The House moved one step closer to adding Puerto Rico as our 51st state. Why is the American Pravda so silent on this topic? It's been over 50 years since the last two states were admitted into the union. Shouldn't this be huge news?
BTW, why on earth would Americans, in our present economic crisis, want to admit Puerto Rico into our union when 45% of its citizens are living in poverty? Sounds like that would be another welfare state to me.
Read from Michelle Malkin:
House Votes to Allow Puerto Rico to Become 59th State
By Doug Powers
"Or would Puerto Rico be the 58th state? In any case, the House has voted and now the issue of Puerto Rican statehood is in the hands of Puerto Rico:
'The House of Representatives voted Thursday to allow Puerto Ricans to decide their own political future and relationship with the United States.
The vote was 223 to 169. Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., voted present.
The bill introduced a two-step ballot measure for Puerto Rico to decide if its residents want to change their current relationship with the United States. If they vote to change their status, they can then choose to become a state, pursue independence, or seek some other "political association between sovereign nations."'
The 'Slaughter Solution' this time was to be totally wimpy.
For our consideration, Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate is about 15.9% and 45% of its citizens live below the poverty level — so statehood for Puerto Rico would basically be like adopting another Michigan. If we’re [h***] bent to adopt another country, how about Singapore or New Zealand?
For some, statehood for Puerto Rico simply boils down to — you guessed it — “benefits”:
“First of all, we are demanding full benefits of our citizenship,” said Thomas Rivera Schatz, the president of the Senate (R-Puerto Rico). “Already, we haven’t those full benefits and we fight the U.S. wars. We are part of a U.S. government and we don’t have the full benefits of our citizens. We can’t vote for the president. We don’t have representation in the House or the Senate. So, those are some of the benefits we are demanding.”'
It wouldn’t bother me in the least if I didn’t have representation in the House or Senate — I rarely do anyway — or couldn’t vote for president, if the tradeoff was that I didn’t have to pay US income taxes (odd, Tim Geithner doesn’t look Puerto Rican). But I’m guessing that 'voting' isn’t the only benefit that is being sought since this is being attempted so hot on the heels of the passage of Obamacare and with Democrats hurting badly with the 2010 and 2012 elections looming. As the Democrats’ fight against the Arizona immigration law demonstrates, voters are needed badly (but many Republicans voted for Puerto Rico statehood too).
I believe, as has been a factor in past efforts to make Puerto Rico a state, that Puerto Ricans will ultimately be decided that non-taxation without representation is a lot more desirable than taxation with only occasional representation, if ever.
Bonus Puerto Rico fun fact: The Bacardi rum distillery in San Juan is powered by wind turbines. Talk about the ultimate dilemma for the Kennedys."
Friday, April 30, 2010
Voting Present with Iran
Mr. President, why are you standing in the way of tougher sanctions on Iran? What on earth could your purpose be for interfering in this process? Never have America's enemies been so rewarded for their bad behavior as under the Obama Administration.
Read from Joshua Pundit:
Obama's proposed Iran Sanctions Would Exempt Russia And China!
"Simply unbelievable:
'The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in "cooperating countries," a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran.
The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is in a House-Senate conference committee and is expected to reach President Obama's desk by Memorial Day.
"It's incredible the administration is asking for exemptions, under the table and winking and nodding, before the legislation is signed into law," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and a conference committee member, said in an interview. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the administration was pushing the conference committee to adopt the exemption of "cooperating countries" in the legislation.'
Translation? Russia and China would still be allowed to sell gasoline, weaponry and nuclear technology to Iran with Obama's blessing.
This, I guess, is what the Administration meant when they talked about Russia and China 'coming on board for sanctions'!
While Iran is a major oil producer, it lacks adequate refineries and is forced to rely on imported gasoline. The regime has had rationing in place for a very long time, and while we dither it is furiously working on transforming its military vehicles to run on natural gas.
Bottom line? Obama has no plan for Iran, exactly as SecDef Gates finally admitted.
Rather than admit it, Obama is willing to settle for phony sanctions with loopholes large enough to drive a truck through so he can say he 'did something.'
Ultimately, Obama is willing to live with a nuclear Iran no matter what it does to peace in the region, US security or our economy when the mullahs decide to shut down the Persian Gulf. He's simply voting 'present' on the matter to avoid the tough decisions.
Voltaire had the right of it when he said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Except that this is both.
In the meantime, the centrifuges keep spinning."
Read from Joshua Pundit:
Obama's proposed Iran Sanctions Would Exempt Russia And China!
"Simply unbelievable:
'The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in "cooperating countries," a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran.
The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is in a House-Senate conference committee and is expected to reach President Obama's desk by Memorial Day.
"It's incredible the administration is asking for exemptions, under the table and winking and nodding, before the legislation is signed into law," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and a conference committee member, said in an interview. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the administration was pushing the conference committee to adopt the exemption of "cooperating countries" in the legislation.'
Translation? Russia and China would still be allowed to sell gasoline, weaponry and nuclear technology to Iran with Obama's blessing.
This, I guess, is what the Administration meant when they talked about Russia and China 'coming on board for sanctions'!
While Iran is a major oil producer, it lacks adequate refineries and is forced to rely on imported gasoline. The regime has had rationing in place for a very long time, and while we dither it is furiously working on transforming its military vehicles to run on natural gas.
Bottom line? Obama has no plan for Iran, exactly as SecDef Gates finally admitted.
Rather than admit it, Obama is willing to settle for phony sanctions with loopholes large enough to drive a truck through so he can say he 'did something.'
Ultimately, Obama is willing to live with a nuclear Iran no matter what it does to peace in the region, US security or our economy when the mullahs decide to shut down the Persian Gulf. He's simply voting 'present' on the matter to avoid the tough decisions.
Voltaire had the right of it when he said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Except that this is both.
In the meantime, the centrifuges keep spinning."
Stand Up for Israel
We have an anti-Semite in the White House. Therefore, it is right for us as Americans, especially those who are Christ followers, to speak out on behalf of the Jewish nation of Israel.
From Israel Matzav:
Get better educated about Israel, via Israel Matzav:
From Israel Matzav:
Get better educated about Israel, via Israel Matzav:
The Marxist in the White House
No wonder President Obama relies so much on a teleprompter because when he is without one, his true colors and his Marxists beliefs are on display for all of us to see. Remember his moment with Joe the Plumber when Obama wanted to "spread the wealth"? Now, he wants to set salary caps?
How dare our new Marxist dictator determine how much income is "too much"? Barack Obama may be president of the United States, but he has NO right to criticize any American for making what he considers "too much" money. America's free market has been awfully good to him and his family, earning him a fat $5.5 million last year. Perhaps, he should return it, and spread his wealth around to us little peons who haven't been able to smooth-talk ourselves into a job for which we are unqualified.
Read from Red State:
*Your Pay* Is Not ‘Above Obama’s Pay Grade’
"I used to lament the fact that we no longer have a President who can speak on his own without being spoon-fed words via teleprompter. Now, however, I’m glad for it. Obama’s reliance on being fed his words makes him unable to speak extemporaneously without revealing his true beliefs. He did so again, when he decided to ad lib during a speech on Wall Street reform, and his old favorite – redistribution of wealth – came to the forefront. From Hot Air:
We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.'
Evidently our pay is not above his pay grade. Oh, really, President Obama? If you are so worried about people who’ve 'made enough money', you may want to have talk with a few people. Here’s a tip for you: start with George Soros. You’re welcome.
This is what Obama and his administration honestly believes. Having never worked a day in the private sector in their lives, they can only manage to put on big boy pants, but not to also act like big boys. As such, their naive view of the world and it’s 'unfairness' reigns supreme and clouds absolutely every part of their agenda. To the point where apparently no one has told him that deciding how much money anyone makes is not his job and is, in fact, antithetical to the core principles of our nation.
Not only is he prancing around giving speeches about evil Wall Street, filled with feel good nonsense and super serious faces that even those who voted for him no longer believe, but he’s doing so when people are huddled around staring dejectedly at a one page Classified section. You know, Obama, people would like to make some money, reaching your apparent 'too much' threshold or not, to provide for their families. Demonizing business isn’t going to do that. You know what will? Stop bailing out poorly run businesses. Stop regulating the good ones out of business.
Stop taxing them out of employing people.
I mean, at some point, hasn’t the Government made enough money."
How dare our new Marxist dictator determine how much income is "too much"? Barack Obama may be president of the United States, but he has NO right to criticize any American for making what he considers "too much" money. America's free market has been awfully good to him and his family, earning him a fat $5.5 million last year. Perhaps, he should return it, and spread his wealth around to us little peons who haven't been able to smooth-talk ourselves into a job for which we are unqualified.
Read from Red State:
*Your Pay* Is Not ‘Above Obama’s Pay Grade’
"I used to lament the fact that we no longer have a President who can speak on his own without being spoon-fed words via teleprompter. Now, however, I’m glad for it. Obama’s reliance on being fed his words makes him unable to speak extemporaneously without revealing his true beliefs. He did so again, when he decided to ad lib during a speech on Wall Street reform, and his old favorite – redistribution of wealth – came to the forefront. From Hot Air:
We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.'
Evidently our pay is not above his pay grade. Oh, really, President Obama? If you are so worried about people who’ve 'made enough money', you may want to have talk with a few people. Here’s a tip for you: start with George Soros. You’re welcome.
This is what Obama and his administration honestly believes. Having never worked a day in the private sector in their lives, they can only manage to put on big boy pants, but not to also act like big boys. As such, their naive view of the world and it’s 'unfairness' reigns supreme and clouds absolutely every part of their agenda. To the point where apparently no one has told him that deciding how much money anyone makes is not his job and is, in fact, antithetical to the core principles of our nation.
Not only is he prancing around giving speeches about evil Wall Street, filled with feel good nonsense and super serious faces that even those who voted for him no longer believe, but he’s doing so when people are huddled around staring dejectedly at a one page Classified section. You know, Obama, people would like to make some money, reaching your apparent 'too much' threshold or not, to provide for their families. Demonizing business isn’t going to do that. You know what will? Stop bailing out poorly run businesses. Stop regulating the good ones out of business.
Stop taxing them out of employing people.
I mean, at some point, hasn’t the Government made enough money."
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Is He or Isn't He?
Ever wonder if Barack Hussein Obama is truly a closet Muslim? Listen to a video from Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer.
Visit to Mosque Compulsory for UK Students
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The UK is lost to Islam. Only a miracle can save this once great land from the influences of the Muslim religion. Sharia law? Now, doesn't that just sound dandy?
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Mother’s anger after daughter told trip to mosque is ‘compulsory’
"Of course, the Muslim cultural police and sharia enforcers (Like our CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, and other Muslim Brotherhood orgs) are calling this islamophobia. The complaint has been posted to 'islamophobia watch.'
Got that? Islamophobia is code for sharia enforcement.
Ellesmere Port mother’s anger after daughter told trip to mosque is ‘compulsory’
'MOTHER is keeping her daughter off school after refusing to give her permission to take part in a trip to a Liverpool mosque.
Michelle Davis, of Bodiam Court, Ellesmere Port, claims she was left with no choice but to keep 14-year-old daughter Amy Owen at home after Ellesmere Port Catholic High School’s headteacher Peter Lee tried to encourage the pupil into participating.
Miss Davies said: “I objected to Amy being made to dress like a Muslim girl, the original letter from the school gave a dress code for the visit, including long skirts, leggings or tights and covering up her head.
“She's been brought up in the Catholic faith and religion. Amy is not a Muslim and shouldn’t be told to dress like one.”
Miss Davies handed in a letter setting out reasons why she wouldn't be attending and the school asked if it was a problem with payment.
She said: “I asked them not to patronise me, it's £3 to cover the cost of the bus.”
Despite requesting that any further communication about the proposed Year 9 trip, part of the students’ religious education class, be conducted strictly between her and Mr Lee, Miss Davies was upset to hear that Amy had been pulled out of her lessons and told the mosque excursion was ‘compulsory’.
Miss Davies, who knows a number of other parents who have refused permission, also received a letter from Mr Lee, further insisting that Amy attend.
She said: “At the end of the letter, underlined, it says: ‘I must require your child to participate in this trip’.
“This is an infringement of her human rights.”
In a written statement, Mr Lee refused to comment on the compulsory nature of the trip,
Miss Davies added: “I'm all for her being educated in all areas of religion but she's not Muslim and she shouldn't have to dress like one.
“I can guarantee that if there were ten Muslim girls coming to our school it would adhere to what they wanted, because that's their faith, their religion, their dress code.”'"
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Mother’s anger after daughter told trip to mosque is ‘compulsory’
"Of course, the Muslim cultural police and sharia enforcers (Like our CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, and other Muslim Brotherhood orgs) are calling this islamophobia. The complaint has been posted to 'islamophobia watch.'
Got that? Islamophobia is code for sharia enforcement.
Ellesmere Port mother’s anger after daughter told trip to mosque is ‘compulsory’
'MOTHER is keeping her daughter off school after refusing to give her permission to take part in a trip to a Liverpool mosque.
Michelle Davis, of Bodiam Court, Ellesmere Port, claims she was left with no choice but to keep 14-year-old daughter Amy Owen at home after Ellesmere Port Catholic High School’s headteacher Peter Lee tried to encourage the pupil into participating.
Miss Davies said: “I objected to Amy being made to dress like a Muslim girl, the original letter from the school gave a dress code for the visit, including long skirts, leggings or tights and covering up her head.
“She's been brought up in the Catholic faith and religion. Amy is not a Muslim and shouldn’t be told to dress like one.”
Miss Davies handed in a letter setting out reasons why she wouldn't be attending and the school asked if it was a problem with payment.
She said: “I asked them not to patronise me, it's £3 to cover the cost of the bus.”
Despite requesting that any further communication about the proposed Year 9 trip, part of the students’ religious education class, be conducted strictly between her and Mr Lee, Miss Davies was upset to hear that Amy had been pulled out of her lessons and told the mosque excursion was ‘compulsory’.
Miss Davies, who knows a number of other parents who have refused permission, also received a letter from Mr Lee, further insisting that Amy attend.
She said: “At the end of the letter, underlined, it says: ‘I must require your child to participate in this trip’.
“This is an infringement of her human rights.”
In a written statement, Mr Lee refused to comment on the compulsory nature of the trip,
Miss Davies added: “I'm all for her being educated in all areas of religion but she's not Muslim and she shouldn't have to dress like one.
“I can guarantee that if there were ten Muslim girls coming to our school it would adhere to what they wanted, because that's their faith, their religion, their dress code.”'"
Wake Up, American Jews
So many Americans were swindled by the promise of "hope and change" coming from Barack Hussein Obama, but none more than the Jewish people. For some reason, they cannot differentiate between their friends and their enemies.
Read this hard-hitting letter from a Jew to his fellow Jews, via Townhall:
An Open Letter to American Jews
by Ben Shapiro
"Dear American Jews,
I write to you as a charter member of the tribe. I'm not only Jewish, I'm religious. I'm married to an Israeli girl (she'll receive her citizenship next year and she is a proud soon-to-be American). I go to synagogue regularly, keep kosher, keep the Sabbath.
American Jews, I have one request of you: please pull your heads out of your posteriors.
I mean that in all sincerity. Your continued support for Democrats and an administration that is openly anti-Semitic is a disgrace. Your embrace of a party that seeks to hamstring Israel in the name of a wholly fictitious Middle East peace process is contemptible. Your loyalty to a president who consistently sides with Palestinian and Iranian mass murder-supporters is disgusting.
Your backing of a man who has spent his life surrounding himself with the worst anti-Semites America has to offer -- Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi (former Palestinian terrorist spokesman), Louis Farrakhan ('I don't like the way [Jews] leech on us'), Samantha Power, Robert Malley, to name a few -- is nothing short of reprehensible. Rahm Emanuel's presence in the Obama cabinet doesn't ameliorate Obama's anti-Semitism -- it just provides it convenient cover. Al Sharpton wrongly called Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell 'house negroes'; Emanuel is a kapo.
Even as you continue to buttress a president who seeks the destruction of your co-religionists, you demonstrate your myopia by rejecting the tea party movement and evangelical Christian Israel-supporters.
The tea party movement is your ally for three important reasons. First, it supports capitalism against the forces of socialism -- and capitalism keeps America strong enough to provide Israel with a hand against its evil adversaries. Second, American Jews are, by far, the highest-earning religious group in the United States -- the tea party fights for your right to keep your money. Third, the tea party stands against government overreach -- and in an era when government overreach promotes anti-religious secularism, Jews must stand with the tea party.
Your rejection of evangelical Christians is even more idiotic. Evangelical Christians are the only major voting bloc preventing President Obama from breaking ties with Israel. When Janet Porter, an evangelical Florida talk show host, heard about Obama's anti-Israel tyranny, she responded by asking her listeners to buy dozens of yellow roses to send to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office as a show of support. The price per dozen: $19.48, in honor of the year of Israel's founding (1948). Over 14,000 flowers were delivered. Meanwhile, Adm. James Jones, Obama's national security adviser and the man who brought Jew-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski into Obama's inner circle, was busy telling anti-Semitic jokes before the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
'But they want to convert us!' many American Jews shout. Not all Christians do. But for the rest -- so what? Would you sacrifice the support of millions of good-hearted Christians because they want to discuss Jesus with you? If your own belief system is so fragile, the weakness is yours, not theirs. While you expend energy whining about Jehovah's Witnesses who show up at your door with a Bible, Obama supports radical Muslims who would show up at your door with a gun -- or, as in the case of Daniel Pearl, a butcher's knife.
Now, I understand, American Jews, that most of you don't care about Israel.
I understand that you're more concerned about a woman's unconditional right to abort her unborn child (which Judaism rejects) than you are about Israel. Fine. Understand that you have removed yourself from the vast river of Jewish history in favor of a chimerical morality that values libertinism over liberty.
I understand that many of you -- all of you above age 70 -- still think FDR is alive. He isn't, but Jimmy Carter is.
I understand that some of you still think that conservatives and Republicans are the same folks they were during the 1950s, when they banned you from country clubs. They aren't.
The simple fact is this: There is only one mainstream political ideology in this country that asks you to check your principles and cultural history at the door in the name of the greater good -- leftism, the same ideology that virtually exterminated Judaism in Russia and Europe. While the left exploits your adherence to bagel-and-lox Judaism by appealing to your watered-down and perverted 'tikkun olam' sensibilities, you are enabling your own destruction. The same people who urge you to reach out to terrorists will be the first to sacrifice you to those terrorists' tender mercies. The same people who urge you to worry about same-sex marriage rather than religious freedom will be the first to take your religious freedoms away.
I love you, my brothers and sisters. That's why I'm writing to you. Time is running out; the clock is winding down. Pick a side."
Read this hard-hitting letter from a Jew to his fellow Jews, via Townhall:
An Open Letter to American Jews
by Ben Shapiro
"Dear American Jews,
I write to you as a charter member of the tribe. I'm not only Jewish, I'm religious. I'm married to an Israeli girl (she'll receive her citizenship next year and she is a proud soon-to-be American). I go to synagogue regularly, keep kosher, keep the Sabbath.
American Jews, I have one request of you: please pull your heads out of your posteriors.
I mean that in all sincerity. Your continued support for Democrats and an administration that is openly anti-Semitic is a disgrace. Your embrace of a party that seeks to hamstring Israel in the name of a wholly fictitious Middle East peace process is contemptible. Your loyalty to a president who consistently sides with Palestinian and Iranian mass murder-supporters is disgusting.
Your backing of a man who has spent his life surrounding himself with the worst anti-Semites America has to offer -- Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi (former Palestinian terrorist spokesman), Louis Farrakhan ('I don't like the way [Jews] leech on us'), Samantha Power, Robert Malley, to name a few -- is nothing short of reprehensible. Rahm Emanuel's presence in the Obama cabinet doesn't ameliorate Obama's anti-Semitism -- it just provides it convenient cover. Al Sharpton wrongly called Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell 'house negroes'; Emanuel is a kapo.
Even as you continue to buttress a president who seeks the destruction of your co-religionists, you demonstrate your myopia by rejecting the tea party movement and evangelical Christian Israel-supporters.
The tea party movement is your ally for three important reasons. First, it supports capitalism against the forces of socialism -- and capitalism keeps America strong enough to provide Israel with a hand against its evil adversaries. Second, American Jews are, by far, the highest-earning religious group in the United States -- the tea party fights for your right to keep your money. Third, the tea party stands against government overreach -- and in an era when government overreach promotes anti-religious secularism, Jews must stand with the tea party.
Your rejection of evangelical Christians is even more idiotic. Evangelical Christians are the only major voting bloc preventing President Obama from breaking ties with Israel. When Janet Porter, an evangelical Florida talk show host, heard about Obama's anti-Israel tyranny, she responded by asking her listeners to buy dozens of yellow roses to send to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office as a show of support. The price per dozen: $19.48, in honor of the year of Israel's founding (1948). Over 14,000 flowers were delivered. Meanwhile, Adm. James Jones, Obama's national security adviser and the man who brought Jew-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski into Obama's inner circle, was busy telling anti-Semitic jokes before the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
'But they want to convert us!' many American Jews shout. Not all Christians do. But for the rest -- so what? Would you sacrifice the support of millions of good-hearted Christians because they want to discuss Jesus with you? If your own belief system is so fragile, the weakness is yours, not theirs. While you expend energy whining about Jehovah's Witnesses who show up at your door with a Bible, Obama supports radical Muslims who would show up at your door with a gun -- or, as in the case of Daniel Pearl, a butcher's knife.
Now, I understand, American Jews, that most of you don't care about Israel.
I understand that you're more concerned about a woman's unconditional right to abort her unborn child (which Judaism rejects) than you are about Israel. Fine. Understand that you have removed yourself from the vast river of Jewish history in favor of a chimerical morality that values libertinism over liberty.
I understand that many of you -- all of you above age 70 -- still think FDR is alive. He isn't, but Jimmy Carter is.
I understand that some of you still think that conservatives and Republicans are the same folks they were during the 1950s, when they banned you from country clubs. They aren't.
The simple fact is this: There is only one mainstream political ideology in this country that asks you to check your principles and cultural history at the door in the name of the greater good -- leftism, the same ideology that virtually exterminated Judaism in Russia and Europe. While the left exploits your adherence to bagel-and-lox Judaism by appealing to your watered-down and perverted 'tikkun olam' sensibilities, you are enabling your own destruction. The same people who urge you to reach out to terrorists will be the first to sacrifice you to those terrorists' tender mercies. The same people who urge you to worry about same-sex marriage rather than religious freedom will be the first to take your religious freedoms away.
I love you, my brothers and sisters. That's why I'm writing to you. Time is running out; the clock is winding down. Pick a side."
Will Illegals Remain in Arizona?
As the American Pravda freaks out over the tough new Arizona law to actually hold illegal aliens accountable for breaking our laws by entering our borders illegally, you may be interested to hear that the illegals are threatening to leave the state on their own accord.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Horror of All Horrors… Illegal Immigrants Threaten to Leave Arizona Over New Immigration Law
"What have we wrought?
Illegal immigrants say 'Adios' to Arizona.
The AP reported:
'Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.
Arizona’s sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won’t take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state’s underground economy.
“Nobody wants to pick us up,” Julio Loyola Diaz says in Spanish as he and dozens of other men wait under the shade of palo verde trees and lean against a low brick wall outside the east Phoenix home improvement store.
Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.
Supporters of the law hope it creates jobs for thousands of Americans.
“We want to drive day labor away,” says Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law’s sponsors.
An estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years as it cracked down on illegal immigration and its economy was especially hard hit by the Great Recession.'
The law is so appalling that seven other states are now talking about passing similar legislation.
Just to be clear…
70% of Arizona voters agree with new immigration legislation signed into law last Friday.
Al Sharpton and Barack Obama disagree."
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Horror of All Horrors… Illegal Immigrants Threaten to Leave Arizona Over New Immigration Law
"What have we wrought?
Illegal immigrants say 'Adios' to Arizona.
The AP reported:
'Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.
Arizona’s sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won’t take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state’s underground economy.
“Nobody wants to pick us up,” Julio Loyola Diaz says in Spanish as he and dozens of other men wait under the shade of palo verde trees and lean against a low brick wall outside the east Phoenix home improvement store.
Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.
Supporters of the law hope it creates jobs for thousands of Americans.
“We want to drive day labor away,” says Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law’s sponsors.
An estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years as it cracked down on illegal immigration and its economy was especially hard hit by the Great Recession.'
The law is so appalling that seven other states are now talking about passing similar legislation.
Just to be clear…
70% of Arizona voters agree with new immigration legislation signed into law last Friday.
Al Sharpton and Barack Obama disagree."
The Weakening of America
Not only has Obama placed our country in greater danger with his appeasement policies, but he is endangering our allies as well because many of them rely on us for their protection.
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Bolton: "Folding our nuclear umbrella"
"We the sheeple are waiting on O's catastrophe. You can put any happy face you want on such lethal nonsense, but at the end of the day, it empowers our enemies and weakens us -- to what end?
Folding Our Nuclear Umbrella John Bolton, Washington Times
'Bad as Obama policies are for America, they are equally dangerous for friends who have relied for decades on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as a foundation of their own national security strategies. As Washington's capabilities decline and as it narrows the circumstances when it will use nuclear weapons, allies are asking hard questions about whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella will continue to provide the protection it has previously.
Many allies see clearly that our mutual global adversaries have no intention of reducing their own nuclear programs in imitation of Mr. Obama. Our friends accordingly feel increasingly insecure. If Washington will not continue to hold the nuclear umbrella that has provided strategic stability for so long, other countries will begin making divergent decisions about how to protect themselves, including, for some, the possibility of seeking their own nuclear weapons.
Within the administration, there are strong advocates for America pledging "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Although the nuclear posture review "only" expanded "negative security assurances" somewhat, there is little doubt that "no first use" is alive and well in internal administration councils. These self-imposed constraints on the use of nuclear weapons reinforce the allies' concern that Mr. Obama has forgotten the central Cold War lesson about the U.S. nuclear deterrent. There was never any doubt that a Soviet attack through the Fulda Gap into Western Europe would have swept through NATO forces, possibly all the way to the English Channel. Thus, the threat of U.S. nuclear retaliation against such an attack - an unambiguous case of a U.S. first use of nuclear weapons - was precisely what was needed to keep Soviet forces on their side of the Iron Curtain.
The risks come not only from the Obama administration's nuclear policies. By canceling the Polish and Czech missile defense sites, the president signaled that he has less than full faith in the concept of a U.S. national missile defense capability. Moreover, and equally important, Russia and others quickly interpreted the decision not to construct the Eastern European facilities as Washington backing down in response to Russian threats. At a minimum, Mr. Obama showed that he was prepared to use U.S. missile defense as a bargaining chip, exactly the misguided policy option President Reagan consistently and emphatically rejected. If America's homeland remains vulnerable, its willingness to risk confrontation with an opponent will be substantially reduced. In such circumstances, U.S. allies could not count on the threat of nuclear retaliation by Washington in the event of aggression, as they could in the Cold War.
Accordingly, Europeans should be very worried that they are increasingly on their own to face the re-emerging threat of Russian belligerence. Because the New START treaty does not limit tactical nuclear weapons, Europe, simply because of geographic proximity, is most vulnerable to Russia's advantage in that category. It is thus highly ironic that some NATO countries have recently called for removing the last U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, which will simply enhance Russia's existing lead. Moreover, because the conflict in Afghanistan has opened new fissures in NATO, Europe must ponder whether the aging alliance can renew its original focus on defending against Moscow."
Read from Atlas Shrugs:
Bolton: "Folding our nuclear umbrella"
"We the sheeple are waiting on O's catastrophe. You can put any happy face you want on such lethal nonsense, but at the end of the day, it empowers our enemies and weakens us -- to what end?
Folding Our Nuclear Umbrella John Bolton, Washington Times
'Bad as Obama policies are for America, they are equally dangerous for friends who have relied for decades on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as a foundation of their own national security strategies. As Washington's capabilities decline and as it narrows the circumstances when it will use nuclear weapons, allies are asking hard questions about whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella will continue to provide the protection it has previously.
Many allies see clearly that our mutual global adversaries have no intention of reducing their own nuclear programs in imitation of Mr. Obama. Our friends accordingly feel increasingly insecure. If Washington will not continue to hold the nuclear umbrella that has provided strategic stability for so long, other countries will begin making divergent decisions about how to protect themselves, including, for some, the possibility of seeking their own nuclear weapons.
Within the administration, there are strong advocates for America pledging "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Although the nuclear posture review "only" expanded "negative security assurances" somewhat, there is little doubt that "no first use" is alive and well in internal administration councils. These self-imposed constraints on the use of nuclear weapons reinforce the allies' concern that Mr. Obama has forgotten the central Cold War lesson about the U.S. nuclear deterrent. There was never any doubt that a Soviet attack through the Fulda Gap into Western Europe would have swept through NATO forces, possibly all the way to the English Channel. Thus, the threat of U.S. nuclear retaliation against such an attack - an unambiguous case of a U.S. first use of nuclear weapons - was precisely what was needed to keep Soviet forces on their side of the Iron Curtain.
The risks come not only from the Obama administration's nuclear policies. By canceling the Polish and Czech missile defense sites, the president signaled that he has less than full faith in the concept of a U.S. national missile defense capability. Moreover, and equally important, Russia and others quickly interpreted the decision not to construct the Eastern European facilities as Washington backing down in response to Russian threats. At a minimum, Mr. Obama showed that he was prepared to use U.S. missile defense as a bargaining chip, exactly the misguided policy option President Reagan consistently and emphatically rejected. If America's homeland remains vulnerable, its willingness to risk confrontation with an opponent will be substantially reduced. In such circumstances, U.S. allies could not count on the threat of nuclear retaliation by Washington in the event of aggression, as they could in the Cold War.
Accordingly, Europeans should be very worried that they are increasingly on their own to face the re-emerging threat of Russian belligerence. Because the New START treaty does not limit tactical nuclear weapons, Europe, simply because of geographic proximity, is most vulnerable to Russia's advantage in that category. It is thus highly ironic that some NATO countries have recently called for removing the last U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, which will simply enhance Russia's existing lead. Moreover, because the conflict in Afghanistan has opened new fissures in NATO, Europe must ponder whether the aging alliance can renew its original focus on defending against Moscow."
Financial Reform Will Benefit Wall Street
Who are the real friends of Wall Street? Nobody likes these greedy people, but the hate campaign against them orchestrated by Obama and his minions is nothing more that a dog and pony show to create support for the libs' sinister financial reform bill.
And guess who will be the biggest beneficiary of this piece of legislation? Wall Street!!
Where is the media who should be keeping this administration accountable? Their unwillingness to scrutinize the president is almost criminal. As time goes by, we are becoming more and more like the former Soviet Union. Never in a million years would I have dreamed that this could happen in America.
The ungodly wanted God pushed out of our nation, and like the gentleman He is, He will not remain where He is unwanted. God has left America on its own at a time when we need Him more than ever. As Christians, we still have His presence and His promises, but until enough Christians rise up and pray for God to have mercy on this nation, we are in deep trouble because all the powers of darkness are at work among us.
Read from Big Government:
Obama-Dodd Financial Reform Helps Wall Street, Hurts Everyone Else
"The more details that emerge about the Obama-Dodd financial 'reform' bill, the worse it smells. The bill is most certainly an attempt to give the government vastly more power and control over the economy. And despite the vocal, condescending, even mocking protestations from Democrats and their allies, this bill does in fact contain unlimited bailout authority for the Fed. It’s right there in the bill for the world to see.
But it is increasingly evident that there may be something more sinister going on behind the scenes that is driving this debate. The President trotted up to New York to give a big televised speech and scolded Wall Street for 'resisting reform' saying that if we are to prevent another crisis, we must pass his bill.
The whole charade amounted to little more than political theater. Big Wall Street banks actually WANT this bill. Executives for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs (two firms that both received bailout funds) have both made statements in favor of Obama’s financial reform bill.
So, one must ask, if this is so draconian on Wall Street, why do they want it so badly? The answer to this question is in the details of the bill: Not only does this bill not rein in big Wall Street banks, its actually a very big gift to Big Banks and other special interests—gifts that will cost Main Street, the taxpayers and consumers.
The large financial institutions at the root of the financial crisis wouldn’t even be regulated by the CFPA. Their oversight would remain at the porn-surfing Securities and Exchange Commission. But of course the bill is full of burdensome regulations for smaller institutions with which they will struggle to comply and also remain profitable. The larger banks that are covered will not only have the resources to adapt but will also likely grow even larger by swallowing up smaller institutions that can’t make it.
But big banks aren’t the only ones receiving special favors. Mark Calabria of the Cato Institute highlighted some egregious examples of special interests using this bill as a vehicle for their own desires in a recent NY Post article, saying:
'Remember the mortgage crisis? Well, the primary consumer-protection law for homebuyers is the 1974 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The law requires the timely, accurate disclosure of relevant closing costs and prohibits “kickbacks” for the steering of settlement services.
For example, your real-estate agent cannot, under RESPA, be paid a fee for steering you toward a certain home inspector, title company or other closing service. Yet, under the Dodd bill, real-estate agents would be exempted from RESPA. If that weren’t bad enough, the Dodd bill exempts insurers and attorneys — both now subject to RESPA — from its consumer protections, too.'
So, the big banks are not only getting off scott-free, but they, real estate agents, title companies, lawyers and other special interests are attempting to further rig the system permanently in their favor.
And if all the advantages given to the banks in this bill still aren’t enough to help weather the consequences of their risky behavior? Well, that’s what the bailout language is for. The Barney Frank bill authorizes up to $4 trillion dollars in lending authority for the Fed. Dodd’s bill gives them a blank check with no limit.
But these gifts come at a cost. And the bailouts are only the down payment. The Obama-Dodd bill would give the government unprecedented reach into the business place and create real harms on Main Street.
•Local community banks will be subject to at least 27 new regulations that could put many of them out of business.
•Harley-Davidson is worried that its dealer-financed loans to bikers will fall victim to new federal financing regulations.
•eBay may be harmed by restrictions on PayPal, a subsidiary, in moving money in the Internet marketplace.
•Small businesses that rely on credit cards, small credit lines, home equity loans and other types of credit will lose access to these life lines that keep their businesses operating—and employing workers.
But, Wall Street gets the bill that it wants. And that’s what’s important right? Apparently it is for those pushing this bill.
Everyone wants to avoid a new financial crisis (except perhaps Goldman Sachs and John Paulson who made billions on it). But the manner in which that is done is crucial.
Rather than addressing the root causes of the crisis, this bill avoids them entirely. Rather than addressing the entities involved with causing the crisis, this bill rewards them and harms Main Street. Rather than doing away with too big to fail, this bill encourages risky behavior and makes big firms even bigger by rigging the system in their favor against community banks and other small lending institutions.
All of which is why Wall Street wants it so badly. Because as anyone who watched the Senate hearing with Goldman CEO Blankfein understands, Wall Street knows how to spot a “sh$%^y deal” so this one must be a sweetheart."
And guess who will be the biggest beneficiary of this piece of legislation? Wall Street!!
Where is the media who should be keeping this administration accountable? Their unwillingness to scrutinize the president is almost criminal. As time goes by, we are becoming more and more like the former Soviet Union. Never in a million years would I have dreamed that this could happen in America.
The ungodly wanted God pushed out of our nation, and like the gentleman He is, He will not remain where He is unwanted. God has left America on its own at a time when we need Him more than ever. As Christians, we still have His presence and His promises, but until enough Christians rise up and pray for God to have mercy on this nation, we are in deep trouble because all the powers of darkness are at work among us.
Read from Big Government:
Obama-Dodd Financial Reform Helps Wall Street, Hurts Everyone Else
"The more details that emerge about the Obama-Dodd financial 'reform' bill, the worse it smells. The bill is most certainly an attempt to give the government vastly more power and control over the economy. And despite the vocal, condescending, even mocking protestations from Democrats and their allies, this bill does in fact contain unlimited bailout authority for the Fed. It’s right there in the bill for the world to see.
But it is increasingly evident that there may be something more sinister going on behind the scenes that is driving this debate. The President trotted up to New York to give a big televised speech and scolded Wall Street for 'resisting reform' saying that if we are to prevent another crisis, we must pass his bill.
The whole charade amounted to little more than political theater. Big Wall Street banks actually WANT this bill. Executives for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs (two firms that both received bailout funds) have both made statements in favor of Obama’s financial reform bill.
So, one must ask, if this is so draconian on Wall Street, why do they want it so badly? The answer to this question is in the details of the bill: Not only does this bill not rein in big Wall Street banks, its actually a very big gift to Big Banks and other special interests—gifts that will cost Main Street, the taxpayers and consumers.
The large financial institutions at the root of the financial crisis wouldn’t even be regulated by the CFPA. Their oversight would remain at the porn-surfing Securities and Exchange Commission. But of course the bill is full of burdensome regulations for smaller institutions with which they will struggle to comply and also remain profitable. The larger banks that are covered will not only have the resources to adapt but will also likely grow even larger by swallowing up smaller institutions that can’t make it.
But big banks aren’t the only ones receiving special favors. Mark Calabria of the Cato Institute highlighted some egregious examples of special interests using this bill as a vehicle for their own desires in a recent NY Post article, saying:
'Remember the mortgage crisis? Well, the primary consumer-protection law for homebuyers is the 1974 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The law requires the timely, accurate disclosure of relevant closing costs and prohibits “kickbacks” for the steering of settlement services.
For example, your real-estate agent cannot, under RESPA, be paid a fee for steering you toward a certain home inspector, title company or other closing service. Yet, under the Dodd bill, real-estate agents would be exempted from RESPA. If that weren’t bad enough, the Dodd bill exempts insurers and attorneys — both now subject to RESPA — from its consumer protections, too.'
So, the big banks are not only getting off scott-free, but they, real estate agents, title companies, lawyers and other special interests are attempting to further rig the system permanently in their favor.
And if all the advantages given to the banks in this bill still aren’t enough to help weather the consequences of their risky behavior? Well, that’s what the bailout language is for. The Barney Frank bill authorizes up to $4 trillion dollars in lending authority for the Fed. Dodd’s bill gives them a blank check with no limit.
But these gifts come at a cost. And the bailouts are only the down payment. The Obama-Dodd bill would give the government unprecedented reach into the business place and create real harms on Main Street.
•Local community banks will be subject to at least 27 new regulations that could put many of them out of business.
•Harley-Davidson is worried that its dealer-financed loans to bikers will fall victim to new federal financing regulations.
•eBay may be harmed by restrictions on PayPal, a subsidiary, in moving money in the Internet marketplace.
•Small businesses that rely on credit cards, small credit lines, home equity loans and other types of credit will lose access to these life lines that keep their businesses operating—and employing workers.
But, Wall Street gets the bill that it wants. And that’s what’s important right? Apparently it is for those pushing this bill.
Everyone wants to avoid a new financial crisis (except perhaps Goldman Sachs and John Paulson who made billions on it). But the manner in which that is done is crucial.
Rather than addressing the root causes of the crisis, this bill avoids them entirely. Rather than addressing the entities involved with causing the crisis, this bill rewards them and harms Main Street. Rather than doing away with too big to fail, this bill encourages risky behavior and makes big firms even bigger by rigging the system in their favor against community banks and other small lending institutions.
All of which is why Wall Street wants it so badly. Because as anyone who watched the Senate hearing with Goldman CEO Blankfein understands, Wall Street knows how to spot a “sh$%^y deal” so this one must be a sweetheart."
Obama's Kind of Judge
Not only has President Obama forced an unwanted healthcare rationing plan down our throats, appeased our enemies while disarming America, ensured that our economy remains in a freefall, gone to war with one of our closest allies, Israel, and many other objectionable actions, now he has nominated a circuit court judge who is soft on sexual crimes and murder. America is experiencing "change" alright.
Read from Red State:
Obama 2nd Circuit Nominee Abused Power, Helped Rapist and Serial Killer
"Lost amid all the flurry regarding Arizona’s new immigration law and Obama’s efforts (with Republican assistance) to have the federal government run Wall Street has been the nomination of Federal District Judge Robert N. Chatigny to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. But you should care. A lot.
Why? Circuit court judges have a great deal of power and influence. Yet, this is a man who abused his power as a judge to help a rapist/serial killer, attempted to strike down the sex offender registry known as Megan’s law (a decision later unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court) and sentenced child porn distributors well below the sentencing guideline range. In particular, his unethical handling of the case of 'the Roadside Strangler,' serial killer Michael B. Ross, is one of the most egregious displays of arrogance and abuse of power by any judge in recent memory.
And that doesn’t even come close to giving you the full picture of just how out of touch this man is with both the American public and his responsibility to call balls and strikes as a judge. To do that, you need to read and/or view the following:
1. This clip detailing the horrific murders - by Michael Ross - of 8 young women, of whom at least 6 he violently raped;
2. A devastating letter from Michael O’Hare (PDF), the Assistant State’s Attorney in Connecticut who represented the state in the challenge to Chatigny’s death sentence, in which he details the long train of abuses by Chatigny - such as presiding over Ross’ case despite having previously represented him, interrupting the state before it had finished to rule in favor of the murderer/rapist, berating and threatening Chatigny’s defense lawyers for not filing against their client’s wishes, and otherwise acting in appropriately; and
3. This video of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held yesterday in which Senators Coburn, Kyl and Sessions asked Chatigny tough questions, and for which he had no good answers (see Daily Caller on topic, here), regarding not only the Ross case, but Chatigny’s ruling against Megan’s law and his pattern of giving low sentences to distributors of child pornography.
Unfortunately, despite these clearly disqualifying actions, characteristics and temperament, Chatigny may still be confirmed by the Senate because of blindly loyal democrats and the misguided efforts of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who is calling Senators on Chatigny’s behalf. Of course, as the Daily Caller notes, Mukasey’s former chief of staff at the Justice Department, Brian Benczkowski, is now staff director for Judiciary ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions.
Mukasey was a colleague of Chatigny in the Second Circuit, and played a role in clearing Chatigny of any judicial misconduct. But the fact the judicial brotherhood sticks together is no great surprise and that he was cleared, even with substantial misgivings by his colleagues, is not grounds for Senators to ignore his abhorrent, arrogant behavior when considering his possible elevation.
Consider the facts of Michael Ross’ crimes. As Senator Coburn noted in his questioning (see judiciary clip 49:15 to 51:30):
'While in prison, Michael Ross participated in the creation of a documentary on serial killers entitled “The Serial Killers” during which he described in great detail how he raped and murdered eight women and girls. In the video Ross explains: “Serial killers like to strangle their victims and that is, I guess, the most common form of killing because there is more of a connection, it’s more real, and it’s not as quick.”
He later describes how he tied up Leslie Shelley (age 14) and put her in the trunk of his car and then: “took the other girl, April Bernaise (age 14), out and I raped her and killed her and I put her in the front seat.”
Then, he pulled Leslie Shelley out of the trunk and brutally killed her.
In describing his last victim, Wendy Baribeault (17), he said: “I raped her and I killed her. It wasn’t pleasant; it wasn’t a nice rape.”
Judge Chatigny, this is the man who you described as “the least culpable of the people on death row” and said the “he never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death” and that “when [Ross] says, I feel that I’m the victim of a miscarriage of justice because they didn’t treat it as a mitigating factor, I can well understand where he’s coming from.”'
Senator Sessions similarly raised questions during the hearing (see 95:30) about his comment 'he should never have been convicted,' or that he shouldn’t have been sentenced to death because 'sexual sadism' was not considered as a mitigating factor.
Consider further that, as Senator Sessions points out at 67:30 of the Judiciary Committee hearing, a competency hearing had been held and the Connecticut Supreme Court had upheld the death penalty in the Ross case, all prior to Judge Chatigny’s improper and abusive actions as a federal judge. Specifically, according to the letter from the attorney representing Connecticut, as well as transcripts of a teleconference call and as pointed out by Senator Sessions and others in the Judiciary Committee hearing:
- Chatigny granted two motions to stay the execution of Ross, even though he had already been found competent by the state court (per above), and one of those orders was issued before the State had even finished its questioning;
- Judge Chatigny further excused Ross’s violent and deplorable crimes by arguing that his 'sexual sadism … is clearly a mitigating factor.'
- In support of his position, Judge Chatigny cited his own personal experience touring the prison where Ross was being held 'with an eye toward trying to grasp what its effect would be on the individual inmate.' He also cited the 'abundant literature' supporting death row syndrome and asserted that 'most European countries' recognize the syndrome to bolster his decision.
- Chatigny repeatedly pressured and threatened the defendant’s attorney to seek a new competency hearing and to seek further appeals despite the fact his client did not want either. In fact, when Ross’s lawyer insisted on following his client’s wishes not to appeal, Judge Chatigny declared that the attorney would be 'the proximate cause' of Ross’s death and then threatened his law license stating: 'So I warn you . . . you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life. And you better be prepared to deal with me because I’ll have your law license. … What you’re doing is wrong.'
- Chatigny improperly sought to reach state court judges in the hours prior to the execution, despite the fact no pending motions were before him;
- Chatigny had represented the defendant 13 years before his meddling as a judge - an obvious conflict of interest - and he failed to disclose this conflict, claiming later that it has innocently slipped his memory. Senator Coburn properly points out at the Judiciary Committee hearing at 56:31 that it sure seems odd that the only death penalty case Chatigny worked in 25 years, involving a serial killer and rapist of 8 young women somehow just 'slipped his mind.'
Later in the hearing, at 85:00, Senator Kyl pursued the Ross case further, and Chatigny responded that he believes he 'did the right thing but went about it the wrong way.'
But his arrogance, activism and intervention goes much, much further than this one isolated (albeit sensational and important) case. At 89:54 of the Judiciary Commitee hearing, Senator Coburn asked Chatigny about his opinion saying that the Connecticut version of Megan’s law (law that requires registration of sex offenders) was unconstitutional because it did not provide for a hearing - a decision that ultimately was overruled unanimously by the Supreme Court.
And, more, Senator Coburn notes at 109:50 in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that Chatigny has said (in a speech) 'empathy' should be used in judicial decision-making, offering this in particular with respect to his criticism of mandatory minimums. The judge’s responses are inconsistent at best - suggesting he would use empathy for sentencing, but not in judging.
Finally, Judge Chatigny sentenced a defendant convicted of possessing and trading child pornography to less than half of the time recommended by the sentencing guidelines, and he did this kind of thing in numerous cases (at least 6 or 7).
********
Judges matter. This judge has acted irresponsibly, arrogantly and seemingly unethically. He should not be confirmed to the Second Circuit - yet, he most likely will be confirmed because Democrats will blindly defend him and some Republicans will ignore the many reasons to vote against him.
And thus is the state of our future Judiciary."
Read from Red State:
Obama 2nd Circuit Nominee Abused Power, Helped Rapist and Serial Killer
"Lost amid all the flurry regarding Arizona’s new immigration law and Obama’s efforts (with Republican assistance) to have the federal government run Wall Street has been the nomination of Federal District Judge Robert N. Chatigny to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. But you should care. A lot.
Why? Circuit court judges have a great deal of power and influence. Yet, this is a man who abused his power as a judge to help a rapist/serial killer, attempted to strike down the sex offender registry known as Megan’s law (a decision later unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court) and sentenced child porn distributors well below the sentencing guideline range. In particular, his unethical handling of the case of 'the Roadside Strangler,' serial killer Michael B. Ross, is one of the most egregious displays of arrogance and abuse of power by any judge in recent memory.
And that doesn’t even come close to giving you the full picture of just how out of touch this man is with both the American public and his responsibility to call balls and strikes as a judge. To do that, you need to read and/or view the following:
1. This clip detailing the horrific murders - by Michael Ross - of 8 young women, of whom at least 6 he violently raped;
2. A devastating letter from Michael O’Hare (PDF), the Assistant State’s Attorney in Connecticut who represented the state in the challenge to Chatigny’s death sentence, in which he details the long train of abuses by Chatigny - such as presiding over Ross’ case despite having previously represented him, interrupting the state before it had finished to rule in favor of the murderer/rapist, berating and threatening Chatigny’s defense lawyers for not filing against their client’s wishes, and otherwise acting in appropriately; and
3. This video of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held yesterday in which Senators Coburn, Kyl and Sessions asked Chatigny tough questions, and for which he had no good answers (see Daily Caller on topic, here), regarding not only the Ross case, but Chatigny’s ruling against Megan’s law and his pattern of giving low sentences to distributors of child pornography.
Unfortunately, despite these clearly disqualifying actions, characteristics and temperament, Chatigny may still be confirmed by the Senate because of blindly loyal democrats and the misguided efforts of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who is calling Senators on Chatigny’s behalf. Of course, as the Daily Caller notes, Mukasey’s former chief of staff at the Justice Department, Brian Benczkowski, is now staff director for Judiciary ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions.
Mukasey was a colleague of Chatigny in the Second Circuit, and played a role in clearing Chatigny of any judicial misconduct. But the fact the judicial brotherhood sticks together is no great surprise and that he was cleared, even with substantial misgivings by his colleagues, is not grounds for Senators to ignore his abhorrent, arrogant behavior when considering his possible elevation.
Consider the facts of Michael Ross’ crimes. As Senator Coburn noted in his questioning (see judiciary clip 49:15 to 51:30):
'While in prison, Michael Ross participated in the creation of a documentary on serial killers entitled “The Serial Killers” during which he described in great detail how he raped and murdered eight women and girls. In the video Ross explains: “Serial killers like to strangle their victims and that is, I guess, the most common form of killing because there is more of a connection, it’s more real, and it’s not as quick.”
He later describes how he tied up Leslie Shelley (age 14) and put her in the trunk of his car and then: “took the other girl, April Bernaise (age 14), out and I raped her and killed her and I put her in the front seat.”
Then, he pulled Leslie Shelley out of the trunk and brutally killed her.
In describing his last victim, Wendy Baribeault (17), he said: “I raped her and I killed her. It wasn’t pleasant; it wasn’t a nice rape.”
Judge Chatigny, this is the man who you described as “the least culpable of the people on death row” and said the “he never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death” and that “when [Ross] says, I feel that I’m the victim of a miscarriage of justice because they didn’t treat it as a mitigating factor, I can well understand where he’s coming from.”'
Senator Sessions similarly raised questions during the hearing (see 95:30) about his comment 'he should never have been convicted,' or that he shouldn’t have been sentenced to death because 'sexual sadism' was not considered as a mitigating factor.
Consider further that, as Senator Sessions points out at 67:30 of the Judiciary Committee hearing, a competency hearing had been held and the Connecticut Supreme Court had upheld the death penalty in the Ross case, all prior to Judge Chatigny’s improper and abusive actions as a federal judge. Specifically, according to the letter from the attorney representing Connecticut, as well as transcripts of a teleconference call and as pointed out by Senator Sessions and others in the Judiciary Committee hearing:
- Chatigny granted two motions to stay the execution of Ross, even though he had already been found competent by the state court (per above), and one of those orders was issued before the State had even finished its questioning;
- Judge Chatigny further excused Ross’s violent and deplorable crimes by arguing that his 'sexual sadism … is clearly a mitigating factor.'
- In support of his position, Judge Chatigny cited his own personal experience touring the prison where Ross was being held 'with an eye toward trying to grasp what its effect would be on the individual inmate.' He also cited the 'abundant literature' supporting death row syndrome and asserted that 'most European countries' recognize the syndrome to bolster his decision.
- Chatigny repeatedly pressured and threatened the defendant’s attorney to seek a new competency hearing and to seek further appeals despite the fact his client did not want either. In fact, when Ross’s lawyer insisted on following his client’s wishes not to appeal, Judge Chatigny declared that the attorney would be 'the proximate cause' of Ross’s death and then threatened his law license stating: 'So I warn you . . . you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life. And you better be prepared to deal with me because I’ll have your law license. … What you’re doing is wrong.'
- Chatigny improperly sought to reach state court judges in the hours prior to the execution, despite the fact no pending motions were before him;
- Chatigny had represented the defendant 13 years before his meddling as a judge - an obvious conflict of interest - and he failed to disclose this conflict, claiming later that it has innocently slipped his memory. Senator Coburn properly points out at the Judiciary Committee hearing at 56:31 that it sure seems odd that the only death penalty case Chatigny worked in 25 years, involving a serial killer and rapist of 8 young women somehow just 'slipped his mind.'
Later in the hearing, at 85:00, Senator Kyl pursued the Ross case further, and Chatigny responded that he believes he 'did the right thing but went about it the wrong way.'
But his arrogance, activism and intervention goes much, much further than this one isolated (albeit sensational and important) case. At 89:54 of the Judiciary Commitee hearing, Senator Coburn asked Chatigny about his opinion saying that the Connecticut version of Megan’s law (law that requires registration of sex offenders) was unconstitutional because it did not provide for a hearing - a decision that ultimately was overruled unanimously by the Supreme Court.
And, more, Senator Coburn notes at 109:50 in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that Chatigny has said (in a speech) 'empathy' should be used in judicial decision-making, offering this in particular with respect to his criticism of mandatory minimums. The judge’s responses are inconsistent at best - suggesting he would use empathy for sentencing, but not in judging.
Finally, Judge Chatigny sentenced a defendant convicted of possessing and trading child pornography to less than half of the time recommended by the sentencing guidelines, and he did this kind of thing in numerous cases (at least 6 or 7).
********
Judges matter. This judge has acted irresponsibly, arrogantly and seemingly unethically. He should not be confirmed to the Second Circuit - yet, he most likely will be confirmed because Democrats will blindly defend him and some Republicans will ignore the many reasons to vote against him.
And thus is the state of our future Judiciary."
"He's 49, She's 13"
If it were any religion other than the politically-correct Islam, the world would be enraged. But, since this act of pedophilia was committed by a Muslim, there is no reaction whatsoever. How tragic is that?
Read from Jihad Watch:
Nigeria: Senator who oversaw introduction of Sharia in his state takes child bride from Egypt
"He's 49, she's 13. Of course, he's just following Muhammad's example, made sacrosanct per Qur'an 33:21. It is quite clear whose law Yerima is following, which sets up a conflict of interest with his role in the governance of Nigeria as a whole, as the country still has a non-Sharia constitution to uphold.
'Investigation into Nigerian senator's "child bride",' from BBC News, April 28:
'Nigeria's Senate has ordered an investigation into reports that one of its members has married a 13-year-old Egyptian girl.
Ahmad Sani Yerima, 49, is alleged to have married her at the national mosque in Abuja several weeks ago.
Senators called for the investigation after receiving a petition by protesting women's groups, who believe Mr Sani has broken the law.
The senator has not spoken publicly about the reports of his marriage.
The BBC's Caroline Duffield, in Lagos, says Nigeria's human rights commission has already begun an investigation.
Mr Sani was the governor of Zamfara state, where he oversaw the introduction of Sharia law - for the first time in a northern state - in 1999.
Legal action
Our correspondent says reports of the marriage - appearing in newspapers - are creating a storm among human rights groups.
The female senators, lawyers and doctors who are protesting say that they fear for the child's health.'
Speaking of her health, as she came from Egypt, chances are all too high that she has also already undergone female genital mutilation.
'"What we are concerned with is that our minors, the girl child, should be allowed to mature, before going into marriage," Mma Wokocha, President of the Women's Medical Association and one of those behind the petition, told the BBC.
"This very evil act should not be seen to be perpetrated by one of our distinguished legislators ... that is what we are saying.''
The senator is reported to have paid a dowry of $100,000 (£66,000) to the child's parents - and to have brought the girl into Nigeria from Egypt.
The women's groups want Mr Sani to be taken to court, to face a fine and a jail sentence.
Our reporter says the whereabouts of the teenager are unknown - and it is not clear whether she has any parent or guardian with her.
Newspaper reports have also accused the senator of having previously married a 15-year-old girl in 2006.
The investigation is to be carried out by a Senate committee.'"
Read from Jihad Watch:
Nigeria: Senator who oversaw introduction of Sharia in his state takes child bride from Egypt
"He's 49, she's 13. Of course, he's just following Muhammad's example, made sacrosanct per Qur'an 33:21. It is quite clear whose law Yerima is following, which sets up a conflict of interest with his role in the governance of Nigeria as a whole, as the country still has a non-Sharia constitution to uphold.
'Investigation into Nigerian senator's "child bride",' from BBC News, April 28:
'Nigeria's Senate has ordered an investigation into reports that one of its members has married a 13-year-old Egyptian girl.
Ahmad Sani Yerima, 49, is alleged to have married her at the national mosque in Abuja several weeks ago.
Senators called for the investigation after receiving a petition by protesting women's groups, who believe Mr Sani has broken the law.
The senator has not spoken publicly about the reports of his marriage.
The BBC's Caroline Duffield, in Lagos, says Nigeria's human rights commission has already begun an investigation.
Mr Sani was the governor of Zamfara state, where he oversaw the introduction of Sharia law - for the first time in a northern state - in 1999.
Legal action
Our correspondent says reports of the marriage - appearing in newspapers - are creating a storm among human rights groups.
The female senators, lawyers and doctors who are protesting say that they fear for the child's health.'
Speaking of her health, as she came from Egypt, chances are all too high that she has also already undergone female genital mutilation.
'"What we are concerned with is that our minors, the girl child, should be allowed to mature, before going into marriage," Mma Wokocha, President of the Women's Medical Association and one of those behind the petition, told the BBC.
"This very evil act should not be seen to be perpetrated by one of our distinguished legislators ... that is what we are saying.''
The senator is reported to have paid a dowry of $100,000 (£66,000) to the child's parents - and to have brought the girl into Nigeria from Egypt.
The women's groups want Mr Sani to be taken to court, to face a fine and a jail sentence.
Our reporter says the whereabouts of the teenager are unknown - and it is not clear whether she has any parent or guardian with her.
Newspaper reports have also accused the senator of having previously married a 15-year-old girl in 2006.
The investigation is to be carried out by a Senate committee.'"
Riot Police Called to Peaceful Tea Party Demonstration
I thought President Obama was to heal the nation and bring the political parties and our citizens together. What a load of crap that was! Our nation has NEVER been more divided.
Can you believe he called out the riot police to a Tea Party demonstration of peaceful protestors? Is this guy for real?
From Big Government:
Can you believe he called out the riot police to a Tea Party demonstration of peaceful protestors? Is this guy for real?
From Big Government:
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Horrors of ObamaCare
Somehow, all that horrors that we conservatives forecasted would take place under Barack Obama's "let grandma die" healthcare rationing bill seem to be coming to fruition. Now, they tell us.
Read from Human Events:
Obama Caught with His Pants Down (Again)
by Jason Mattera
"Remember when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid promised us that a government takeover of health-care would actually lower cost and reduce the deficit? Remember when we were guaranteed that a bureaucratic overhaul would leave our own current health-care coverage untouched? Oh, and remember when critics were scolded for addressing the forms of government 'rationing' that are likely to occur as a result? Well, well. As usual, reality has come back to pimp slap the democrats in the end.
Here are three quick pointers you need to know.
1. The government’s chief Medicare actuary found that, under ObamaCare, costs are expected to see a one percent increase over the next ten years. Not only did his report acknowledge that ObamaCare's price increases are 'plausible and even probable,' but it even found that many of the Administration’s much-ballyhooed savings projections are 'unrealistic' and 'difficult to attain.'
2. If you’re a senior citizen, get ready to kiss your Medicare Advantage plan goodbye! The Obama Administration began to gut this very popular program to the tune of $200 billion, which means that there are millions of seniors who will now be booted off of their current insurance coverage—yep, the same insurance coverage that Barack promised us would go unscathed.
3. The President recently nominated Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Who is Donald Berwick? He’s just another leftist dude in high places who is a big believer in health-care rationing. But don’t take my word for it. Quoth Mr. Berwick: Since 'we have a limited resource pool…the decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'"
Read from Human Events:
Obama Caught with His Pants Down (Again)
by Jason Mattera
"Remember when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid promised us that a government takeover of health-care would actually lower cost and reduce the deficit? Remember when we were guaranteed that a bureaucratic overhaul would leave our own current health-care coverage untouched? Oh, and remember when critics were scolded for addressing the forms of government 'rationing' that are likely to occur as a result? Well, well. As usual, reality has come back to pimp slap the democrats in the end.
Here are three quick pointers you need to know.
1. The government’s chief Medicare actuary found that, under ObamaCare, costs are expected to see a one percent increase over the next ten years. Not only did his report acknowledge that ObamaCare's price increases are 'plausible and even probable,' but it even found that many of the Administration’s much-ballyhooed savings projections are 'unrealistic' and 'difficult to attain.'
2. If you’re a senior citizen, get ready to kiss your Medicare Advantage plan goodbye! The Obama Administration began to gut this very popular program to the tune of $200 billion, which means that there are millions of seniors who will now be booted off of their current insurance coverage—yep, the same insurance coverage that Barack promised us would go unscathed.
3. The President recently nominated Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Who is Donald Berwick? He’s just another leftist dude in high places who is a big believer in health-care rationing. But don’t take my word for it. Quoth Mr. Berwick: Since 'we have a limited resource pool…the decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'"
UK Politician Suspended for Insulting Islam
Offend Islam, you're out. That has become the politically-correct method of dealing with those who dare to speak the truth about the religion of Mohammed, both in the United States and in Europe. Don't believe me? Ask Franklin Graham, who was disinvited to speak at the National Day of Prayer event for calling Islam "an evil religion", even though he emphasized that he loved the Muslim people. Or better yet, Geert Wilders, who is on trial for speaking the truth about Islam, using the very words of Muslims themselves. Somehow, their own words inflamed them when broadcast in Wilders's controversial documentary, Fitna.
The Brits are even more advanced down the road to Islamization than we Americans are. One of their politicians made a statement that he wouldn't want any of his children to marry a Muslim, and now he has been suspended for doing so. Perhaps, this man has a daughter, and does not want her to suffer the abuse that many Muslim women suffer under the hard-fisted rule of their husbands. Possibly, he has a young teenager daughter who he doesn't want married off to a man three times her age, which is a practice which occurs in some Muslim nations. Or if he has a son, he may not want to have four daughter-in-laws, as is permitted in Islam. All in all, who could blame him? Isn't he just stating what most Westerners would think in the same situation?
Read from Jihad Watch:
UK: Labour party candidate for Parliament suspended after saying he didn't want any of his children to marry a Muslim
"John Cowan's statement, of course, is being taken simply as a manifestation of racism and bigotry, and consequently he has become anathema to Labour. There seems to be no consideration whatsoever of the wisdom of marrying someone whose revered holy book and supreme guide to behavior mandates the beating of disobedient women (cf. Qur'an 4:34) and subjugates women as inferior to men in numerous ways. There seems to be no consideration of the reality of Islamic polygamy, which is also sanctioned by the Qur'an, and general relegation of women to the status of commodities.
If John Cowan were an informed and intelligent man with the courage of his convictions, he could take this opportunity to speak up for the rights of women and against their institutionalized oppression in Islam. But I doubt he will do that.
"Muslim row Labour candidate, John Cowan, suspended," from the BBC, April 26 (thanks to Twostellas):
'A Labour candidate has been suspended after allegedly saying on an internet forum that he would not want any children of his to marry a Muslim.
John Cowan, who is said to have admitted paying cash to a cleaner claiming benefits, called the row a "storm in a tea cup".
His suspension comes too late for him to be replaced on the ballot paper for South East Cambridgeshire.
A party spokesman said he hoped voters may "hold their noses" but vote Labour.
Mr Cowan told the BBC it was all "really a storm in a tea cup" adding that "one or two things... were misquoted and taken out of context".
"There were one or two comments that with hindsight could have been made a bit clearer," he said....
The latest controversy includes an accusation that he stated on a message board he would not like any children of his to marry a Muslim....
Labour said Mr Cowan's actions were "totally unacceptable and well below what the party expects".
A decision will now be made whether to expel him from the party.
A Labour Party spokesman said: "Everybody in the Labour Party is extremely angry about this.
"There is a feeling of anger in the party. They feel he has let down not just the party but ordinary party members.
"We will seek to make sure he is never a Labour Party candidate again."...'
All right, then!"
The Brits are even more advanced down the road to Islamization than we Americans are. One of their politicians made a statement that he wouldn't want any of his children to marry a Muslim, and now he has been suspended for doing so. Perhaps, this man has a daughter, and does not want her to suffer the abuse that many Muslim women suffer under the hard-fisted rule of their husbands. Possibly, he has a young teenager daughter who he doesn't want married off to a man three times her age, which is a practice which occurs in some Muslim nations. Or if he has a son, he may not want to have four daughter-in-laws, as is permitted in Islam. All in all, who could blame him? Isn't he just stating what most Westerners would think in the same situation?
Read from Jihad Watch:
UK: Labour party candidate for Parliament suspended after saying he didn't want any of his children to marry a Muslim
"John Cowan's statement, of course, is being taken simply as a manifestation of racism and bigotry, and consequently he has become anathema to Labour. There seems to be no consideration whatsoever of the wisdom of marrying someone whose revered holy book and supreme guide to behavior mandates the beating of disobedient women (cf. Qur'an 4:34) and subjugates women as inferior to men in numerous ways. There seems to be no consideration of the reality of Islamic polygamy, which is also sanctioned by the Qur'an, and general relegation of women to the status of commodities.
If John Cowan were an informed and intelligent man with the courage of his convictions, he could take this opportunity to speak up for the rights of women and against their institutionalized oppression in Islam. But I doubt he will do that.
"Muslim row Labour candidate, John Cowan, suspended," from the BBC, April 26 (thanks to Twostellas):
'A Labour candidate has been suspended after allegedly saying on an internet forum that he would not want any children of his to marry a Muslim.
John Cowan, who is said to have admitted paying cash to a cleaner claiming benefits, called the row a "storm in a tea cup".
His suspension comes too late for him to be replaced on the ballot paper for South East Cambridgeshire.
A party spokesman said he hoped voters may "hold their noses" but vote Labour.
Mr Cowan told the BBC it was all "really a storm in a tea cup" adding that "one or two things... were misquoted and taken out of context".
"There were one or two comments that with hindsight could have been made a bit clearer," he said....
The latest controversy includes an accusation that he stated on a message board he would not like any children of his to marry a Muslim....
Labour said Mr Cowan's actions were "totally unacceptable and well below what the party expects".
A decision will now be made whether to expel him from the party.
A Labour Party spokesman said: "Everybody in the Labour Party is extremely angry about this.
"There is a feeling of anger in the party. They feel he has let down not just the party but ordinary party members.
"We will seek to make sure he is never a Labour Party candidate again."...'
All right, then!"
Infanticide in Italy
Read from the UK Telegraph:
Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion
A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly two days later.
"The 22-week infant later died in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy.
The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.
However the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabria hospital, and was left by doctors to die.
He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.
He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.
The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neonatal unit at a neighbouring hospital where he died on Monday morning.
Italian police are investigating the case for 'homicide' because infanticide is illegal in Italy.
The law means that doctors have had an obligation to try to preserve the life of the child once he had survived the abortion.
The Italian government is also considering an inquiry into the conduct of the hospital staff.
The case has reignited controversy on the legality of abortion in the proudly Roman Catholic country.
It could also raise questions in Britain over the legal upper limits for abortion and the viability of the foetus – or its ability to survive outside of the womb.
A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said: 'There cannot be anybody in the world who is not horrified by a story like this nor anybody in the UK who would not support a massive reduction in the upper limit for abortion.'"
Read it all.
"There cannot be anybody in the world who is not horrified by a story like this."
Wrong! President Obama, while in the Illinois State Senate, voted for infanticide. He had no problem whatsoever with permitting a baby who survived a botched abortion to be left to die without medical attention.
Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion
A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly two days later.
"The 22-week infant later died in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy.
The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.
However the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabria hospital, and was left by doctors to die.
He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.
He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.
The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neonatal unit at a neighbouring hospital where he died on Monday morning.
Italian police are investigating the case for 'homicide' because infanticide is illegal in Italy.
The law means that doctors have had an obligation to try to preserve the life of the child once he had survived the abortion.
The Italian government is also considering an inquiry into the conduct of the hospital staff.
The case has reignited controversy on the legality of abortion in the proudly Roman Catholic country.
It could also raise questions in Britain over the legal upper limits for abortion and the viability of the foetus – or its ability to survive outside of the womb.
A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said: 'There cannot be anybody in the world who is not horrified by a story like this nor anybody in the UK who would not support a massive reduction in the upper limit for abortion.'"
Read it all.
"There cannot be anybody in the world who is not horrified by a story like this."
Wrong! President Obama, while in the Illinois State Senate, voted for infanticide. He had no problem whatsoever with permitting a baby who survived a botched abortion to be left to die without medical attention.
A Liar in the White House
What can I say? He lied through his teeth, just as he has been doing ever since he contemplated a run for the White House.
It's time Americans pull a Bush 41 on President Obama and send him packing for breaking his promise of no tax increases for those making under $250,000.
Read from Liberty Pundits:
Obama to raise income taxes on joint filers making $67,900 or more
"I know, he said he wouldn’t do it. He promised.
'“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”'
And yet, income taxes will be going up at the end of the year.
'As the tax law currently stands, the Bush tax cuts are due to expire (or “sunset” in the semi-literate usage of Washington bureaucrats who never saw a noun they didn’t want to use as a verb) at the end of the year.
That would mean all joint filers with incomes over $67,900 would see tax hikes, with the top bracket returning to 39.6%. The investor-friendly 15% top rate on dividends and capital gains also will end; dividends will revert to being taxed at ordinary-income rates while cap gains levies return to 20% under current law.'
Don’t play their game. It is a cut and dried, no-kidding tax increase on families making $67,900. He lies."
It's time Americans pull a Bush 41 on President Obama and send him packing for breaking his promise of no tax increases for those making under $250,000.
Read from Liberty Pundits:
Obama to raise income taxes on joint filers making $67,900 or more
"I know, he said he wouldn’t do it. He promised.
'“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”'
And yet, income taxes will be going up at the end of the year.
'As the tax law currently stands, the Bush tax cuts are due to expire (or “sunset” in the semi-literate usage of Washington bureaucrats who never saw a noun they didn’t want to use as a verb) at the end of the year.
That would mean all joint filers with incomes over $67,900 would see tax hikes, with the top bracket returning to 39.6%. The investor-friendly 15% top rate on dividends and capital gains also will end; dividends will revert to being taxed at ordinary-income rates while cap gains levies return to 20% under current law.'
Don’t play their game. It is a cut and dried, no-kidding tax increase on families making $67,900. He lies."
Puerto Rico: The 51st State?
When the libs regained complete control of our country in the elections of 2008, they were bound and determined to hold on to their domination. Now, they have a slight problem. Americans have woken up to their radical agenda and want no part of it. With fear of a bloodbath in November, the Democrats have come up with their latest plan to maintain power: a new voting bloc.
Amnesty for illegals has always part of their playbook because they are aware that Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Back when George W. Bush was president, the American people weren't particularly fond of the idea of bailing out those who disobeyed our laws by entering into our country illegally. Do these power-hungry libs actually believe that we will not protest if they force this next costly idea down our throats, especially at a time when nearly 10% of Americans are unemployed, and that's not counting those who have given up looking for jobs or who are underemployed?
At the same time that the Democrats are pushing for amnesty, they have also come up with a new idea to secure more Hispanic voters to their side: statehood for Puerto Rico. Now, where did that little ingenious idea come from? I was away last weekend for a family emergency and was without internet connection, but other than those two days, I have made it a point to stay well informed with what is taking place under the Obama regime, and this one came out of nowhere.
Read about the libs' latest plan to secure their power, via Big Government. Of course, the fact that Puerto Ricans do not want statehood is of no interest to Democrats. If you think they care one bit about what us little peons think, forget that.
Puerto Rico – 51st State? Congress Scrambling to Make it So
by Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King
"Last night (Tuesday) on his TV show, Glenn Beck dropped another bombshell — on Thursday, Congress will take up a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Why is our Congress doing this now? Secretly? Quickly? If it hadn’t been for one of Beck’s 'Refounders' (a Congressional insider), would we even know about this? Why is this important to you and me?
Well, the word is out, and my local 9-12/Tea party organization sent this out this morning. First thing to hit my mailbox, in fact…
There is a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Again, they are trying to pull one over on us and on Puerto Ricans, who have consistently said they do not want to become a state. Read below for more information (from Eagle Forum). This was also discussed by Rep Tom Price on a conference call yesterday.
Please consider this:
* The U.S. would transform, overnight, into a bilingual nation. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English, the language of our U.S. Constitution and founding documents. The Washington Times article, 'Puerto Rican statehood,' analyzes all the implications of adding a foreign language-speaking state to the Union.
* It would bring immediate demands for massive federal spending. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of our poorest state, and infrastructure and the environment are far below American standards. Puerto Rico has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third of that for the U.S.
* Puerto Rico is already a democracy. Despite the bill’s deceptive title, Puerto Rico already has an elected government and exists as a self-governed commonwealth of the U.S.
* Statehood would give Puerto Rico more congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states! It would inevitably give Democrats two additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House.
H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada. The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991!
No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499, as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services.
Sponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state.
The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and 'pursuing a different political status.' If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years.
If the majority votes for 'different status,' a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo of 'U.S. territory' would not even be an option! In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status."
* Contact your US congressmen AND
* Take quick action here: http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=14966151&type=CO
Amnesty for illegals has always part of their playbook because they are aware that Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Back when George W. Bush was president, the American people weren't particularly fond of the idea of bailing out those who disobeyed our laws by entering into our country illegally. Do these power-hungry libs actually believe that we will not protest if they force this next costly idea down our throats, especially at a time when nearly 10% of Americans are unemployed, and that's not counting those who have given up looking for jobs or who are underemployed?
At the same time that the Democrats are pushing for amnesty, they have also come up with a new idea to secure more Hispanic voters to their side: statehood for Puerto Rico. Now, where did that little ingenious idea come from? I was away last weekend for a family emergency and was without internet connection, but other than those two days, I have made it a point to stay well informed with what is taking place under the Obama regime, and this one came out of nowhere.
Read about the libs' latest plan to secure their power, via Big Government. Of course, the fact that Puerto Ricans do not want statehood is of no interest to Democrats. If you think they care one bit about what us little peons think, forget that.
Puerto Rico – 51st State? Congress Scrambling to Make it So
by Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King
"Last night (Tuesday) on his TV show, Glenn Beck dropped another bombshell — on Thursday, Congress will take up a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Why is our Congress doing this now? Secretly? Quickly? If it hadn’t been for one of Beck’s 'Refounders' (a Congressional insider), would we even know about this? Why is this important to you and me?
Well, the word is out, and my local 9-12/Tea party organization sent this out this morning. First thing to hit my mailbox, in fact…
There is a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Again, they are trying to pull one over on us and on Puerto Ricans, who have consistently said they do not want to become a state. Read below for more information (from Eagle Forum). This was also discussed by Rep Tom Price on a conference call yesterday.
Please consider this:
* The U.S. would transform, overnight, into a bilingual nation. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English, the language of our U.S. Constitution and founding documents. The Washington Times article, 'Puerto Rican statehood,' analyzes all the implications of adding a foreign language-speaking state to the Union.
* It would bring immediate demands for massive federal spending. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of our poorest state, and infrastructure and the environment are far below American standards. Puerto Rico has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third of that for the U.S.
* Puerto Rico is already a democracy. Despite the bill’s deceptive title, Puerto Rico already has an elected government and exists as a self-governed commonwealth of the U.S.
* Statehood would give Puerto Rico more congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states! It would inevitably give Democrats two additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House.
H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada. The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991!
No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499, as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services.
Sponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state.
The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and 'pursuing a different political status.' If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years.
If the majority votes for 'different status,' a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo of 'U.S. territory' would not even be an option! In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status."
* Contact your US congressmen AND
* Take quick action here: http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=14966151&type=CO
Clintons' Lack of Compassion for Niece
Hey, Bill and Hill, can't you spare a little of your many millions to help a blood relative who is in need? Aren't you supposed to represent the party of compassion? How can you permit a niece to rely on food stamps when you have more money than you can possibly spend?
Read from the Washington Examiner:
Clinton's niece living on food stamps
"While Chelsea Clinton has been spotted flashing her bling (her engagement ring, of course), it seems that her cousin Macy is struggling to make ends meet.
Former President Clinton's niece, Macy Clinton, said she is in such a rut, she uses a government benefit card to get food from her local grocery store. She blames her financial trouble on former President Clinton's brother, Roger, who she says abandoned her.
'It's hard, because I'm a Clinton, too, but I have to be on food stamps, and I have to sacrifice everything just to make it day by day,' Macy Clinton told 'Inside Edition' in an interview that aired Tuesday.
Clinton has an estranged relationship with her father, whom she has met only twice.
Yeas & Nays called Clinton's camp for comment, but did not hear back."
Read from the Washington Examiner:
Clinton's niece living on food stamps
"While Chelsea Clinton has been spotted flashing her bling (her engagement ring, of course), it seems that her cousin Macy is struggling to make ends meet.
Former President Clinton's niece, Macy Clinton, said she is in such a rut, she uses a government benefit card to get food from her local grocery store. She blames her financial trouble on former President Clinton's brother, Roger, who she says abandoned her.
'It's hard, because I'm a Clinton, too, but I have to be on food stamps, and I have to sacrifice everything just to make it day by day,' Macy Clinton told 'Inside Edition' in an interview that aired Tuesday.
Clinton has an estranged relationship with her father, whom she has met only twice.
Yeas & Nays called Clinton's camp for comment, but did not hear back."
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Texas Billboard
These Texans get it.
From Gateway Pundit:
Anti-Obama Billboard Campaign Continues: Embarrassed Yet?
Another one in Texas…
“Embarrassed Yet?”
From Gateway Pundit:
Anti-Obama Billboard Campaign Continues: Embarrassed Yet?
Another one in Texas…
“Embarrassed Yet?”
"Weaker and More Vulnerable Every Day"
The election of Barack Obama was a clear signal to our enemies worldwide that they were free to perform whatever horrific deed they chose, feeling confident that the weak-willed young and inexperienced president would refuse to hold them accountable for their actions against America and the international community. They must be having a field day as they watch Barack Obama traveling about on his apology tours and speaking to the international community of the necessity of nuclear disarmament and how he will lead the effort by example. Which planet does this man live on to be even having such a conversation?
Read from the American Thinker:
America's enemies testing our resolve
Jerry Philipson
America's enemies are upping the ante. Tests are getting more and more violent out there.
Example number one. North Korea torpedoes a South Korean warship in international waters, killing 46 South Korean naval personnel. This should have triggered an immediate, decisive, military response by the United States as guarantor of South Korea's security but no response has been forthcoming despite the event having taken place over a month ago.
North Korea has certainly taken notice. Attacks by the North Koreans on South Korea will increase in frequency and severity because North Korea now knows that the U.S. will not use it's military to stop them or allow the South Koreans to respond in kind.
Example number two. On April 23 an Iranian naval vessel stopped French and Italian ships in international waters in the Strait of Hormuz. If these actions continue, the free transit of ships in the strait is threatened. Iran becomes a much stronger player in the Middle East and America's position becomes that much more weakened and compromised because the United States Navy is supposedly willing and able to keep those waters open. The U.S. has not responded to this provocation nor is there any indication that it will do so.
Iran has also certainly taken notice, which means incidents of this sort will increase in frequency and severity as well.
Example number three will be...what? A small scale attack on America, or Israel? An attack on one of America's other allies? An attempt to intimidate or coerce the United States? The possibilities are endless. We can be sure of two things however. The next test will come soon and it will either be violent or have a violent element to it. America's enemies smell blood because they realize President Obama is weak and feckless and the U.S. under his leadership doesn't have the will or the wit to stand up and act in its own best interests. It doesn't even know what its best interests are.
The United States is being bullied and bullies only stop when they are forced to. The fact that the U.S. has the largest, most powerful military on earth is irrelevant because it is unwilling to take full advantage of it, even in self defense or in the defense of its allies. America's enemies are perfectly aware of this. It portends one thing and one thing only...escalating violence against the United States and/or it's friends. Test number three will be worse than test number two, test number four will be worse than test number three and so on. There could easily be a new nuclear arms race, a series of small, localized wars and one very large war- however the scenario plays out there will certainly be a great deal of blood spilled, much if not most of it American.
We can thank Obama for all of that. No country ever protected itself by being weak and President Obama and his hopeless policies are making the U.S. weaker and more vulnerable every day.
Read from the American Thinker:
America's enemies testing our resolve
Jerry Philipson
America's enemies are upping the ante. Tests are getting more and more violent out there.
Example number one. North Korea torpedoes a South Korean warship in international waters, killing 46 South Korean naval personnel. This should have triggered an immediate, decisive, military response by the United States as guarantor of South Korea's security but no response has been forthcoming despite the event having taken place over a month ago.
North Korea has certainly taken notice. Attacks by the North Koreans on South Korea will increase in frequency and severity because North Korea now knows that the U.S. will not use it's military to stop them or allow the South Koreans to respond in kind.
Example number two. On April 23 an Iranian naval vessel stopped French and Italian ships in international waters in the Strait of Hormuz. If these actions continue, the free transit of ships in the strait is threatened. Iran becomes a much stronger player in the Middle East and America's position becomes that much more weakened and compromised because the United States Navy is supposedly willing and able to keep those waters open. The U.S. has not responded to this provocation nor is there any indication that it will do so.
Iran has also certainly taken notice, which means incidents of this sort will increase in frequency and severity as well.
Example number three will be...what? A small scale attack on America, or Israel? An attack on one of America's other allies? An attempt to intimidate or coerce the United States? The possibilities are endless. We can be sure of two things however. The next test will come soon and it will either be violent or have a violent element to it. America's enemies smell blood because they realize President Obama is weak and feckless and the U.S. under his leadership doesn't have the will or the wit to stand up and act in its own best interests. It doesn't even know what its best interests are.
The United States is being bullied and bullies only stop when they are forced to. The fact that the U.S. has the largest, most powerful military on earth is irrelevant because it is unwilling to take full advantage of it, even in self defense or in the defense of its allies. America's enemies are perfectly aware of this. It portends one thing and one thing only...escalating violence against the United States and/or it's friends. Test number three will be worse than test number two, test number four will be worse than test number three and so on. There could easily be a new nuclear arms race, a series of small, localized wars and one very large war- however the scenario plays out there will certainly be a great deal of blood spilled, much if not most of it American.
We can thank Obama for all of that. No country ever protected itself by being weak and President Obama and his hopeless policies are making the U.S. weaker and more vulnerable every day.
Political Correctness in the Pentagon
As depressing as it is, we expect a Democratic adminstration to be weak when it comes to national security because they have a history of appeasing our enemies. But, when our military goes along with this type of behavior, Americans should truly be disturbed.
Something is clearly wrong when the military can tolerate a jihadist like Nidal Hassan among their ranks spreading his hatred for America, yet bans an honorable, godly man like Franklin Graham from stating facts about Islam, especially when he specifically stated that he loved the Muslim people.
Read from Human Events:
Islam: Don't Tread on Me
by Robert Maginnis
"The U.S. Army and the Comedy Channel – which broadcasts the cartoon 'South Park' -- share a common fear: alienating Muslims. And, giving in to that fear, last week both exorcised views that threatened to alienate Muslims. Those actions empowered Islamic radicals, trampled freedom of speech and ignored legitimate criticism of Islam that endangers American security.
The Army rescinded an invitation for Christian evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at a Pentagon National Day of Prayer event. That decision was a reaction to criticism from groups like the Council of American-Islamic Relations that complained Graham 'calls Islam evil and claims Muslims are enslaved by their faith.'
On the same day the creators of the television cartoon 'South Park' received threats for airing a program depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a bear costume. But the follow-on cartoon in the series bleeped out the name 'Muhammad' for the bear because of an Islamic threat. The cartoonists said the Comedy Channel – not they – had decided to bleep out the name.
The 'South Park' threat was posted on an Islamic website, which included an audio from a sermon in which the speaker says assassination is justifiable punishment for those who defame Muhammad. The man delivering the sermon is U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda leader and spiritual guide to U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist murderer.
The Comedy Channel’s reaction is cowardly because it caved to intimidation. The website post said the cartoonists 'will probably wind up like [the murdered] Theo van Gogh,' who made a movie that featured a beaten, naked Muslim woman covered in writings from the Koran. The post included a picture of the Dutch filmmaker with a knife protruding from his chest.
And the U.S. Army’s decision is equally cowardly – or worse -- for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the actions of a government agency – one whose principal duty is to defend the nation – are much more significant to us and our enemies than those of comedy television. The Army’s action is a surrender on the ideological battlefield, one which we cannot afford.
The Army’s rescission is also cowardly because the Pentagon in general and the Obama Administration in particular, are desperately trying to cover-up Islam’s radicalizing threat.
First, the Army should have given Graham’s views about Islam a fair hearing. Graham said Islam 'is a very evil and wicked religion' after the 2001 terrorist attacks on America. Later he wrote in The Wall Street Journal he does not believe Muslims are evil but 'as a minister … I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching.'
Graham said what Islam does to women is 'horrid.' 'The brutal, dehumanizing treatment of women by the Taliban has been well-documented and internationally condemned,' he wrote for The Covenant News. He points out that 'abusive treatment of women in most Islamic countries is nearly as draconian.'
Islam is intolerant of other faiths, Graham said. 'The persecution or elimination of non-Muslims has been a cornerstone of Islamic conquests and rule for centuries,' said Graham. 'The Koran provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world. Conversions from Islam to any other faith are often punishable by death.'
He noted the abusive treatment of non-Muslims by the Islamic government in Sudan. Graham said Samaritan’s Purse has a 'hospital in Southern Sudan [that] was bombed seven times by the Islamic regime in Khartoum.' The Khartoum government killed two million innocent Christians and animists in recent years, he said.
There is no freedom of religion in Islamic countries, including so-called moderate Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia. 'It is a crime to build a Christian church, Jewish synagogue, Hindu temple or any other non-Muslim house of worship,' said Graham. In contrast, he said, 'There are about 3,000 mosques in the U.S.' While Muslims are free to worship Allah in the U.S., Christians are not free to worship Jesus in most Muslim countries and soldiers in those lands must hide their crosses and Bibles.
Graham wants Westerners to understand the problem with true Islam. 'We have many Muslims that live in this country, but true Islam cannot be practiced in this country,' said Graham. He explains, 'You can’t beat your wife [here]. You cannot murder your children [in America] if you think they’ve committed adultery.' Both practices are tolerated in countries with true Islam.
Second, the military and the Obama Administration can keep truth speakers like Graham out of the Pentagon, but ignoring the facts about the radicalizing influence of Islam is dangerous for our security.
It was painful to watch the Fort Hood massacre and it hurt more because the killer was a soldier. But the Pentagon added insult to injury when it posted the 86-page review of the massacre without a single mention of the words 'Muslim,' 'Islam,' 'Sharia' (Islamic law) or 'Koran' despite the fact that Major Hasan maintained undisputed contacts with a known Islamist terrorist, compiled a history of making hateful, anti-American statements and reportedly yelled 'Allahu Akbar' [Allah is great] as he shot 43 fellow soldiers.
Former Army Secretary Togo West, who co-led the Fort Hood review for the Obama Administration, dismissed concerns about Hasan’s religion. 'Our concern is not with the religion,' West told Pentagon reporters.
Obama’s comments following the massacre dodged the Islam issue as well. The President said, 'We have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable.' This non-statement avoids Islam’s culpability and reflects Obama’s ongoing campaign of seeking a 'new beginning' in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Last summer Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, to launch his 'new beginning' campaign with the Muslim world. He told that audience 'Islam has demonstrated … religious tolerance' and he promised 'to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.' He said 'America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam' and 'Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.' These comments set the tone for exorcising any negative references to Islam’s association with terrorists from government communications.
That hands-off-Islam campaign is reflected in Obama’s important national security documents. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a 128-page report that sets out the military’s future strategy and force structure describes the country’s terrorist threat without using the words 'Islam,' 'Islamic' or 'Islamist' a single time.
Very soon Obama will publish his first national security strategy. The Washington Times reports that document removes religious terms such as 'Islamic extremism' and is rewritten to emphasize the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror.
While the Obama Administration tries to implement government control as in Orwell’s famous 1984 by banning Islamic references and putting them down the memory hole, our soldiers know better. The ground truth about Islam is that it is undeniably linked to radicalism which endangers America and our military should not pretend otherwise."
Something is clearly wrong when the military can tolerate a jihadist like Nidal Hassan among their ranks spreading his hatred for America, yet bans an honorable, godly man like Franklin Graham from stating facts about Islam, especially when he specifically stated that he loved the Muslim people.
Read from Human Events:
Islam: Don't Tread on Me
by Robert Maginnis
"The U.S. Army and the Comedy Channel – which broadcasts the cartoon 'South Park' -- share a common fear: alienating Muslims. And, giving in to that fear, last week both exorcised views that threatened to alienate Muslims. Those actions empowered Islamic radicals, trampled freedom of speech and ignored legitimate criticism of Islam that endangers American security.
The Army rescinded an invitation for Christian evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at a Pentagon National Day of Prayer event. That decision was a reaction to criticism from groups like the Council of American-Islamic Relations that complained Graham 'calls Islam evil and claims Muslims are enslaved by their faith.'
On the same day the creators of the television cartoon 'South Park' received threats for airing a program depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a bear costume. But the follow-on cartoon in the series bleeped out the name 'Muhammad' for the bear because of an Islamic threat. The cartoonists said the Comedy Channel – not they – had decided to bleep out the name.
The 'South Park' threat was posted on an Islamic website, which included an audio from a sermon in which the speaker says assassination is justifiable punishment for those who defame Muhammad. The man delivering the sermon is U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda leader and spiritual guide to U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist murderer.
The Comedy Channel’s reaction is cowardly because it caved to intimidation. The website post said the cartoonists 'will probably wind up like [the murdered] Theo van Gogh,' who made a movie that featured a beaten, naked Muslim woman covered in writings from the Koran. The post included a picture of the Dutch filmmaker with a knife protruding from his chest.
And the U.S. Army’s decision is equally cowardly – or worse -- for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the actions of a government agency – one whose principal duty is to defend the nation – are much more significant to us and our enemies than those of comedy television. The Army’s action is a surrender on the ideological battlefield, one which we cannot afford.
The Army’s rescission is also cowardly because the Pentagon in general and the Obama Administration in particular, are desperately trying to cover-up Islam’s radicalizing threat.
First, the Army should have given Graham’s views about Islam a fair hearing. Graham said Islam 'is a very evil and wicked religion' after the 2001 terrorist attacks on America. Later he wrote in The Wall Street Journal he does not believe Muslims are evil but 'as a minister … I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching.'
Graham said what Islam does to women is 'horrid.' 'The brutal, dehumanizing treatment of women by the Taliban has been well-documented and internationally condemned,' he wrote for The Covenant News. He points out that 'abusive treatment of women in most Islamic countries is nearly as draconian.'
Islam is intolerant of other faiths, Graham said. 'The persecution or elimination of non-Muslims has been a cornerstone of Islamic conquests and rule for centuries,' said Graham. 'The Koran provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world. Conversions from Islam to any other faith are often punishable by death.'
He noted the abusive treatment of non-Muslims by the Islamic government in Sudan. Graham said Samaritan’s Purse has a 'hospital in Southern Sudan [that] was bombed seven times by the Islamic regime in Khartoum.' The Khartoum government killed two million innocent Christians and animists in recent years, he said.
There is no freedom of religion in Islamic countries, including so-called moderate Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia. 'It is a crime to build a Christian church, Jewish synagogue, Hindu temple or any other non-Muslim house of worship,' said Graham. In contrast, he said, 'There are about 3,000 mosques in the U.S.' While Muslims are free to worship Allah in the U.S., Christians are not free to worship Jesus in most Muslim countries and soldiers in those lands must hide their crosses and Bibles.
Graham wants Westerners to understand the problem with true Islam. 'We have many Muslims that live in this country, but true Islam cannot be practiced in this country,' said Graham. He explains, 'You can’t beat your wife [here]. You cannot murder your children [in America] if you think they’ve committed adultery.' Both practices are tolerated in countries with true Islam.
Second, the military and the Obama Administration can keep truth speakers like Graham out of the Pentagon, but ignoring the facts about the radicalizing influence of Islam is dangerous for our security.
It was painful to watch the Fort Hood massacre and it hurt more because the killer was a soldier. But the Pentagon added insult to injury when it posted the 86-page review of the massacre without a single mention of the words 'Muslim,' 'Islam,' 'Sharia' (Islamic law) or 'Koran' despite the fact that Major Hasan maintained undisputed contacts with a known Islamist terrorist, compiled a history of making hateful, anti-American statements and reportedly yelled 'Allahu Akbar' [Allah is great] as he shot 43 fellow soldiers.
Former Army Secretary Togo West, who co-led the Fort Hood review for the Obama Administration, dismissed concerns about Hasan’s religion. 'Our concern is not with the religion,' West told Pentagon reporters.
Obama’s comments following the massacre dodged the Islam issue as well. The President said, 'We have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable.' This non-statement avoids Islam’s culpability and reflects Obama’s ongoing campaign of seeking a 'new beginning' in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Last summer Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, to launch his 'new beginning' campaign with the Muslim world. He told that audience 'Islam has demonstrated … religious tolerance' and he promised 'to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.' He said 'America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam' and 'Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.' These comments set the tone for exorcising any negative references to Islam’s association with terrorists from government communications.
That hands-off-Islam campaign is reflected in Obama’s important national security documents. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a 128-page report that sets out the military’s future strategy and force structure describes the country’s terrorist threat without using the words 'Islam,' 'Islamic' or 'Islamist' a single time.
Very soon Obama will publish his first national security strategy. The Washington Times reports that document removes religious terms such as 'Islamic extremism' and is rewritten to emphasize the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror.
While the Obama Administration tries to implement government control as in Orwell’s famous 1984 by banning Islamic references and putting them down the memory hole, our soldiers know better. The ground truth about Islam is that it is undeniably linked to radicalism which endangers America and our military should not pretend otherwise."
Democrats' Ties to Wall Street
It's time Americans hear the truth about the libs and their ties to Wall Street.
Read and watch this video from Gateway Pundit:
So Who Is the Real Party of Wall Street? (Video)
"As the Obama White House and Senate Democrats continue to demagogue the issue of Wall Street reform and engage in populist rhetoric, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) today released a new Web video, 'Guess Who’s The Real Party of Wall Street?' to highlight the reality of the Democrats’ ties to Wall Street.
You wouldn’t know this if you relied on the state-run media. That’s for sure."
Read and watch this video from Gateway Pundit:
So Who Is the Real Party of Wall Street? (Video)
"As the Obama White House and Senate Democrats continue to demagogue the issue of Wall Street reform and engage in populist rhetoric, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) today released a new Web video, 'Guess Who’s The Real Party of Wall Street?' to highlight the reality of the Democrats’ ties to Wall Street.
You wouldn’t know this if you relied on the state-run media. That’s for sure."
The Real Haters
Wanna know who the real haters are? Go here because it is way too vile to post on my blog.
Infidels to Blame
In case you wondered what caused the Icelandic volcano, Hamas has the answer for you.
From Israel Matzav:
From Israel Matzav:
America, What Have You Risked by Electing Obama?
What happened to the days of strong national security Democratics, as in FDR and Truman? Those days are long gone and just a memory from the past. If you thought Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were incompetent weaklings when it came to dealing with our enemies, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Read from the American Thinker:
Obama Is Enabling Nuclear Breakout
By James Lewis
"Jimmy Carter didn't want to be known as the Ayatollah Appeaser, but that's how history has him chalked up. Bill Clinton played dumb about the 1994 World Trade Center bombing, actually blocking the flow of foreign intelligence between Justice and the CIA, and thereby enabled 9/11/01 -- the second al-Qaeda attack on Manhattan in seven years. The liberal media are still in shrill denial of those facts, but history will not forget their failures. Historians will ask over and over why yet another feckless Democrat was elected in 2008. How could Americans be so blind to the circling jackals of this world?
Now Obama seems intent on reversing the Cold War and letting nuclear proliferation explode. In Congress, the Democrats are committing mass suicide for him. FDR gave us the New Deal, and Obama is giving us the Raw Deal.
But FDR presided over the bloodiest war for America since the Civil War. He didn't want to be a war president, but when Pearl Harbor came, he did not deceive himself the way the Left has deceived itself since 9/11. Pearl Harbor was a plain act of war, and Americans in 1941 got that instantly. Four years later, Harry Truman didn't plan to begin the Cold War against Communist aggression with a defensive war in Korea. But that's how it turned out. 'Events, my dear boy,' said Harold McMillan. Events decide how presidents will look to history.
Obama is now set to be the biggest loser of the last sixty years -- the man who let nuclear weapons explode out of control by fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the threat. The implications for the future are unpredictable, but just as World War II was more consequential than the New Deal, there is nothing an American president can do that is more important that his national security actions. When -- not if -- nuclear proliferation runs out of control, it won't look like the Cold War, when only two superpowers had usable missiles and weapons, and when, after Stalin died, both sides acted fairly rationally.
Instead, Obama's towering failure means a multi-polar race to get the baddest bombs, with the mullahs racing the Sunni Arabs and a very real chance that Hezb'allah or al-Qaeda will get enough material to build a dirty nuke. Only advanced missile defenses will save us, and if America doesn't speed up our defense development, then the saner nations in the world will do it. They are not going to wait for us.
When unstable tyrannies like Iran, North Korea, Libya, and even Venezuela have nukes, Obama's self-glorifying ego trips will fade by comparison. The only question Americans will ask will be: How well did he protect his country? We forget that for the last ninety years, America's military power has been kept at the razor's edge -- not because we somehow decided to conquer the world, but because we had to resist the imperialistic aggression of the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, Mao (by proxy in Korea and Vietnam), and the Soviet Empire. Liberals pretend that war is all the past, but history hasn't ended.
Today we see murderous tyrannies rising again, and Obama is too busy navel-gazing to see them for himself. Hugging Mugabe is more his style. So nobody is driving this train, and an abyss yawns just ahead of us.
Jimmy Carter actively enabled the Islamofascist overthrow of the Shah of Persia, one of the great traditional imperial powers of the Middle East. Turkey, another great power for five centuries under the Ottomans, has now slipped back from a century of increased political tolerance toward radical Islam, and is now siding with Iran against Israel. Iraq, another imperial center that goes back six thousand years to Sumer, is torn between Sunnis and Shiites, which means Iran against the Arabs. The Saudis helped finance Pakistan's nukes and missiles, and they can import them as soon as they give the signal. Arabia is the heartland of Islam, and Iran has had its eyes on Mecca and Medina since Khomeini. The end of war? Only in Liberal Land.
Radical Muslims are ideologically resistant to the Enlightenment values of tolerance, science, free speech, elected governments, and free trade. They are not like India and Japan, which have adopted modernism at a very deep level in the last half century. But since Khomeini took over Iran, all the modernizing forces in Muslim lands have been forced backwards. Islamic radicalism was much less of a problem before that huge defeat for civilization. Jimmy Carter was therefore criminally naïve (and still is today), Clinton didn't even try to face the facts of international life, and Obama is the worst of all. He is mentally stuck in third-world Leftism, and he has shown no capacity to learn. So much for 'progressive' politics driving us back to the past.
A small but ominous event happened two weeks ago at the 'nuclear summit' of 45 nations, most of which have no nuclear capacity at all. At the summit, Obama publicly snubbed the president of Georgia. The American media were too dumb and ignorant to get it, but Putin and Eastern Europe took notice, all right. Georgia was, after all, the first country to be invaded by Russian tanks since Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.
Two years ago, Putin stole the province of Abkhazia from Georgia, and today they are committing ethnic cleansing there. For Obama to snub Georgia's president at a big international powwow sends the clearest possible signal to Czar Putin: Go ahead -- we won't stop you. That's why the Russian Bear is snarling again in the Ukraine, Poland, Syria, (where it is building deep water ports), Iran (where it just declared its intention to complete the Bushehr nuke reactor), and anywhere else it sees easy prey. Predators act like predators. It's not a surprise to saner folks.
The astonishing thing about Obama is that he actually signals American weakness deliberately; he is the anti-Reagan to the ultimate. Only the American people are kept in the dark.
A week after Obama's snub of Georgia, a Russian-maintained, Russian-manufactured airplane carrying Poland's president Lech Kaszinksy, its army chief, its central banker, and 94 other leaders died in a suspicious crash at Smolensk. We don't know if Putin sabotaged the plane -- easy enough to do -- but we know that he regularly assassinates his opponents, domestic and foreign. Putin poisoned the president of the Ukraine with dioxin and killed a former KGB spy in London with radioactive Polonium. Is there a link between the death of Poland's political leadership and Obama's signals of weakness? Well, the timing was perfect. It also happened to be the anniversary of Stalin's massacre of Polish officers in Katyn forest. Coincidence? Nobody who knows that history will believe that.
Obama has now publicly humiliated the Prime Minister of Israel, the PM of Britain, the Queen of England, the Czechs, the Poles, and the Japanese. He has bowed ostentatiously to the Saudi king, the former god-emperor of Japan, and the president of China. Those are not slips of diplomatic etiquette. They aren't even eccentricities for this ultimately weird president. They are deliberate signals to the world, and our enemies know exactly what they mean.
The United States has plainly failed to stop North Korean and Iranian nukes. Saudi Arabia just announced plans to build a nuclear plant. North Korea just blew up a South Korean warship. All the little mad tyrannies around the world see nuclear weapons as their key to survival and power forever.
Nuclear breakout can't be far away."
Read from the American Thinker:
Obama Is Enabling Nuclear Breakout
By James Lewis
"Jimmy Carter didn't want to be known as the Ayatollah Appeaser, but that's how history has him chalked up. Bill Clinton played dumb about the 1994 World Trade Center bombing, actually blocking the flow of foreign intelligence between Justice and the CIA, and thereby enabled 9/11/01 -- the second al-Qaeda attack on Manhattan in seven years. The liberal media are still in shrill denial of those facts, but history will not forget their failures. Historians will ask over and over why yet another feckless Democrat was elected in 2008. How could Americans be so blind to the circling jackals of this world?
Now Obama seems intent on reversing the Cold War and letting nuclear proliferation explode. In Congress, the Democrats are committing mass suicide for him. FDR gave us the New Deal, and Obama is giving us the Raw Deal.
But FDR presided over the bloodiest war for America since the Civil War. He didn't want to be a war president, but when Pearl Harbor came, he did not deceive himself the way the Left has deceived itself since 9/11. Pearl Harbor was a plain act of war, and Americans in 1941 got that instantly. Four years later, Harry Truman didn't plan to begin the Cold War against Communist aggression with a defensive war in Korea. But that's how it turned out. 'Events, my dear boy,' said Harold McMillan. Events decide how presidents will look to history.
Obama is now set to be the biggest loser of the last sixty years -- the man who let nuclear weapons explode out of control by fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the threat. The implications for the future are unpredictable, but just as World War II was more consequential than the New Deal, there is nothing an American president can do that is more important that his national security actions. When -- not if -- nuclear proliferation runs out of control, it won't look like the Cold War, when only two superpowers had usable missiles and weapons, and when, after Stalin died, both sides acted fairly rationally.
Instead, Obama's towering failure means a multi-polar race to get the baddest bombs, with the mullahs racing the Sunni Arabs and a very real chance that Hezb'allah or al-Qaeda will get enough material to build a dirty nuke. Only advanced missile defenses will save us, and if America doesn't speed up our defense development, then the saner nations in the world will do it. They are not going to wait for us.
When unstable tyrannies like Iran, North Korea, Libya, and even Venezuela have nukes, Obama's self-glorifying ego trips will fade by comparison. The only question Americans will ask will be: How well did he protect his country? We forget that for the last ninety years, America's military power has been kept at the razor's edge -- not because we somehow decided to conquer the world, but because we had to resist the imperialistic aggression of the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, Mao (by proxy in Korea and Vietnam), and the Soviet Empire. Liberals pretend that war is all the past, but history hasn't ended.
Today we see murderous tyrannies rising again, and Obama is too busy navel-gazing to see them for himself. Hugging Mugabe is more his style. So nobody is driving this train, and an abyss yawns just ahead of us.
Jimmy Carter actively enabled the Islamofascist overthrow of the Shah of Persia, one of the great traditional imperial powers of the Middle East. Turkey, another great power for five centuries under the Ottomans, has now slipped back from a century of increased political tolerance toward radical Islam, and is now siding with Iran against Israel. Iraq, another imperial center that goes back six thousand years to Sumer, is torn between Sunnis and Shiites, which means Iran against the Arabs. The Saudis helped finance Pakistan's nukes and missiles, and they can import them as soon as they give the signal. Arabia is the heartland of Islam, and Iran has had its eyes on Mecca and Medina since Khomeini. The end of war? Only in Liberal Land.
Radical Muslims are ideologically resistant to the Enlightenment values of tolerance, science, free speech, elected governments, and free trade. They are not like India and Japan, which have adopted modernism at a very deep level in the last half century. But since Khomeini took over Iran, all the modernizing forces in Muslim lands have been forced backwards. Islamic radicalism was much less of a problem before that huge defeat for civilization. Jimmy Carter was therefore criminally naïve (and still is today), Clinton didn't even try to face the facts of international life, and Obama is the worst of all. He is mentally stuck in third-world Leftism, and he has shown no capacity to learn. So much for 'progressive' politics driving us back to the past.
A small but ominous event happened two weeks ago at the 'nuclear summit' of 45 nations, most of which have no nuclear capacity at all. At the summit, Obama publicly snubbed the president of Georgia. The American media were too dumb and ignorant to get it, but Putin and Eastern Europe took notice, all right. Georgia was, after all, the first country to be invaded by Russian tanks since Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.
Two years ago, Putin stole the province of Abkhazia from Georgia, and today they are committing ethnic cleansing there. For Obama to snub Georgia's president at a big international powwow sends the clearest possible signal to Czar Putin: Go ahead -- we won't stop you. That's why the Russian Bear is snarling again in the Ukraine, Poland, Syria, (where it is building deep water ports), Iran (where it just declared its intention to complete the Bushehr nuke reactor), and anywhere else it sees easy prey. Predators act like predators. It's not a surprise to saner folks.
The astonishing thing about Obama is that he actually signals American weakness deliberately; he is the anti-Reagan to the ultimate. Only the American people are kept in the dark.
A week after Obama's snub of Georgia, a Russian-maintained, Russian-manufactured airplane carrying Poland's president Lech Kaszinksy, its army chief, its central banker, and 94 other leaders died in a suspicious crash at Smolensk. We don't know if Putin sabotaged the plane -- easy enough to do -- but we know that he regularly assassinates his opponents, domestic and foreign. Putin poisoned the president of the Ukraine with dioxin and killed a former KGB spy in London with radioactive Polonium. Is there a link between the death of Poland's political leadership and Obama's signals of weakness? Well, the timing was perfect. It also happened to be the anniversary of Stalin's massacre of Polish officers in Katyn forest. Coincidence? Nobody who knows that history will believe that.
Obama has now publicly humiliated the Prime Minister of Israel, the PM of Britain, the Queen of England, the Czechs, the Poles, and the Japanese. He has bowed ostentatiously to the Saudi king, the former god-emperor of Japan, and the president of China. Those are not slips of diplomatic etiquette. They aren't even eccentricities for this ultimately weird president. They are deliberate signals to the world, and our enemies know exactly what they mean.
The United States has plainly failed to stop North Korean and Iranian nukes. Saudi Arabia just announced plans to build a nuclear plant. North Korea just blew up a South Korean warship. All the little mad tyrannies around the world see nuclear weapons as their key to survival and power forever.
Nuclear breakout can't be far away."
What They Hid From the American People
Try not to be too shocked, but the libs hid important information about their "let grandma die" healthcare rationing bill from the public before they rammed the unpopular bill down our throats. What a surprise! Did anyone actually believe that these people had an ethical bone in their bodies?
Welcome to Chicago thug-style politics.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Breaking: Dems Hid Damning Health Care Report From Public Until a Month After Vote!
"DEMOCRATS HID DAMNING HEALTH CARE REPORT FROM PUBLIC UNTIL A MONTH AFTER VOTE
"More hope and change–
A damning health care report generated by actuaries at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department was given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the health care vote. She hid the report from the public until a month after democrats rammed their nationalized health care bill through Congress.
The results from the report were troubling. The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries shows that medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance. And, millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.
Of course, these were ALL things that President Obama and Democratic leaders assured us would not happen.
Via Special Report:
The American Spectator reported, via FOX Nation:
'The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”
The analysis, performed by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a “nonpolitical” office, set off alarm bells when submitted. “We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.”
In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote.'
When Nancy Pelosi told America, 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,' she forgot to mention that democrats already knew what was in it. They just didn’t want the rest of the country to find out.
If we had a responsible media this would make headlines for about the next year and a half.
UPDATE: Here is a copy of that report."
No surprise this coming from Sebelius, the same woman who covered for George Tiller, the notorius late-term abortionist who was murdered last year.
"Video: Orszag explains how ObamaCare imposes rationing", just like we warned.
More lies exposed:
Dems Admit Obamacare Will Cost US Companies Billions
Welcome to Chicago thug-style politics.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Breaking: Dems Hid Damning Health Care Report From Public Until a Month After Vote!
"DEMOCRATS HID DAMNING HEALTH CARE REPORT FROM PUBLIC UNTIL A MONTH AFTER VOTE
"More hope and change–
A damning health care report generated by actuaries at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department was given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the health care vote. She hid the report from the public until a month after democrats rammed their nationalized health care bill through Congress.
The results from the report were troubling. The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries shows that medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance. And, millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.
Of course, these were ALL things that President Obama and Democratic leaders assured us would not happen.
Via Special Report:
The American Spectator reported, via FOX Nation:
'The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”
The analysis, performed by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a “nonpolitical” office, set off alarm bells when submitted. “We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.”
In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote.'
When Nancy Pelosi told America, 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,' she forgot to mention that democrats already knew what was in it. They just didn’t want the rest of the country to find out.
If we had a responsible media this would make headlines for about the next year and a half.
UPDATE: Here is a copy of that report."
No surprise this coming from Sebelius, the same woman who covered for George Tiller, the notorius late-term abortionist who was murdered last year.
"Video: Orszag explains how ObamaCare imposes rationing", just like we warned.
More lies exposed:
Dems Admit Obamacare Will Cost US Companies Billions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
