supposed to do. Adjudicate
cases of law and equity based exclusively on the precepts of the Constitution,
not political correctness. In doing so, Steeh's job was to protect
the Constitution, not Obama's agenda. Interestingly, cases like
this one in which the United States or a State is involved in an action
with a State or several States—or individuals—the US Supreme
Court is supposed to be the court of original jurisdiction (Article III,
Section 2, paragraph 2). In all other matters the Supreme Court has appellate
jurisdiction (ibid).
Twenty States and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have sued the Obama Administration over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, arguing that the law is unconstitutional, and that it will force States to absorb higher, not lower, Medicaid costs. The problem is that those cases are all being adjudicated by one federal judge in Florida who does not have jurisdiction over most of the States which filed. This is a case where the federal government, which has a vested interest in making all of these casees go away, has joined them together and placed them under the jurisdiction of US District Court Judge David Rivkin of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida where Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed his suit. Rivkin was appointed by Ronald Reagan. But, the States who joined McCollum erred. Their citizens would have fared better if they had filed their suits within their own jurisdictions rather than 21 plaintiffs pinning their hopes on one judge in Florida. Adding more plaintiffs does not make the case stronger. It makes it easier for the Obama Administration to deal with them at one turkey shoot. Judge Rivkin is expected to determine by Oct. 14 if he will allow the case, or parts of it, to go to trial. The State of Virginia filed a separate action in federal court in Richmond.
In the Thomas More case, lead attorney Robert Muise said the Christian Rights organization planned to appeal Steeh's decision to the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati.
Obama
Justice Department joins the fray
in Murfreesboro, TN—on the side of Islam. (Transferred
from Behind The Headlines on Sept. 20, 2010)—In the shadows
of the Election of 2010, the Obama White House is scrambling for
votes—any votes. And, convinced he's about to lose Bible Belt Tennessee
to the Republicans, it appears as though the White House figures it will
take whatever stragglers from Tennessee the Democrats can get. Barack
Obama's going after the melting pot vote: the social progressives,
the ethnic and cultural minorities, the union crowd and the Islamic vote
in Tennessee by backing the backers of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.
On Mon., Oct. 18, 2010 federal attorneys jumped into the middle of what
has become a major brouhaha in Rutherford County. 
In
fact, the brouhaha was caused by US Attorney Jerry E. Martin of
Nashville who told the Nashville Tennessean that his office would
not sit quietly by while opponents to the Murfreesboro mosque raised questions
about the nature of Islam and, Martin said, whether or not Islam
is a recognized religion. (Martin was appointed US Attorney for
the Middle District of Tennessee by Obama on March 25, 2010. Obama,
as we all know, is a champion of religious liberty in the United States
providing those religious freedom rights are based on Liberation Theology
or Islam. Martin's claim to fame before his appointment as a US
Attorney? He was a major fund-raiser for Obama in 2008. Aren't
you glad we have such qualified people serving the American people?)
Thomas Perez, Assistant US Attorney General and head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division told reporters on Tuesday that the DOJ's decision to file an amicus brief to support the Murfreesboro mosque (which has already violated Tennessean health laws), was done to affirm Islam's right as a religion. Perez noted that it was "...an action to defend a very, very important principal that this nation has fought for, which is the principle of religious liberty." It is amazing how the social progressives can wave the flag of religious liberty and expound the virtues of the 1st Amendment except to protect Christianity and Christian values in America. Perez, like all of his political bosses in the Justice Department and the Executive Branch of government, is a hypocrite since under our increasingly totalitarian judicial system, religious liberty applies to all religions except Christianity and, increasingly, Judaism. Perez reiterated "...the Attorney General's very strong commitment to use every tool in the Department's law enforcement arsenal to route out intolerance." The federal courts, up to and including the United States Supreme Court no longer reads nor applies the Bill of Rights when it considers the 1st Amendment. Instead, the federal courts have erased the 1st Amendment and replaced it with Articles 13 and 14 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights. No longer is there a presumption of an inalienable right to worship God as we please even though the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits government from restricting our right to worship God wherever and whenever we please. Under the Covenant on Human Rights, government has the right to restrict religious liberty to whomever they wish and grant that precious gift to whomever they favor. That's how a political-theological system can be granted protection under the 1st Amendment and Christianity is denied that same protection.
The
Obama-Holder Justice Department will do what it can to make it
appear that what is going on in Murfreesboro is pure racism rather than
a political debate. Which, of course, is the reason the DOJ Civil Rights
Division is weighing in with allegations of racism and anti-religious
bias.
But, when you
talk to Kevin Fisher, a Murfreesboro corrections officer, a Republican
running for the school board, and most of all, a Black American leading
the fight to stop the mosque, he will be the first to tell you that
"...this has nothing to do with racism or racial intolerance. It's
about a difference of opinion. In America, that's okay. Religion. Race.
These are just code words used to distract people from the real issues.
If Home Depot was burying bodies in the water supply, I would be equally
concerned." 
(The
reference to burying a body in the water supply stemmed from the Islamic
Center burying a body on their recently purchased property—without
his body being embalmed, or without being placed in a casket.. The act
was done without a State permit and before a death certificate for the
deceased was even issued. The body was buried in May and the death certificate
was not issued until October, long after the battle for Murfreesboro had
began.)
While the lawsuit filed by the Murfreesboro mosque opponents questions the right of the Muslims, under the 1st Amendment, to build the mosque, their argument is not that Islam is not a "recognized" religion, but that it is also a recognized political system that is not entitled to 1st Amendment protection. So, just as it would be hard to deny that Islam is a religion, it is equally as hard to ignore the fact that Islam is the most feared political system in the world—much more feared that communism as the height of the Soviet threat in the 1960s. Furthermore, Tennesseans are concerned that Muslims in western Tennessee will use their enhanced position to advocate for Shai'ra Law and for Shai'ra courts in that State and across the nation.
Martin filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro in the wake of the bitter, national debate in New York over the Cordoba House Mosque, better known as the Ground Zero Mosque in lower Manhattan. While those fighting the mosque argue in a new lawsuit filed against officials in Rutherford County that the county violated their own "open meeting" law in how they granted the building permits without fair and open debate on the issue.
In another lawsuit filed by Murfreesboro lawyer Joe Brandon, Jr., opponents are attempting to block the county's attempt to force the citizens to pay for their elected officials deception in approving the site for the Islamic Center. Further, the suit argues that county officials "acted knowingly, willfully, maliciously and with oppression and reckless and callous disregard to protect the citizens of Rutherford County..." by allowing the property to be used as a cemetery, educational-cultural teaching center (i.e., cultural brainwashing), and a Shar'ia teaching and interpretation center without requiring a new zoning classification. Brandon's suit was scheduled for a hearing on October 20.
Earlier testimony from former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney outlined the dangers of Shar'ia law based on the advocacy of the Muslim Brotherhood in a report entitled "Team B." The Muslim Brotherhood which is involved in the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque in Manhattan. The "Team B" Report is a 1991 strategy paper for the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) that was found by the FBI in a raid on a Virginia home with the arrest of an indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist-funding case. The report describes the group's goals in the United States.
"The
Ikhwan (Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work
in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the
Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by
their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's
religion is made victorious over all other religions." Brandon
noted that the principle conclusion of the report is that "Shar'ia"
is an enemy threat to the United States because it is a totalitarian political
ideology—its seditious purpose is the replacing of the US government
with a Caliphate that must be differentiated from the religious practices
of peaceable and law-abiding Muslims. The second finding, according to
Brandon, is that Shar'ia obligates its followers to engage in "jihad"
to the extent that it involves violence as we saw on 9/11. It can, he
concluded, involve mass murder and great destruction.
In his testimony, Gaffney identified Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two al-Qaeda leader to Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the captured mastermind of 9/11 as trained members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Which is the basis for the argument of the Islamic Center's opponents that the center does not meet the standards set for its designation as a religious meeting place. Gaffney's testimony raises the specter of whether the mosque should be afforded protection under the 1st Amendment , and protection under the Religious Land Use and Act of 2000 that was enacted to protect the right of citizens to build churches within their communities without fear of discrimination from city or county governments. The Justice Department, of course, has flipflopped the law and is applying it against the people of Murfreesboro who bitterly oppose the construction of what they view as a political threat to their own religious liberty.
Sweden
seeks WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange for questioning in
molestation case (Transferred
from Behind The Headlines on Sept. 15, 2010)—Swedish authorities
announced on Friday, August 20, 2010 they are seeking WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange as a suspect in a molestation and possible
rape case in Stockholm. Authorities issued a warrant for his arrest for
rape on Friday, and then withdrew it on Saturday. The allegations of rape
were first reported by the Swedish tabloid Expressions. When the
story hit the paper, Assange responded to the allegations on WikiLeaks'
Twitter page, stating the accusations were linked to his release of 77
thousand US military documents. Among them was a cache of records that
revealed the names of hundreds of Afghan citizens who helped the Americans
and their allies pinpoint Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds and
capture Muslim extremist leaders in that country.
On Saturday, less than a
day after issuing the warrant, Swedish authorities said the rape charge
resulted from an unfounded allegation of rape. Police still want to question
Assange about one other case involving the suspicions of rape and
one accusation of sexual molestation. 
When
she withdrew the rape warrant, Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne told
the media she didn't "...think there is reason to suspect that
he has committed rape." She did not address the status of the
molestation allegation, which is a less serious charge that would not
lead to an arrest warrant.
On his Twitter page, Assange wrote that "...[t]he charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing." Assange implied that the accusations were part of a dirty trick campaign against the WikiLeaks founder who has been strongly criticized by the Pentagon and by Barack Obama. "We were warned to expect dirty tricks. Now we have the first one...Expression is a tabloid. No one here has been contacted by Swedish police. Needless to say, this will prove hugely distracting."
Fearing that fellow traveler and White House resident Barack Obama was planning to have him extradited to the United States where he could be charged with revealing top secret US military documents, the 39-year old convicted Australian computer hacker, Assange, went to Sweden last week (where a couple of his WikiLeaks servers are located) to apply for a publishing certificate in Stockholm in order to take advantage of the laws in Sweden that protect whistleblowers.
When queried by the media on Friday when the rape charge was initially filed, Karin Rosander, a spokesperson for the Swedish Prosecution Authority confirmed that Assange is suspected of at least one count of rape and one charge of sexual molestation.
Assange, now 39, was
born in Townsville, Queensland in 1971. His parents met at an anti-Vietnam
War demonstration. His mother was so anti-establishment that she did not
want her son to go to school believing it would instill an unhealthy respect
for authority in her son. During his childhood he attended 37 different
schools because his mother, who worked for a touring theater group, traveled
throughout Australia during his growing years. Today,
he lives the same nomadic life of his youth. He has no permanent, nor
even temporary, address he calls his own. His personal possessions include
a laptop computer and a rucksack of belongings. Assange lives on
the hospitality of fellow travelers—social progressives around the
world—who put him up for brief periods of time as he travels the
globe. Those acquaintances, and the handful of well-to-do socialists who
finance WikiLeaks, view the convicted computer hacker as a heroic
crusader, which makes him a celebrity whenever he comes to town.
His mother introduced him
to computers at an early age. With his sharp mind and an "outsider
mentality," he entered the world of hacking, setting up a group that
became known as International Subversives. Assange has been
called the "Robin Hood of Hacking." Among the websites
he has hacked are the US Department of Defense and NASA. Among file footage
hacked by Assange is a helicopter cockpit video shows civilians shot in
Baghdad. The video was hacked and prepared for release on WikiLeaks
through the Icelandic Digital Freedom Society. While Assange
claims the Department of Defense files he recently released—and
the 15,000 files he is preparing to release—were given to him, it
appears Assange has the ability to hack into the Department of
Defense website at will, and it's just as likely that he secured the files
himself as it is that someone with access to them gave them up. US authorities
have charged Pfc. Bradley Mannings, 22, with disseminating the
top secret video which they believe he turned over to WikiLeaks.
Assange has
said the files he released came from soldiers with whom he came into contact
after publishing a vast database of army equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
British
Security Minister, Lady Pauline Neville-Jones admitted "...[w]e
don't know how they got that material—it may be a combination of
leaking of documents, but also one strongly suspects they have hacked
into the systems as well...But, if you stop to think about it, military
systems have to be secure because people's lives are at stake."
In 1989 the Australian government linked Assange to what the media called the "audacious attack" on NASA's computer. During the investigation, Assange monitored the police who were investigating him. He, or others in collusion with him, left messages for the detectives conducting the investigation on their computers. In December, 1995 Judge Leslie Ross of Melbourne's County Court, fined Assange $2,100 Australian dollars, telling Assange that the accused was driven by a desire to "...be empowered by his access to high security files."
The Berlin-based Wau Holland
Foundation that manages the finances of WikiLeaks acknowledged
that the fund received £330,000.00 thus far in 2010. The Foundation
has issued checks totaling about £25,000.00 to Assange through
the first half of this year. 
The
Foundation added that they are compiling the financial records of WikiLeaks
and will publish them when they are completed, adding that they have no
way of knowing how much money is being donated through Iceland or other
countries Assange visits. That money appears to go directly to
Assange. WikiLeaks does not publish any statistics about
money received or spent, but it claims to have raised about £655,000
since it was founded, adding that operating costs are about £131,000
per year. WikiLeaks noted that it will have to raise at least £390,000
per year if the handful of volunteers that currently donates it time are
to be paid in the future.
Wau Holland, was born Herwart Holland-Moritz on Dec. 12, 1951. He was a co-founder of the Chaos Computer Club, the world's oldest computer hacking club. The hackers became world famous when they hacked into Germany's banking system and got 134 thousand Deutsche Marks. They returned the money the following day, advising the banks to increase their security to prevent hackers from looting their vaults. He then began to publish a computer hackers' magazine for club members. When Holland-Moritz died of a brain stem stroke on July 29, 2001, five club members formed the Wau Holland Foundation believing they had a social obligation to expose everything—without regard for the consequences. Holland-Moritz's family funded the startup of the tax exempt foundation with €62,000.
Assange noted that he recently hosted a seminar for the Socialist Democratic Party in Sweden. He further announced that he would write bimonthly columns for a leftwing Swedish newspaper.
Man
arrested in Chicago for praying on the sidewalk—(Aug.
3, 2010)—To protect abortion clinics from pro-life
protesters, the City of Chicago enacted the nation's first "bubble
law" which prevents certain types of "picketing activity"
outside of abortion clinics. The law took affect on Wed., Nov. 18 in the
Windy City. On Nov. 17, 2009—a day before the ordinance went into
affect—about 40 pro-life supporters protested the new ordinance outside
of a North Side Planned Parenthood Clinic. Planned Parenthood
issued a statement to the media during the protest that they were thrilled
by the ordinance. And, why wouldn't they be? They proposed it and campaigned
for it. 
The
measure was voted on and signed by Mayor Richard Daley in October,
2009. The fact
that it violates free speech right under the first amendment was of no
consequence to Daley because, after all, this was Chicago where
political jobs are bought and sold like penny candy and corrupt social
progressive politicians rule Cook County like third world despots.
The new law went untested
until July 3 of this year. On that day Joseph Holland, a Northwestern
University graduate student was arrested outside Planned Parenthood's
North Side facility for committing an unthinkable act—he was praying.
He was not invading anyone's "private space." 
Employees
called the police because they believed Holland was committing
an intolerable act—and Holland was arrested for violating
the city's Bubble Zone law. Keep in mind the "Bubble Law" specifically
prohibits protesters from approaching within 8' of a person without
consent "...for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill
to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling."
Praying is "none of the above," and in the United States,
praying is still protected speech under the 1st Amendment even though
the courts, using an illegal sleight-of-hand, have erased almost every
right under the 1st Amendment by illegally coupling the 1st Amendment
with Articles 13 and 14 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights. In
doing so, the courts have converted an inalienable right into a conditional
one. And even though the
Constitution of the United States mandates that no law can be written
that abridges the right of Americans to worship God in any way they wish—which
includes praying where and whenever they please without inference from
government, the courts now construe that right to be conditioned on the
whims of those who dislike Christianity because God condemns both homosexuality
and the killing of one's children, born or unborn. (Strangely, while the
government of the United States has unofficially labeled Christianity
as a religion of hate for teaching that the killing of the unborn violates
the 6th Commandment and that unrepentive homosexuals will spend eternity
in Hell, it eagerly opens its arms to Islam which, in Hadith 2:1 under
Shari'a law, demands that Muslim believers kill homosexuals. The reason
for pointing this out is to raise a logical question: why does our
government, and other governments around the world malign Christians as
racists while embracing Islam which promotes itself as a religion of peace
while Shari'a Law mandates that Muslim believers kill homosexuals?)
In any event, witnesses—and a video—affirmed that Holland was standing stationary and praying outside everyone's "Bubble Zone." He was not passing out leaflets or handbills. Nor was he protesting or trying to get into anyone's face and counsel them on the fact that women who have abortions are killing living, although as yet unborn, children. Yet he was arrested for violating the Bubble Zone law. When the Thomas More Society, which represented Holland without charge, produced the video to show that Holland had not violated the Bubble Law, charges against him were dropped. Because of the video tape, the City of Chicago had no recourse. Holland had committed no crime. Peter Breen, legal counsel and Executive Director of the Thomas More Society said, "We are pleased that the City of Chicago dismissed these false and baseless charges against Joe Holland. The First Amendment protects prayer on a public sidewalk in Chicago the same as in any other city in the country. We hope that the city will cease the suppression of pro-life speech under the bubble zone ordinance and dismiss the lone remaining case, brought against David Avigone, who was arrested a few days after Joe."
The question is: does Avigone have a video tape to prove he was not harassing either abortion clinic employees or women going to the Planned Parenthood clinic to kill their unborn children? If he does not, it's likely that the Cook County Express will railroad its first Bubble Zone victim since the purpose of the ordinance is not to protect people who need protecting, but to deny the free speech rights of pro-life Americans that is mandated by the 1st Amendment—sans Articles 13 and 14 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights which serves as the rest of the world's "conditional" Bill of Rights.
NAACP
issuing resolution condemning
Tea Party Movement as racist—(July 13, 2010)—The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP]
said they will propose a resolution this week condemning the Tea Party
Movement as a racist organization when the NAACP meets for its 101st Annual
Conference in Kansas City this week. The resolution, which will be proffered
today, will call upon "...all people of good will to repudiate
the racism of the Tea parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive
to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era." NAACP
leaders said the resolution was necessary to make people aware of what
they believe is a racist element within the Tea Party Movement. Michelle
Obama will be present for what the NAACP expects will be the quickly
passage of the resolution. Michelle Obama will give the keynote
address.
Here's the rub. Say what you think, and think what you want, the Obama Administration's talking heads were given their talking points about the Tea Party within weeks of the movement's birth—call it racist. When anyone questions the legal status of the guy in the White House, call them racist. When anyone speaks out about the Obama agenda (i.e., Obamacare, Cap & Trade, or the back-breaking spending bills that have indentured the next 10 generations of Americans to the masters on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue), call them racists. If they speak about in favor of Arizona's immigration law that does nothing more than force law enforcement officers in the State to enforce federal immigration laws, call them racist.
Yet
when New Black Panther Party chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz asks if
its time for blacks to start killing every white baby, that's not construed
by the NAACP or the mainstream media as racist. And, when Shabazz,
his brother Samir and "poll watcher" Jerry Jackson
who openly threatened white voters in Philadelphia's 13th Ward in Philadelphia
with a club, and use intimidating racial slurs, threats and statements
that they were tired of "white supremacy," they were not construed
to be racists by the Obama Justice Department which dismissed all
charges against the three—including their guilty plea. They did that
because, in their view, everyone knows that "racism" is a white-against-black
crime, not a black-against-white crime.
Anita Russell, head
of the Kansas City chapter of the NAACP but who appears more like a pawn
of the Obama White House told the Kansas City Star that
"...I think a lot of people are not taking the Tea Party Movement
seriously. And, we need to take it seriously. We need to realize it's
really not about limited government." 
While
those words were spoken by Russell, they were crafted by a White
House propaganda machine that clearly understands just how serious the
Tea Party Movement is, and the power it wields. And, Russell
and the NAACP knows if the social progressives lose control of Congress
this November, their best wet dreams of getting a share of the redistributed
wealth of the middle class (which, by the way includes more than "whitey,"
since there is a rapidly growing Black-American middle class in the United
States, and I don't think the Social Progressives have managed to craft
an "I'm Black" tax exemption that will allow the growing number
of Black Americans making over $200 thousand per year to avoid paying
the same tax load as their white neighbors) dies with loss of a Democratic
majority in either, or both, Houses of Congress.
Plain and simple, this is about politics—dirty socialist Democratic politics—the Saul Alinsky, Cloward-Pivens mudslinging politics that is specifically designed to malign the Tea Party movement not because they are racists but because the American people—Black and White—feel threatened by the social progressives and are taking a hard stand against the socialist policies of the Weather Underground radicals from the 1960s who now control the government of the United States and are intent on destroying this nation and recasting it as an oligarchic Soviet Union of the Americas.
The rhetoric of the social progressives isn't fooling anyone except perhaps those who view the world through the prism of socialist radicalism which, of course, includes the mainstream print and electronic media that is now owned by the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who decide not only what news is fit to print, but what slant needs to be foisted as truth on who they are convinced is still a sleepy-eyed, gullible public that believes the sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is flat and that you can get rid of half of the carbon dioxide on the planet and still have air to breathe and water to drink when carbon dioxide is the "food" plants eat in the process of photosynthesis that creates oxygen. The social progressives have declared war on America, and clearly the NAACP is in bed with Obama's agenda since they know if Obama fails to redistribute the wealth of America's middle class as it makes serfs of all of us, they will not be the recipients of the new entitlements that will put that money in their pockets.
Is the Tea Party movement racist? Not in a million years. Are they trying to hard to force the guy in the White House to prove he has a constitutional right to be there? You betcha. Are they fighting Obamacare and the Death Board that will ration healthcare to the elderly and anyone else with a catastrophic illness? You betcha. Are they fighting Cap & Trade, which will steal the wealth of all Americans—including poor Black Americans—and transfer that wealth to the emerging nations where the princes of industry and barons of business have moved their factories in order to capitalize on the human capital which they believe will be the primary global consumers in the 21st century? You betcha. What is happening in this country at this moment in Kansas City is the opening of a new salvo in the economic war between the social progressives and the free enterprise capitalists in an attempt to politically disarm the American people who are determined to take back their government.
Tea Party leaders and advocates of the constitional restoration movement rightly deny the allegations of racism which, as noted above, come from the Cloward-Pivens interpretation of racism which argues that because Obama is Black, any criticism of him or his policies are a form of racism. Advocates of this theory insist the real reason negative comments are made is because of the color of Obama's skin and not the color of his politics.
Democrats make $400 billion in Medicare cuts—Dec. 4, 2009 • On a 58-42 vote party-line vote, Democrats defeated a measure by Sen. John McCain to send back to committee the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act) which will cut $400 billion in Medicare spending that targets medical care for the elderly. The Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 cleared the House on Nov. 19. If it clears the Senate when the bill comes up for its final vote on passage, the Democrats believe they have the votes to enact the legislation. If that proves to be true, then after a brief lovefest in Joint Conference, legislation designed to further rape the elderly will be signed into law by Barack Obama.
Voting with the Republicans were Senators Jim Webb [D-VA] and Ben Nelson [D-NE]. AARP lobbied seniors to support the Democratic measure, assuring them that cutting $400 billion in wasteful spending would serve to strengthen Medicare in the future, and no Medicare subscriber would lose any benefits to which they are entitled. McCain responded by telling seniors to "...[t]ake your AARP card, cut it in half and send it back. They betrayed you." McCain's proposal would have stopped the legislation in its tracks. Democrats argued that cutting what amounted to $400 billion over ten years would not affect the basic services guaranteed by Medicare but would, instead, squeeze insurance companies and hospitals that are overcharging for the services they provide.
Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT],
an institutionalized politician who has served 25 years in the Senate,
and who is the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions
Committee told the Washington Times that "...this isn't
the first time defenders of our broken health care system have tried to
scare seniors, and it won't be the last...Now they're coming, riding to
the rescue of Medicare. We have a right, I think, to be skeptical."
McCain argued that
"...these are not attainable cuts without eventually rationing
health care in America, and rationing healthcare to our senior citizens
who have earned these benefits." (If you remember, the Democrats
told seniors that former President George W. Bush was trying to
scare them by telling them that Social Security was broke. Bush
was correct, and the euthanasia mandates in Obamacare that will
treat old age as a terminal illnesses in order to deny medical care to
Social Security recipients in what the communists in the Democratic Party
view as a "win-win" situation is the "proof in the pudding."
Wake
up, America. Every now and then a politician does tell you the truth.
Granted, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Why do you persist
in believing the pretty lies but not the ugly truth?)
Also buried in that legislation—which was designed to force some 31 million new, uninsured senior citizens into the Medicare program—is a provision (in HR 3961 which has already passed the House) that will require all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. McCain's bill to send the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 back to committee for further debate also contained a provision by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK] that would have required doctors to go to practicing medical professionals and not Obama's federal Healthcare Board for coverage decisions affecting the lives of the elderly.
Under special rules agreed upon prior to the debate of this legislation, Democrats and Republicans agreed to the 60-vote threshold. If the Democrats can't pull Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Webb and Nelson vote against the legislation when it comes up for a floor vote, the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 will be defeated. It appears the measure to force every American citizen to purchase health insurance or pay what amounts to a federal non-compliance fine is designed to make socialized medicine look more appealing—and much less costly.
The communist left that now controls the government of the United States is determined to keep the national healthcare door open—if Obamacare fails—by making private insurance so costly that the Obamacare smoke and mirrors will look so convincingly appealing that the Tea Party activists will return to the sofa with a bag of chips, a cold beer and the TV remote control and the far left can return to the task of destroying the United States without arrogant rednecks protesting the transformation of their Republic into a totalitarian state.
Bill to ban money to sanctuary cities—(April 8, 2009) • Sen. David Vitters [R-LA], with co-sponsors Tom Coburn [R-OK], Jim Mint [R-SC] and James Inhofe [R-OK] proposed a bill in the US Senate, S.95, that would prevent any appropriated funds directing moneys to be used at the community level from going to any city or town in the United States which considers itself to be, or has proclaimed itself to be, a sanctuary city. The bill argued that any city which violates section 642[a] of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 USC 1373[a]} will be ineligible for any governments. S.95 decided to target federal funds designated by the Obama Administration to hire police officers. Vitters appears to believe that since sanctuary cities refuse to obey federal law with respect to illegals, they should not be eligible for funds to add additional officers paid for by the taxpayers who predominantly want their tax dollars used to round up and either jail or deport illegals. But, don't get too excited about this bill, and don't hold your breath waiting for it to be enacted, or even discussed in committee with its sponsors fighting to get the bill on the Senate floor for debate.
The entire
bill—which is 35 words long—was enrolled on Jan. 6, 2009. The
bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it has been
buried since the first day of the 111th Congress. The media also chose
to ignore the legislation knowing there were not enough Republicans in
either House to push it through. The American people need to begin
hammering members of Congress—House and Senate—to drag S.95
out of the closet, put it on the calendar, get a companion bill in the
House, and enact it. They
need to make it clear to every congressional or senatorial advocate of
illegal alien rights—on both sides of the aisle—that they are
going to pass this legislation or they need to get their resumes updated
because they are going to be job hunting when they lose their next election.
Further, the American people need to tell Resident Obama if he doesn't
sign it there will be enough Republicans in the House and Senate in Jan.,
2011 to override any veto...and, hopefully, enough votes to evict him
from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The bill reads: "None of the amounts appropriated in any Act for the Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) may be used in contravention of section 642[a] of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 USC 1373[a]." Under the 1996 immigration law federal, state, county or local government entities may not restrict officials from providing information to Immigrations & Customs Enforcement regarding an individual's immigration status. Liberal officials in the federal government as well as State, county and local governments do everything they can to hamstring the efforts of local, county and State police to notify ICE when they have illegals in custody. But more important than applying S.95 to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Vitters, Coburn, DeMint and Inhofe need to tie it to the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 USC 1324[a](1)(A) [iv][b](iii) since that provision creates personal liability for any government official anywhere who participates in shielding illegals.
There are enough federal
and State laws on the books today that there should be no illegal aliens
anywhere in the country. It is time communities began enforcing those
laws, arresting not only the illegals but those in their local governments
who are protecting them. Stated above, the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 makes
those who protect, shield or provide them with food and shelter financially
responsible for any damages suffered by US citizens at the hands of illegal
aliens. Any
American and/or their family members who were attacked, robbed, raped
or killed by an illegal can—and should—sue in federal court
under the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,
8 USC 1324[a](1)(A) [iv][b](iii) and
demand that all existing city, county, State officials who participated
in or promulgated a sanctuary environment for illegals; or, landlords
and/or community activists and/or organizers, who personally aided illegals
in finding food, shelter and work, and any employer who employed an illegal
who did harm to you or any member of their family, for monetary damages
for any losses suffered at the hands of an illegal who, logically, would
not have been in that area had it not been for the sanctuary advocacy.
The Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act makes
them legally liable for any criminal acts committed by any illegal against
any citizen in a sanctuary city, county or State. If you want to end sanctuary
cities in this country, bankrupt the people safeguarding the illegals.
When it is profitless to protect illegals, you will see the roundup and
deportation of illegals—or some honest mea culpas from government
as they blame Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Democratically-controlled
104th Congress for enacting NAFTA without telling the American people
that NAFTA effectively erased the borders between the United States and
Mexico in the South and the United States and Canada in the North. Hmmm...I
wonder how many pre-1994 Congressmen and Senators will still have jobs
when they spring that one on the American people? I guess that's why they've
never told them. Obama might be right after all. Change, and a lot of
it, is what is needed on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Like my mom used to say when she'd assign me and my siblings housecleaning chores—and then be dissatisfied with the results: "If you want the House clean, only a woman can do it." It's time for the American people to step up behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. We need to test the strength of her skirt tails. They helped Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R-GA] keep his Senate seat after being targeted by ACORN for removal. We need to see if she's got the moxy to get a lot of other Republicans elected in the House and Senate in 2010. If she can do that, the country needs to get behind her in 2012 and send the New World Order packing back to 1920 where it rightly belongs—in the pages of history as the failed philosophy of greedy rich men who should be in prison, not controlling politicians from their ivory towers on Wall and Broad Streets in New York.
Surrick
rules ordinary citizens have no standing
to question qualifications of candidates—(Oct.
25, 2008) • Attorney Philip J. Berg is appealing the arbitrary
decision of Bill Clinton-appointed US District Court Judge R.
Barclay Surrick who ruled that Berg did not have standing to
sue Obama. Generally important decisions that government officials
want buried until they become "old news" are made on what is
traditionally viewed as "newsless Friday" when reporters are
paying more attention to the weekend than what news stories might be breaking,
leaving second-string newspapers and local TV stations to break stories
that drift off into media limbo and never resurface for prime time viewing
because the mainstream media then considers the story to be "old
news."
In announcing that he was "...totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the US Supreme Court. This is a question," Berg said, "of what has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing; if you don't have standing' if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States—the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world—then who does? The media initially reported that Berg was going to appeal Surrick's decision to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals and, if he lost there, to the US Supreme Court. Berg, however, has decided to bypass the appellate court and file his appeal directly to the US Supreme Court.
"Anyone," Berg continued, "can claim to be eligible for Congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the US Constitution. What happened to '...government of the people, by the people, for the people?"
In his 34-page decision, Surrick ruled that Berg lacked legal standing to bring the case, adding that "...ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office." Surrick said that was the job of Congress, saying that the legislature alone possessed the constitutional authority to determine if a candidate meets the constitutional requirements of the office he or she is seeking. Surrick added that Congress possessed the right to defer that authority to "...citizens, voters, or party members," but it would take a new law to confer that authority on ordinary citizens. "Until that time," the judge concluded, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring...Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted, and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primaries in living memory."
Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved.