Archive for the ‘Articles’ Category

ANWR: Our Frozen Energy Debate


ANWR: Our Frozen Energy Debate
No better time to end the arguments about drilling in Alaska.

By Nash Keune


Confronted with an energy shortage, Congress debates opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. Senator Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) argues that “oil extracted from the wildlife refuge wouldn’t reach refineries for seven to ten years.” Senator Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.) is more pessimistic, saying “drilling in ANWR wouldn’t get us any oil for at least ten years.” Leading the successful filibuster of the provision, Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.) echoes Bingaman, saying, “If we opened ANWR today it wouldn’t produce any oil for at least ten years.”

This exchange happened in 2001, when President Bush proposed opening ANWR to drilling in his energy plan. But one need only change some of the details to update the story for today.

Last Wednesday, with gas prices over $4 a gallon, even before an expected summer spike, the House passed another provision to open ANWR for development, reopening the debate. A decade later, the arguments, and many of the actors, are the same. To wit, during a hearing in early February, Senator Cantwell, two months shy of the ten-year anniversary of her initial pronouncement, warned that oil from ANWR “would only decrease the price of gasoline three to five cents, and it wouldn’t even do that until 2030.”

ANWR’s fate has been debated in Congress since the late 1970s. Representative Don Young (R., Alaska) recounts that he’s helped pass provisions in the House to open ANWR a dozen times in his career. Had those provisions been successful, say, when the Exxon Valdez spill scared people away from the issue in the late 1980s, or when President Clinton vetoed the proposal in 1996, or when Senator Kerry filibustered it in the Senate in 2001, we would already have that oil on the market. The estimate that ANWR won’t provide oil for ten years is as much a reason for urgency as it is for postponement. In ten years, we’ll want that oil as much as we do now.

The ten-year estimation is also inflated. To listen to ANWR critics, it seems as if the very forces of nature have conspired to burrow oil so deep into Alaska’s arctic core that we would need a decade just to find and extract it. In reality, it could take less than five years to physically prepare for drilling. Given a year for the Environmental Impact Survey, between a year and 18 months for the Department of the Interior to lease out the land, and two years for test drilling and analysis (expedited by the fact that there’s already a test well in the area), ANWR oil wells could be operational by 2017. However, as John Basil Utley reported in Reason, there are eleven “litigation choke points” which could halt the process. It’s only after accounting for five years of legal and bureaucratic interruptions, then, that analysts conclude that drilling in ANWR is ten years away.

Even if oil from ANWR wouldn’t hit the market for a decade, other benefits would accrue during that period. One of the stated reasons for the GOP’s inclusion of ANWR in this year’s highway bill is that the site’s leasing fees would help pay for infrastructure projects. To that end, the CBO predicts $2.5 billion of net federal revenue from ANWR over the next decade. Republicans argue that the figure will be even higher. The preparations for drilling would also create thousands of jobs, though estimates range wildly, from 65,000 to 770,000. Many of these jobs would have to be filled before drilling starts, in order to build the 75-mile pipeline spur required to transport the oil to port.

In short, the argument that oil from ANWR won’t help for another decade shouldn’t turn anyone off of drilling. Prohibiting all oil drilling in ANWR has brought us nothing except endless arguments about drilling in ANWR.

DREAM On amnesty-for-illegals

December 1, 2010 12:00 P.M.

The amnesty-for-illegals crowd has found some sympathetic poster children.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have pledged a vote as early as this week on the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors), a bill that would legalize illegal aliens who arrived here before the age of 16 and who comply with certain educational or military-service requirements.

The core principle behind this amnesty proposal is that it is aimed at those who have grown up here and are, psychologically and emotionally, Americans. In the words of America’s Voice, a hard-left open-borders group, the beneficiaries of the measure are “patriotic young Americans in all but paperwork.”

There’s no doubt that this is the most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants. That is precisely why DREAM has been dangled as bait for the more general amnesty proposals described as “comprehensive immigration reform,” with amnesty advocates brandishing the situation of these young people as justification for a broader amnesty. (Though no one seems to have stopped to ask: If such a comprehensive bill would provide amnesty for all illegals, then why would we need DREAM?)

Nonetheless, now that the amnesty crowd has belatedly decided to move ahead on DREAM as a standalone measure, many in the public and Congress are open to the idea of addressing the situation of such young people. But the DREAM Act, in every one of its iterations over the years, has four fatal flaws.

1. The act is billed as legalizing those brought as infants or toddlers, and yet it covers people brought here up to age 16. The examples used by advocates are nearly always people who were brought here very young. The student-body president at Fresno State University, Pedro Ramirez — who was “coincidentally” revealed to be an illegal alien just as the DREAM Act lame-duck effort got under way — came here at age three. Harvard student Eric Balderas was brought here at age four. Yves Gomes was brought here at 14 months, Juan Gomez at two years, Marie Gonzalez at five, Dan-el Padilla at four, and so on.

So why set the age cutoff at 16? If the point is to provide amnesty to those whose identity was formed here, then you’d need a much lower age cutoff. I have a 15-year-old, and if I took him to live illegally in Mexico (and living illegally is a lot harder to do there than here), he would always remain, psychologically, an American, because his identity is already formed. The Roman Catholic Church and English common law set the age of reason at seven. That, combined with a requirement of at least ten years’ continuous residence here, seems like a much more defensible place to draw the line. Unless, of course, you’re just using those who came as young children to bootstrap a larger amnesty.

2. Next, all amnesties have at least three harmful consequences, and the DREAM Act ignores all three. The first of these is massive fraud. Perhaps one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center attack. The fraud in that first big amnesty program was so pervasive as to be almost comical, with people claiming work histories here that included picking watermelons from trees and digging cherries out of the ground.

And yet what does the DREAM Act say about fraud? As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) points out in “Ten Things You Need To Know about S-3827, the DREAM Act,” the measure “prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc.) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process.” This is like playing a slot machine without having to put any money in — any illegal alien can apply, and if he wins, great, but if he loses, he can’t be prosecuted even if he lied through his teeth about everything. No amnesty proposal can be taken seriously unless applicants are made to understand, right up front, that any lies, no matter how trivial, will result in arrest and imprisonment.

3. Another problem with DREAM, which all amnesties share, is that it will attract new illegal immigration. Prospective illegal immigrants, considering their options, are more likely to opt to come if they see that their predecessors eventually hit the jackpot. In 1986, we had an estimated 5 million illegals, 3 million of whom were legalized. We now have more than twice as many as before the last amnesty, and they’ve been promised repeatedly that if they hold out a little longer they’ll be able to stay legally. Any new amnesty, even if only for those brought here as children, will attract further illegal immigration.

There’s really no way to prevent this, but to minimize it, you need stringent enforcement measures. This was the logic of the 1986 law and the recent “comprehensive immigration reform” proposals. The critique of such “grand bargains” has been that the illegals get their amnesty but the promised enforcement never materializes — and that critique remains valid. But if the sponsors of DREAM were serious about addressing the plight of people brought here as infants and toddlers, they would include muscular enforcement measures as proof of their bona fides. These would include mandatory use of E-Verify for all new hires, explicit authorization of state and local governments to enforce civil immigration law, and full implementation of an exit-tracking system for all foreign visitors, for starters. And the legal status of all the amnesty beneficiaries would remain provisional until the enforcement measures were up and running and passed judicial muster. Even these might not be sufficient to turn back a new wave of illegal immigration sparked by the amnesty, but the lack of such measures speaks volumes about the real intentions of the DREAM Act’s sponsors.

4. Finally, all amnesties reward illegal immigrants — in this case, both those brought here as children and the adults who subjected them to this limbo. Any serious proposal to legalize young people brought here as infants or toddlers would need to prevent the possibility that their parents and other adults responsible for bringing them here illegally would ever receive any benefit from the amnesty, namely, future sponsorship as legal immigrants. This could be done in two ways: Either the amnesty recipients would not be put on a “path to citizenship” at all, but instead be given a time-limited work visa, indefinitely renewable so long as they stay out of trouble. This would mean they could not petition for any relatives to immigrate in the future. Alternatively, the amnesty beneficiaries could receive green cards and eventual citizenship, but we would abolish all the legal-immigration categories for family members other than spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. Either way, the adults who knew what they were doing would never be rewarded.

A DREAM Act 2.0 that addressed these problems — that prosecuted fraud, implemented enforcement, prevented downstream legal immigration, and focused much more narrowly on those who came very young — would possibly be something that even I, were I a congressman, might be able to vote for. But the lack of these elements is clear proof that the amnesty crowd isn’t interested in fixing the specific problem of a sympathetic but small group of people; rather, these young people are simply poster children who have been used for years to try to justify a general amnesty for all illegal aliens. And when the DREAM Act fails, as it will, Pedro Ramirez and his fellows will need to ask the pro-amnesty politicians and lobbying groups why they were sacrificed on the altar of “comprehensive immigration reform.”

The left’s war on home appliances

EDITORIAL: The left’s war on home appliances

European nanny-state regulations are coming to America

The Washington Times

Bottom of Form

If ever there were any doubt that the new environmental movement’s primary goal is reversing progress made since the Industrial Revolution, look no further than Europe, where bureaucrats systematically are targeting the conveniences of modern life. To fight the imaginary problem of global warming – sorry, “global climate disruption” – the European Commission has before it a proposal to reduce the electricity used by the humble family vacuum cleaner, the London Telegraph reported. It’s only a matter of time before the bureaucracy on our side of the Atlantic sucks up this bad idea.

According to the final report on the subject prepared for European Union regulators, vacuums have steadily increased in power from 500 watts for an average upright 50 years ago to 2,500 watts today. The study asserts that “more power does not necessarily equate to better cleaning” and recommends a scheme to cut the allowed power level for vacuums to just 500 watts by 2014. Forget modern Hoovers and Dysons; it’s time for something out of the 1960 Sears catalog.

As the EU report explains, “an energy label on its own will not be enough to effect real energy savings. We are firmly of the belief that limiting input power ratings whilst maintaining good cleaning performance is achievable through the design improvement options.” Governments don’t have a positive track record when it comes to retaining performance on redesigned consumer products. If vacuums have less suction, homeowners will need to spend more time vacuuming, and the supposed “energy savings” will never materialize. The same thing happened in 1992 when congressional plumbers decided to redesign America’s commodes. Government-mandated low-flow toilet models were so ineffective that they required multiple flushes on each use, resulting in no net savings in water use.

Modern technology has delivered a solution to this pesky problem of consumers not doing as they’re told. In last year’s $814 billion stimulus package, President Obama poured 3.4 billion tax dollars into subsidies for “smart grid” projects designed to centralize control over major appliances that use electricity. The program, of course, is marketed as an advance that will deliver new options and savings to the consumer. The two-way communication underlying the concept, however, eventually will make it possible for big-ticket electrical items to be controlled remotely. In 1977, then-President Jimmy Carter called on every American “to lower the thermostat settings in all homes and buildings to no more than 65 degrees during the daytime and to a much lower setting at night.” Now the smart grid enables Big Brother to turn it down for you.

Congress already has regulated light bulbs, toilets, shower heads and washing machines. It’s only a matter of time before it adopts Europe’s forthcoming ban on fully functional vacuum cleaners. Forcing the public to return to push brooms and washcloths is not going to save the polar bears any more than Mr. Carter‘s temperature austerity contributed to world peace. The new House and Senate should make repeal of these pointless appliance regulations a priority next year.

Meet Your Czars


Stunning…… There are very few of us who know just what all the CZAR’s do up in D.C…………….Here are their names and job descriptions…….

OBAMA’S “CZARS”– Read who they are and realize what they want to do.  

Richard Holbrooke AfghanistanCzar Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. Of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use.Dissolve the 2nd Amendment
Ed Montgomery Auto recovery Czar Black radical anti business activist.  Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks.  Univ of Maryland Business SchoolDean teaches US business has caused world poverty.  ACORN board member.  Communist DuBois Club member.
Jeffrey Crowley     AIDS Czar Radical Homosexual.. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and especially, a Special Status for homosexuals only, including complete free health care for gays.
Alan Bersin   Border Czar The former failed superintendent of San Diego .   Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton.   Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno – to keep borders open to illegals without interference from US
David J. Hayes   California Water Czar Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, “Progress Policy”.  No training or experience in water management whatsoever.
 Ron Bloom   Car Czar Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear.  Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business.  Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned.   How did this happen?
 Dennis Ross   Central Region Czar Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars.  Obama apologist to the world.  Anti gun and completely pro abortion.
 Lynn Rosenthal   Domestic Violence Czar Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence.  Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration.Imagine?
 Gil Kerlikowske   Drug Czar devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal,  Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle.  Believes no American should own a  firearm.  Supports legalization of all drugs
Paul Volcker     E conomicCzar Head of Fed Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed.  Obama  appointed head of the  Economic Recovery Advisory Board which engineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy.  Member of anti business “Progressive Policy” organization
Carol Brower Energy and Environment Czar Political Radical Former head of EPA – known for anti-business activism.  Strong anti-gun ownership.
Joshua DuBois   Faith Based Czar Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism.  Anti gun ownership lobbyist.WHAT THE HELL DOES A FAITH BASED CZAR DO???????????
 Cameron Davis    Great LakesCzar  Chicago radical anti business environmentalist.  Blames George  Bush for “Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink.”

No experience or training in water management.  Former ACORN Board member (what does that tell us?)

Van Jones   Green Jobs Czar (since resigned)..  Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party  who saidGeorge Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes.  Black activist with

strong anti-white views.

Daniel Fried Guantanamo Closure Czar Human Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists.  Believes America has caused the war on terrorism. Believes terrorists haverights above and beyond Americans.
Nancy-Ann DeParle.     Health Czar Former head of Medicare / Medicaid.   Strong Health Care Rationing proponent.  She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Vivek Kundra   Information Czar Born in New Delhi , India .  Controls all public information, including labels and news releases.  Monitors all private Internet emails. (hello?)
Todd Stern     International Climate Czar Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord.  Pushing hard for Cap and Trade.  Blames US business for Global warming. Anti- US business prosperity.  
Dennis Blair Intelligence Czar Ret. Navy.  Stopped US guided missile program as “provocative”.  Chair of ultra liberal “Council on Foreign Relations” whichblames American organizations for regional wars.
George Mitchell   Mideast Peace Czar Fmr. Sen from Maine Left wing radical.  Has said Israel should be split up into “2 or 3 ” smaller more manageable plots”.  (God forbid) A true Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual “special rights” advocate
Kenneth Feinberg   Pay Czar Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY.   Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs. (horribly true)
Cass Sunstein   Regulatory Czar Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”.  Essentially against 1st amendment.  Rules against personal freedoms many times -like private gun ownership and right to free speech.   This guy has to be run

out of Washington!!

John Holdren   Science Czar Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist.  Claims US business has caused world poverty.  No Science training.
Earl Devaney   Stimulus Accountability Czar Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens.  Believes in Open Borders to Mexico .  Author of  statement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico .
J. Scott Gration     Sudan Czar Native of Democratic Republic of Congo .  Believes US does little to help Third World countries.  Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations
Herb Allison   TARP Czar Fannie Mae CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of  people to lose their life savings.
John Brennan Terrorism Czar Anti CIA activist.  No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs.  Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military   A TOTAL MORON!!!!!
Aneesh Chopra     Technology Czar No Technology training.   Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist.  Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan
 Adolfo Carrion Jr..  Urban Affairs Czar  Puerto Rican born Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America .  Millionaire “slum lord” of the Bronx ,

NY.  Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from “sweetheart” deals with labor unions.  Wants higher taxes on

middle class to pay for minority housing and health care

Ashton Carter   Weapons Czar Leftist.  Wants all private weapons in US destroyed.  Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America ..  No Other “policy”
Gary Samore WMD Policy Czar Former US Communist.   Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith.  Has no other “policy”.

How lucky are we that these are the people who are helping President Obama in the RUNNING of our country and the White House? 

ARE YOU MAD YET?  Please pass this on and EDUCATE your family, friends and neighbors!

Purging ‘Me First’ Politicians

Purging ‘Me First’ Politicians

By Arnold Ahlert

As I said in a column last week, the principle impetus behind theTea Party movement’s strength is its commitment to three planks: limited government, fiscal responsibility and Constitutional fealty. Yet what really struck a nerve was the idea that Americans are fed up with voting for the lesser of two evils. What is the epitome of a lesser evil? A “Me First” politician masquerading him or herself as a loyal member of a political party. As a conservative, I’ll leave Democrats to deal with their own phonies. On the Republican side, despite all the hysteria emanating from those who think they know better, the electorate was three-for-three: a trio of GOP Me Firsters — Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle and Charlie Crist — have all been given the heave-ho.

As evidenced by their actions, it couldn’t have happened to a “nicer” group of duplicitous hacks. Florida’s Charlie Crist became the first to reveal his true colors. When it looked like he would win the Republican nomination for the Senate in a cakewalk, Charlie was all about party loyalty and conservative values.

Where are those so-called values today? In the dumpster, along with Charlie’s credibility. When it became stunningly apparent that he was a dead RINO walking who stood no chance of beating genuinely conservative newcomer, Marco Rubio, in the Republican primary, he did what all self-serving politicians do: he broke a firm promise not to run as a third-party candidate.

Bad as that was, Charlie one-upped himself. On August 30th, Senior Collier Circuit Judge Jack Schoonover denied attempts by two GOP campaign contributers to get their donations back — and prevent Crist from using their money to run against their party. Charlie apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to violate someone’s trust and use the money any way he sees fit.

Spending other people’s money with no regard to their wants or needs? Sounds remarkably in tune with the party currently in control of Congress and the White House. A lot of other people thought so as well. When asked which party he would caucus with in the event of a victory, Charlie was decided non-committal: “I’ll caucus with the people of Florida. You know, they’re tired of gridlock politics, of Washington not being able to get anything accomplished, and they want somebody who will be an honest broker, go to Washington and fight for them first.”

Wrong, Mr. Crist The people of Florida and everywhere else are tired of self-serving phonies whose “concern” for the people is an utter fraud. Current standings? After a neck-and-neck summer, Rubio has taken a +9.8% lead, according to data at Real Clear Politics, which averages out the numbers from several separate polling services.

Here’s hoping the tannest politician in politics get a chance to work on it full time come November.

Party “stalwart” number two is Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, another faux-Republican who can’t take no for an answer. On Friday, she too announced that she will be running as a write-in candidate for re-election. Once again, the will of the electorate, which gave the nod to Tea party choice Joe Miller, is to be treated with the kind of contempt with which Americans are becoming quite familiar.

Murkowski will run despite the fact that the Republican establishment — much to its credit for a change — has made it clear that it will cost her seniority and committee positions. Like Crist, Murkowski’s promise not to run as a third party candidate was as phony as she is.

Current standings? Miller’s lead over Democrat Scott McAdams averages out to +7%, but the polling data was taken prior to Murkowski’s announcement. That’s close enough where Murkowski’s candidacy could tip the race to the Democrat. Once again, a Me Firster had made her priorities crystal clear: screw the future of the party — and the country — if I don’t get mine.

I’m betting the people of Alaska won’t let her get away with it.

Which brings us to the Third Amigo, Delaware’s Mike Castle. As of this writing, he hasn’t made any plans to run, despite the fact that most polls had him as a shoo-in winner in the general election. In comparison to Crist and Murkowski, Mr. Castle is a giant among midgets.

In comparison to ordinary Americans, however, Mr. Castle is a classless whiner. He refused to concede to winner Christine O’Donnell and complained that “misrepresentations and the lies of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh” along with an “out-of-state political operation,” which “spent several hundred thousand dollars to not only take me out but to take anybody who dares to vote with the other party at any time out” were his undoing.

Daring to vote with the other party? A substantial number of Americans, if not an outright majority, consider the Democrats’ progressive agenda utterly destructive to the nation’s well-being. The most over-arching piece of legislation enacted by those Democrats, the health care bill, didn’t garner a single Republican vote. That, along with Democrats’ support of the Arizona lawsuit, the mosque near Ground Zero, the nationalization of car companies, banks and student loans, and continued break-the-bank deficit spending have alienated more than six-in-ten Americans.

Republicans in Delaware were no different. They opted for the “less daring” candidate, Christine O’Donnell.

Days later, the rightness of their instincts was confirmed. President Barack Obama called Castle to console him and “thank him for his service.” Service to whom, one wonders. Certainly not to conservatives trying their best to establish clear differences between the two political parties.

Current standings? The latest polls have O’Donnell trailing Democrat Chris Coons by 11%, which has caused several bouts of self-flagellation among Republican insiders. So much so that the National Republican Senatorial Committee initially announced they wouldn’t fund her campaign. A day later they recanted: “Let there be no mistake: The National Republican Senatorial Committee — and I personally as the committee’s chairman — strongly stand by all of our Republican nominees, including Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” said NRSC Chairman John Cornyn.

Why the change of heart? Perhaps it might have something to do with the nearly one million dollars raised by the O’Donnell campaign — in only 24 hours. Mr. Castle? He still refuses to endorse O’Connell, saying he will stay “neutral.” That’s neutral after a forty-five year career in the Republican party.

Another Me Firster showing his true colors.

The refutation of Crist, Murkowski and Castle is a wonderful thing, regardless of how it plays out in November. What we are witnessing is the beginning of a long slog to eliminate self-aggrandizing frauds from at least one of the two main political parties. And while Beltway insiders moan and groan about the “anger” and “hysteria” of the electorate, it is they themselves who are angry and hysterical. In three primaries Republican voters decided they didn’t like what they saw in the three candidates presented by the establishment. In all three cases, the instincts of the voters were completely confirmed — by the subsequent actions of the hacks they drummed out of the party.

Crist, Murkowski and Castle have made it abundantly clear they are devoid of anything resembling principles or party loyalty.

All three have made something else clear as well: contempt for the average American has revealed itself to be far more “bipartisan” than ever before. Such contempt has become so transparent and pervasive that the term “ruling class” resonates like it never has: many Americans have become completely alienated from their representatives, regardless of party affiliation.

Here’s a scary thought for Democrats: think what’s happening to the Republican party can’t happen to yours? Think again. A Congress with an approval rating of 23.6% while your party’s in charge can’t be reassuring. In November, if the public purges Democrats from the majority less than two years after Democrat political strategist James Carville’s proclaimed they would rule for the next forty, expect the kind of finger-pointing and blood-letting that will make the current Republican purge look tame by comparison.

Americans may not agree about many things but one thing is certain: they are sick to death of selfish phonies selling themselves as “servants of the people.”

Crist, Murkowski, and Castle? The tip of the iceberg. The American public? Ice picks in hand, ready for November.

Shore Bank Follow the money

Please discuss Shore Bank and Obama. Lots of dynamite here.”This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It’s not hope and change, it is money. I… Continue Reading Please discuss Shore Bank and Obama. Lots of dynamite here.”This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It’s not hope and change, it is money. I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes).

The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. (It’s definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).

A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below) but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the U.S. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank’s executives were well connected with members of the Obama administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank’s employees had donated money to Obama’s Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.

ShoreBank survived and invested in many “green” businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama’s speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests.

Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean’s family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.

This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the Exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where environmental Carbon Credits are traded.

Under Obama’s new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and “reduce” their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.

Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the “banking arm” of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.

So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.

One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.

Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for The Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.

Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.

The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House Transition team.

(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical Revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).

When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, The terrorist.

Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.

(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).

Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.

Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.

Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.

Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).

Interesting? And now the closing…

Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.

Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will “sell” this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for U.S. companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.

But, here’s the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).

If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.

But don’t forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.

It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars just in the first year. Of course, Obama’s “commissions” will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.

Some financial experts think this will be the largest “scam” or “legal heist” in world history.. Obama’s cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff’s fraud look like penny ante stuff.”

United Cities of America

Jewish World Review July 29, 2010 / 18 Menachem-Av, 5770

The United Cities of America

By Arnold Ahlert


Massachusetts has decided to become the sixth state–joining Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington–to bypass the United States Constitution and demonstrate its utter ignorance of what this country is all about. The legislature there has voted to bypass the Electoral College system for choosing the president and vice-president in favor of a national popular vote.

I’m beginning to wonder how many Americans still understand why this country is called the United States of America. I suspect a combination of dumbed-down public schools, the unconscionable expansion of federalism and an activist judiciary contribute to a certain level of ignorance regarding the true nature of our democratic republic, but it still amazes me how many Americans don’t get it.

The true genius of that democratic republic is that it consists of fifty separate constituencies loosely united under a federal umbrella. Why is that genius? Ask yourself a simple question: if you want a stop light installed at a dangerous intersection in your neighborhood, who would you rather have to deal with, your local town officials–or a federal bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.? Even more to the point, who would have a better understanding of the problem, a local official who might drive through that intersection himself, or someone in Washington, D.C. who’s never heard of it?

If one makes the assumption that democracy works best when it serves the interests of the greatest number of people possible, then it should be apparent that the highest level individual empowerment begins at the local level and emanates outward. Or to put it more bluntly, it’s a hellluva lot easier to get in the face of your town councilman and give him a piece of your mind, than it is to get a sit-down with one your state’s two Senators. And even if you have enough juice to get a sit-down with him, the odds of getting some face time with the president of the United States are probably higher than winning the Powerball lottery.

There are a lot of powerful people–mostly leftists–who would like to turn this equation on its head. The expansion of federalism at the expense of the states is little more than a grand attempt to centralize as much power as possible in Washington, D.C. It is the attempt to make individual Americans as impotent as possible by moving as many decisions as far possible away from the local, county and state level, where an individual’s power is greatest, towards the federal level–where the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t count for anything.

The great irony of those championing the demise of the Electoral College is that they are ostensibly ( I say ostensibly because I believe there is nothing pure about the motive here) doing so to promote more freedom, not less.

What a load of baloney. Right now a presidential candidate, most of whom come from America’s semi-permanent “political class” with all its elitist trappings, is still forced to “sully” himself and campaign in what is euphemistically referred to as “flyover country” because the Electoral College votes of those states still mean something. He has to eat the occasional corn dog instead of arugula salad in order to demonstrate his “solidarity” with people who “cling” to all those things he finds inherently beneath his dignity. He has to address “inane” local issues that would ordinarily be delegated to “lesser” human beings.

Now do away with the Electoral college. All the same elitist politician has to do now is set up shop at five star hotels in America’s five or ten largest cities by population. He can “root” for the Yankees while he’s in New York and the Dodgers while he’s in LA. He can blow virtually his entire campaign war chest making sure he nails down the popular vote in a handful of places and be done with it.

And federal power expands exponentially as a result.

Obviously this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. They took great pains to ensure the separation of powers at the federal level and equally great pains to ensure that the individual states had a substantial say in how this country was governed. So much so they included the input of state legislatures in that “pesky” Constitutional Amendment process that the American left finds so “problematic.”

That’s the same process the left likes to ignore when they pass local gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment, or speech codes on college campuses in violation of the First. Once again in this instance, the Constitutional provisions which clearly spell out the role of the Electoral College are apparently irrelevant to those whose “wisdom” supersedes the law of the land.

Let me be a bit indelicate here: any American who thinks investing more power in the federal government is a good idea is either a moron–or working for that government. The fact that state legislatures in six states have voted to make their states less influential in selecting the person who would occupy the highest office in the land is clear evidence that historical ignorance is a burgeoning phenomenon.

As for the people who think the elimination of the Electoral College means every vote “will count equally,” try selling that garbage in North Dakota or any other low-population state which would be routinely ignored in every presidential election thereafter. What these “do-gooders” are really advocating is the eventual dissolution of states’ rights altogether, and the permanent entrenchment of all meaningful power in Congress and the Oval Office–or more accurately, in the King and His Court.

The United States of America? The United Cities of America would be more like it. No doubt that works for those who believe centralized government is the be-all and end-all. For those who still believe in freedom and representative government, it’s a complete crock.

Obama is scary competent

HARTWELL: No, Obama is scary competent

Just look at how he’s changed the country

By Ray Hartwell      The Washington Times   Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Bottom of Form

Some commentators have asserted recently that President Obama and his administration are incompetent. Mort Zuckerman perceives “something amateurish and incompetent.” For Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Mr. Obama‘s reaction to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill “calls to mind Jimmy Carter‘s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.” Indeed, they conclude that the president “is failing because he is incompetent.”

When it comes to expanding and perpetuating the power of his administration and its ideological allies and transforming the country for their benefit, Mr. Obama is anything but incompetent. His administration has pursued a razzle-dazzle offense so swift and relentless that the president and his regime have only begun to digest the spoils of their victories. To illustrate, let us consider a sampling of his legislative, administrative and judicial accomplishments.

First, the administration trampled the legal rights of creditors, nationalizing two U.S. auto manufacturers to subsidize politically loyal unions that had brought the companies to ruin in the first place. According to the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) inspector general, after the takeover, the president’s “auto team” ordered the immediate termination of one-quarter of GM and Chrysler dealerships. This was not done to cut costs, but rather on the basis of race and politics. Thus, racial preferences preserved the businesses of likely supporters, while the companies simultaneously were pressured to close rural dealerships even though they gave GM and Chrysler an advantage over import brands. Union and urban jobs were saved; tens of thousands of red-state jobs were killed.

As for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, its trillion dollars or so in “stimulus” spending was a veritable festival of pork. The bill did a great deal to reward Democratic Party constituencies and virtually nothing to boost private-sector employment. Instead, the “stimulus” spawned thousands of new government jobs, funneling federal dollars into union dues for Democrats’ campaign coffers.

Then, after excluding all but its allies from secret, dead-of-night drafting sessions, the administration resorted to an unprecedented use of the “reconciliation” process to ram through legislation that essentially nationalizes the health care industry. Rolled into that same massive bill was a takeover of the student loan business, assorted racial and union preferences, and a host of other provisions whose full implications are only now being sorted out.

Recently, another huge bill, also drafted in the dark, has given the administration sweeping control over the financial industry in the name of “reform.” No surprise – this legislation dramatically expands the power of Washington over yet another industry, creates dozens of new boards and bureaucracies, codifies racial-preference regimes and assures this president still more control over business and consumer conduct.

All of these bills foster dependence on government and strip the private sector of freedom and financial resources. To accomplish this, the president and his administration have come up with an approach that works very well for them. They meet behind closed doors with allies and favored constituents and craft massive, thousand-page bills whose sheer density effectively conceals many provisions that could not pass if exposed to the light of day. Rammed quickly through Congress on purely partisan votes, they become law before any public analysis is done of their contents. Discussion and disclosure, potentially so messy and inconvenient, are avoided almost entirely.

Although completely at odds with candidate Obama‘s promises about transparency, this hide-the-ball strategy has succeeded for Mr. Obama, who cares more about results than about campaign pledges. Indeed, for this administration, deception of the public about the content and effect of legislation – e.g., the repeated false claims that health care “reform” would save billions – has been very effective. Mr. Obama uses this tool skillfully, manipulating the ever-willing mainstream media, which have been complicit to the point of deliberately coordinating their stories and their attacks on the administration’s critics (as the Journolist diaries make crystal-clear).

Where legislation seems uncertain of passage, our president’s many appointees have stepped into the breech. Thus, although its comprehensive energy legislation is stalled for now, the Gulf oil spill provided the administration with an opportunity to shut down offshore drilling – albeit through orders twice found to be illegal by federal courts and still in litigation. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the president has succeeded in crippling a major industry he and his supporters don’t like. And the several hundred thousand jobs killed in the process? Well, let’s just say the victims weren’t among the constituencies valued by our president.

All across the federal bureaucracy, the administration’s appointees are taking steps to get done, via agency rules and orders, what cannot be achieved through legislation. Thus, the Federal Trade Commission, which historically concerns itself with anti-competitive mergers and deceptive advertising, is studying the “reinvention” of journalism. The Federal Communications Commission is looking at new ways to regulate talk radio and political blogs, coincidentally strongholds of dissent.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security and its U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are so committed to advancing an amnesty agenda in lieu of securing borders and enforcing immigration laws that the Border Patrol agents’ union board passed a unanimous vote of “no confidence” in ICE’s leadership. Similarly, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division refuses to clean up voter rolls, declines to take legal action to protect the civil rights of whites and takes no action to prevent the disenfranchisement of deployed military personnel even though laws on the books require such actions. And on it goes, with Mr. Obama‘s minions looking for additional ways to expand political power and patronage, never mind the rule of law.

As for “limited government,” historically the federal courts imposed some check on legislative and executive power. Here again, the Obama administration presses its program, with judicial nominees wed to the most radical and expansive views of federal power. In confirmation hearings, our newest Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan, declined to agree that it would be unconstitutional for the government to compel people to eat particular foods. Other Obama nominees to the bench are cut from the same cloth. The Founders’ concept of a federal government with limited, enumerated powers is not what our president and his judiciary have in mind.

Mr. Obama is audacious and aggressive, willing to bend rules and twist arms to get things done, if not through Congress, then through czars and other worms in the woodwork or an activist judiciary. His administration is empowering and enriching a Washington ruling elite whose members will respect neither the liberty nor the property of American citizens. Incompetence would be preferable.

The End of the Rule of Law

The End Of The Rule Of Law

August 2, 2010 by Bob Livingston 

Some call the Barack Obama administration progressive. Some call it socialist. Other terms used are Marxist and communist.

I have called it fascist and corporatist in the past. Now I’ll just call it Evil.

That’s because the rule of law is dead in America. Now we have the rule of man—or government agency. The rule of man—or government agency—is a rule of Evil because it knows only the moral bounds of those making the rules. And it’s evident this administration, its appointments and its goals are amoral, if not immoral.

In America there is a Federal law that makes being in the United States illegally illegal. There is a requirement in the law that those who are not United States citizens but are here legally must carry papers designating their legal status.

That law is not enforced. Why? Someone decided not to. Granted it hasn’t been enforced for some time, maybe since its enactment in the 1940s, but it is a law and it should be enforced or changed. Were we under the rule of law it would be.

In Arizona the legislature followed the rule of law—and the will of its citizens—and passed an immigration law, subsequently signed by Governor Jan Brewer, that mirrored the U.S. law. However the Obama administration made it plain it would not only not help Arizona enforce its law it would work actively against its enforcement. It sued to stop the law from being enacted. It ordered its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Division not to pick up any illegals Arizona arrested under the law.

What you have is the Federal government prohibiting a state from enforcing a law the Federal government has refused to enforce. Obama decided the law was contrary to his self interest. Obama became the law.

The rule of law was dead and the rule of man—or government agency—had triumphed.

The administration’s challenge of the law was upheld by Federal Judge Susan Bolton and the law gutted and effectively stopped on the day before it was set to take effect. That’s not a surprise. Federal judges, after all, are entities of the government and have come to regularly strike down laws passed by the people.

Bolton, appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton, is probably now hoping for a promotion to the Ninth Circuit, or perhaps to the Supreme Court. With the way Obama hands out job offers, perhaps she’s already been promised one.

Notice that Federal judges rarely strike down laws passed by the fascist elected class contrary to the people’s wishes—or the Constitution.

And while the U.S. Justice Department was working to get Arizona’s legally-passed and lawful immigration law struck down it was doing nothing to require sanctuary cities—those which provide safe harbor to law breakers—to enforce the current immigration law.

The rule of man—or government agency—strikes again.

Meanwhile, thousands of acres of Arizona are now declared off limits to Americans and ceded to Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers. Calls for assistance by local law enforcement to take back their territory—U.S. territory—are ignored by this Evil administration.

On July 23 the Mexican drug cartel Los Zetas crossed into Texas and commandeered two ranches just outside of Laredo. The ranchers, thankfully, escaped without injury. Local law enforcement, outgunned and outmanned by a paramilitary group trained by U.S. agents, don’t know what to do to remove Los Zetas and return the ranches to their owners. Calls for Federal help have gone unheeded. You probably have not even heard about this. The mainstream media didn’t report the incident.

Obama has decided enforcing our Southern border is contrary to his interests. He told Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) that he was not interested in border enforcement because if border enforcement was stepped up Republicans would be reluctant to move on comprehensive immigration reform.

The rule of man—or government agency—is sovereign.

The Obama Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder—who has called Americans a nation of cowards when it comes to race—threw out charges against three members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) who were convicted of intimidating voters outside a Pennsylvania voting booth. Some of those same NBPP members have called for the killing of “white cracker babies.”

The Obama Justice Department turned a blind eye.

The rule of man—or government agency—takes precedence.

Ignoring the Constitution Congress passed a healthcare reform bill—dubbed Obamacare—against the will of the majority. It will impose onerous taxes and regulations on the citizens and result in rationing of substandard healthcare and higher prices.

Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are the new Axis of Evil. They pushed the bill through despite massive grassroots protests, and when asked where in the Constitution they got the authority, they scoffed.

The rule of man—or government agency—is supreme. The Axis of Evil knows this.

Seeking to drive up energy costs and limit the amount of energy resources available to Americans, Obama and his Axis of Evil cohorts want to pass a Cap and Trade bill. Obama is on record and on video acknowledging such a bill will “necessarily cause energy costs to skyrocket.”

Fascists hoping to secure their re-election have become hesitant to embrace a comprehensive energy tax bill before November, but hold out the prospect of passing it after the election. The Axis of Evil wants it done as soon as it’s politically feasible—even if that means during a lame duck session of Congress.

If that fails the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said it will enact its own version of Cap and Trade. There is no provision for such a thing in the Constitution. That no longer matters.

The rule of man—or government agency—trumps all.

After several false flag terrorist events on airliners the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began installing backscatter x-ray machines—naked body scanners—in airports and requiring passengers to pass through them before boarding an airplane.

Oh yes, you can decline the cancer-causing dose of radiation, but you must subject yourself to a full-body groping by TSA personnel. Many who have chosen this alternative have described the procedure as being done contemptuously by the agent, as if by declining the irradiation you have somehow offended the agent in charge of your humiliation.

Some who have protested at the vigor with which the agent poked, prodded and felt in the most private of places have then been hauled into back rooms, interrogated as if they were criminals and strip searched. Usually this extra-curricular harassment lasted until the passenger’s plane had long since left the terminal. Some passengers have even been arrested.

Now there is word the TSA wants portable backscatter x-ray machines so they can irradiate and ogle passengers boarding trains and buses and people entering sporting events and concerts.

This is the Evil of the rule of man—or government agency.

For the last several years Federal Reserve policies kept interest rates unjustifiably low, creating a bubble in housing and other sectors of the economy. Large financial institutions, with nothing to lose because of government regulations in place to save them, played fast and loose with investments. They played both sides against the middle and falsified the risk to their investors.

The economy imploded and about 15 million Americans are now out of work, millions more are underemployed, and many have lost their homes, their retirements, their businesses and their dignity.

At the same time, those responsible for regulating those institutions—including members of Congress—received special enrichment deals like low-interest loans and cushy lobbying jobs. The institutions received government bailouts, the members of Congress and the regulators felt no pain, only gain.

In the recently-passed financial reform legislation, pushed by the Axis of Evil and signed into law by Obama last week, is a provision that exempts the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from disclosing records or information compiled during investigations, even if requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It was FIOA requests by Fox Business Channel that led to the discovery of SEC failures in the Bernie Madoff, R. Allen Stanford and Pequot Asset Management cases that resulted in new charges being filed and a revamp of SEC policies.

The SEC was embarrassed because it had failed to properly investigate those cases. You can be certain it’s no accident those provisions were in the new law.

The financial reform legislation also puts an end to free checking accounts, raises fees for ATMs and makes credit difficult to obtain. It gives the President broad new unconstitutional powers. What it doesn’t do is what the Axis of Evil said it would: reduce the chance that another financial meltdown will occur.

The rule of man—or government agency—prevailed.

As the economy continues to limp along we get mixed signals out of the Axis of Evil and their minions—Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner . “Everything is fine.” “We’ve created or saved millions of jobs.” “The economy is on the rebound.” “Green shoots.” “The weakness will continue.” “We need more stimulus.” “Extend tax cuts.” “Repeal tax cuts.”

All the while they are killing jobs and stifling economic growth through stimulus bills, regulation, uncertainty, higher taxes, extended unemployment benefits and outright, overt attempts to destroy the oil industry in America by preventing new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and on the U.S. mainland.

They don’t warn you of the coming crash. They don’t tell you to buy gold. They deny that inflation is here and hyperinflation is coming. They want you impoverished. They want you subservient. They want you crawling to them in need. They are Evil.

The rule of man—or government agency—protects its own at the expense of the populace.

And Obama surrounds himself with like-minded thinkers, appointing czars over this and that and making unjustified recess appointments—bypassing the Constitutional requirement that cabinet heads be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

And who are these people he’s appointing? They are avowed communists, practicing Marxists, anti-Semitic Islamists, perverts that promote sex with children, homosexual activists, secularists, atheists and radical environmentalists.

Unlike the rule of law, which is color blind and equal, the rule of man—or government agency—is out for one thing: Creating a totalitarian state and advancing the agenda and enrichment of the man (or woman) setting the policy and running the agency.

That is Evil.

A Gift for November

Jewish World Review August 2, 2010/ 22

The Arizona Ruling: a Gift for November

By Arnold Ahlert


Rejoice conservatives, rejoice. We have been given a gift that will keep on giving right up to November. The travesty of Clinton-appointee Judge Susan Bolton’s decision blocking key components of the Arizona immigration law is a Godsend: it will be up to Democrats to explain why they stand on the side of border-busting lawbreakers–against citizens of the United States. They thought people were angry when Democrats rammed an unpopular health care bill down their throats? They ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

And that’s the upside. Imagine if there’s another high-profile murder of an Arizonan, like rancher Robert Krentz. Imagine someone being taken into custody and news reporters asking whether or not the murder suspect is an illegal alien. Imagine a spokesman for the police telling that reporter that, according to Judge Bolton’s ruling, asking such a question would “preempt” federal authority on the matter, and that they, not the arresting officer nor this office, will have to provide the answer.

Unbelievable as it may seem, that’s still an upside if something worse happens: imagine some members of a Mexican drug cartel killing a several Arizonans in some murderous shoot-out. Since more than twenty-five thousand people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico in less than four years–and much of that violence has taken place near the United States–it doesn’t take much to imagine it spilling across the border.

Yet even if Democrats–with an ample assist from their media rat-pack buddies (see the JournoList scandal if you don’t understand the “rat-pack” reference)–manage to deflect the damage from either of the above scenarios, there’s one more possibility for which no amount of spin would defuse the American public’s rage:

A terrorist attack perpetrated by someone who snuck into the country across our southern border.

Imagine thousands of Americans killed or wounded due to the direct dereliction of the federal government’s Constitutional mandate to “provide for the common defense.” Imagine U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder having to explain that while the federal government “can’t be everywhere at once,” that’s still no reason to allow Americans in Arizona or any other state to “preempt federal law” in order to protect themselves and their families. Imagine the serial liar we have in the Oval Office trying to come up with some plausible explanation as to why border security has been held hostage to immigration “reform.”

Now imagine one final thing: are any of the three scenarios mentioned above impossible?

Of course not. But even more to the point, these liberal jackboots, along with their in-the-tank judges and their media enablers, are hanging by the slimmest of threads–if nothing happens. The majority of Americans are already disgusted with this administration’s ham-fisted attempt to score political points with Hispanics by taking the side of law-breakers. They’re fed up with being told that anyone who dares to disagree with the liberal agenda that allows illegal aliens free reign in American cities and towns is a “racist” or a “fascist.” And they’ll eventually be even angrier when people like me remind them that above all else, this lawsuit against Arizona is the epitome of selective law-enforcement:

Not a single lawsuit has been filed by the feds against “sanctuary cities” who are in indisputable violation of federal immigration law.

And let’s not forget the media. Much like they suppressed videos of the Twin Towers on 9/11 due to their “sensitive” nature, videos which show how out of control this reality has become will be also minimally disseminated. Democrats and their media shills know that if Americans got a semi-regular dose of such reality–a vivid depiction of what is nothing less than an ongoing invasion of our country–an already substantial majority of Americans who support Arizona would become a monolith.

My heart goes out to the people of Arizona. Unlike the media and Democrat blowhards who pontificate from afar, these Americans live with the consequences of Democrat political manipulation–and Republican cowardice–every day of their lives. It is their families who endure the reality of the illegal alien free-for-all that, at best, drains their state of vital resources–and at worst, threatens people with bodily harm.

Americans who aren’t comatose know the battle in Arizona is about far more than that state–and far more than that issue. They know Democrats are attempting to perpetrate a national coup and entrench themselves in permanent power. To achieve this end they will stop at nothing. Most Americans understand that Arizona is nothing more than a stepping-stone towards the enfranchisement of millions of new Democrat voters via comprehensive immigration “reform.”

Until Democrats get that, Barack and Company will hold Arizonans and the rest of the country hostage. They will hammer ordinary Americans who dare to protect themselves, even as they wink at their fellow leftists whose cities and towns protect illegals.

They will leave the border wide open in the utterly cynical hope that they can wear down the citizens of this country with a war of attrition: either you accept the legalization of millions, or we’ll continue to allow them to make your life miserable–and dangerous.

Understand what they’re really saying: Democrats are literally willing to risk American lives to get their agenda through Congress.

Illegals and their enablers have won the battle. But if this is still the United States of America–and I believe it is–they just lost the war. It couldn’t happen to a nicer group of America-hating leftists.

Don’t forget to remind them in November.