Archive for August, 2010
EDITORIAL: Holder puts felons over soldiers
The Justice Department obstructs military voting rights
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES – The Washington Times
5:22 p.m., Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.
Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won’t have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 – but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.
The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section – 2,314 words – to advising felons how to regain voting privileges.
As confirmed by The Washington Times last week, Justice Department official Rebecca Wertz told a Feb. 1 conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State that the new law’s requirements are somehow open to interpretation. On July 28, an attendee at that conference – heretofore uninterviewed – told The Washington Times that Ms. Wertz‘s message was “totally undermining” the law. The earlier reports actually underplayed the effect of Ms. Wertz‘s comments. “It was even more pronounced at the meeting,” said the source. “She undermined [the law] right in front of everybody. When I heard what she was saying, I thought: ‘You’ve got to be kidding!’ … It was a clear reversal of roles for Justice to no longer be enforcing the law.”
After looking at the minutes of that conference, Mr. Cornyn responded forcefully. His office confirmed that he did place the hold on Mr. Cole because of the military voting issue. His July 26 letter to Mr. Holder does not actually mention his hold, but its tone was strong stuff.
“The statute does not create any discretion for the Executive Branch to decide whether or not to enforce its legal requirements,” the senator wrote. Ms. Wertz‘s comments “fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”
The senator laid out a series of four steps he wants Mr. Holder to take to ensure that states respect the 45-day deadline, including a demand that the Justice Department provide a state-by-state accounting of compliance efforts. The hold on Mr. Cole, reportedly a personal friend of Mr. Holder, is sure to grab the attorney general’s attention. Our troops deserve his respect.
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.
JournoList: ‘Coordinated’ Ideological Bankruptcy
By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The next time you hear a liberal scoffing at the idea that the American left has a set of “talking points,” or that they’re “reading from the same script,” tell him to google “JournoList.” Frankly, it is completely unsurprising that 400, invitation-only, members of leftist media, academia, think tanks and political activist associations would be attempting to coordinate their political strategy. When your ideology is bankrupt, the only thing left is strength in numbers. And when you revere the collectivist aspirations of Marxist/socialist all-encompassing government, “group-think” becomes as natural as breathing.
What else do internal emails confirm? That overt hatred and character assassination were perfectly acceptable when it came to protecting Barack Obama from his poisonous associations with America-hating radicals like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Thomas Schaller, Baltimore Sun columnist, proposed a “coordinated effort” to demonize ABC’s Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for daring to ask then-candidate Obama why it took him so long to disassociate himself from Wright. “It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” wrote Schaller.
Take a good look at that last sentence and understand what a member of the media is advocating. It isn’t, “let’s win the ideological debate by presenting better ideas to the American public.” It’s “don’t mess with our chosen presidential candidate, or there will be hell to pay.”
In Friday’s Washington Post, Ezra Klein, founder of the list, tried to discredit Tucker Carlson’s breaking of the scandal. He claims much of the reporting in Carlson’s “Daily Caller” is “inaccurate” and justifies such by claiming Tucker himself sought to be included as a member of the “club.” Yet his response to Tucker’s request is quite revealing:
“We definitely have friends in common, and I’d have no worries about you joining. The problem is I need to have clear rules, as i (sic) don’t want to be in the position of forcing fine-grained membership tests based on opaque criteria. Thus far, it’s been center to left, just because that was how people wanted it at the beginning in order to feel comfortable talking freely. I’ve been meaning for some time to ask the list about revisiting that, so I’ll take this opportunity and get back to you.”
Translation: if I allow a conservative to join, leftists couldn’t “feel comfortable talking freely.”
Why not? What is it about leftist philosophy that is so fragile it become necessary to insulate it from dissenting ideas? Ideological bankruptcy, that’s what. And the proof is in the pudding: members of the group voted down Carlson’s membership.
Klein noted that the main reason Carlson was vetoed was that JournoList members “worried about opening the archives to individuals who could help their careers by ripping e-mails out of context, misrepresenting the nature of the ongoing conversation…”
There’s a simple solution to that problem, Mr. Klein: publish all of the emails–in the order in which they were written, along with the names and occupations of those who wrote them. Let the American people decide who’s telling the truth here, and what, if anything, has been “taken out of context.”
The emailers’ occupations are critical. Let the American people make the distinction between emails written by typical leftist fire-breathers from academia, think tanks or activist groups–and those people in the media who have been entrusted with providing unbiased news coverage to the public.
Let the people decide if there’s anything resembling a coordinated effort to merely solidify leftist talking points–or a determined effort to slant the news, via selective reporting, outright lying, and/or character assassination.
It is no secret Barack Obama is the least-vetted candidate to ever occupy the Oval Office. And it is now becoming painfully evident that that “lack of curiosity” may have had far less to do with journalistic ineptitude than a pre-meditated effort to squelch information about the mainstream media’s “preferred candidate.”
Here’s the most pathetic part of all: what does it say about leftists that they feel compelled to coordinate information via membership in a fraternity? What does it say about people who have long considered themselves champions of tolerance that allowing one conservative to join that fraternity is a bridge too far? What does it say about those who consider their ideas so “superior” to those of ordinary Americans that anyone who disagrees with them is considered beneath contempt–and open to being labeled racist, sexist homophobic, xenophobic, etc. etc.?
I tell you what it says to me: these people are cowards–and lightweights. People may not like what I write, but I’d be damned before I’d “clear” my work with anyone other than my editor and my wife. I’d laugh out loud if anyone suggested I “coordinate” my writing with anyone else’s. And I’d quit writing altogether before I sat on any information because it might not accrue to my “favorite” politicians.
These people are entitled to do as they please. But any journalist on this list–not opinion-maker, just to be clear–ought to be ashamed of himself. In case no one has spelled it out for you, “coordinating” news is an utter disgrace to the profession. In a better world anyone guilty of such a transgression would be fired. In this world, leftists will likely circle the wagons and protect each other.
Apparently a lot of them need the protection. If this story makes anything clear, most of these people are scared of standing on their own two feet–which is what happens when what you stand for is ideologically bankrupt.
This story doesn’t seem to have made the media – yet!
Andrew Breitbart has struck again .
He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN ‘hooker’ scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama’s most powerful political support groups. But Breitbart’s handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod ‘white farmer’ scandal.
It all began last Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his “Big Government” site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture telling a roomful of NAACP members about how she’d discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed. she’d sent him instead to a white lawyer – ‘one of his own kind’ – for help. The black woman was Shirley Sherrod – and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country. Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded – and received – Sherrod’s resignation. Breitbart had won.
But then seemingly Breitbart’s actions began to explode in his face. As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP. And there on tape Sherrod was shown repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat. Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart. Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he’d endangered their reputations by releasing a ‘doctored’ tape. Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media. I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart in ‘doctoring’ a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.
Only now am I realizing the release of that tape snippet exposed one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government – a little known legal case called “Pigford v. Glickman“.
“In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.
But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America.
There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.
Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.
Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting. Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers. But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Obama.
Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.
Last Monday, July 22, 2010, the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment thanks to Breitbart Video clip
As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, she’s discovered too late that her cry of ‘racism’ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself – and her corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view.
The latest bailout for public unions and spendthrift states.
To treat Washington’s spending addiction, the November elections are the taxpayer’s best chance to stage an intervention. But until then, President Obama and the Democratic Congress are determined to keep pushing strung-out state governments to take one more fix.
Witness yesterday’s 247-161 largely party-line House vote to approve a Senate bill shovelling another $26.1 billion out to state education and Medicaid programs. The White House has promoted the bill as emergency assistance for strained state budgets. But this unique brand of therapy drives states to spend more, not less. The “assistance” is so expensive that several governors were begging for relief even before Mr. Obama signed it into law.
Standing with teachers yesterday in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said, “We can’t stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children or keep our communities safe.” Maintaining the salaries and generous benefit plans for members of teachers unions is indeed a top Democratic priority. That’s why $10 billion of the bill’s funding is allocated to education, and the money comes with strings that will multiply the benefits for this core Obama constituency.
Specifically, the bill stipulates that federal funds must supplement, not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year’s spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year’s level.
Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi did the math and figured out his state will be worse off. Mr. Barbour says the bill will force his state “to rewrite its current year [fiscal 2011] budget. Preliminary estimates of the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration show that we will now have to spend between $50-100 million of state funds—funds that must be taken away from public safety, human services, mental health and other state priorities and given to education—in order for an additional $98 million of federal funds to be granted to education. There is no justification for the federal government hijacking state budgets, but that is exactly what Congress has done.”
For Texas, and only Texas, this funding rule will be in place through 2013. This is a form of punishment because the Beltway crowd believes the Lone Star State didn’t spend enough of its 2009 stimulus money. Apparently Texas politicians have been clinging to the quaint notion that the government should try to live within its means.
Texans also seem to have an old-fashioned appreciation for the rule of law. On Friday, 22 GOP Members of the state’s Congressional delegation sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “This provision would have Texas violate her own State Constitution,” they wrote. “The Texas Legislature has sole authority to determine State appropriations. Moreover, one Legislature cannot bind a future Legislature. Requiring the State to assure that a future Texas Legislature would commit to spend funds in accordance with these provisions would violate the Texas Constitution.”
Texas Governor Rick Perry is also opposed to this new “assistance” from the federal government. He understands that one-time payments that force permanently higher state obligations are a windfall for government employees. But if given the choice, taxpayers would just say no.
That’s because taxpayers are figuring out that these state bailouts are only making unions more reluctant to share their sacrifice. While Mr. Obama quotes the union figure of 160,000 potential lost teacher jobs, those don’t have to come out of the classroom. According to research by Eric Hanushek of Stanford University, student enrollment grew by 22% from 1990 to 2007, but teacher employment grew by 41%. Since 2000, enrollment has grown by 5% but teacher employment by 10%.
The unions themselves could have prevented some layoffs had they been willing to adjust their rich benefits. In Milwaukee, for example, nearly all of the 500 teacher layoffs announced earlier this year could have been avoided if the unions had agreed to change health plans that cost $23,000 per teacher per year for family coverage. They could have accepted a still-rich $17,000 plan. The unions chose the layoffs, betting (correctly) that Democrats in Washington would come to their rescue.
Keep in mind that this teacher bailout also amounts to a huge contribution by Democrats to their own election campaigns. The National Right to Work Committee estimates that two of every three teachers belong to unions. The average union dues payment varies, but a reasonable estimate is that between 1% and 1.5% of teacher salaries goes to dues. The National Education Association and other unions will thus get as much as $100 million in additional dues from this bill, much of which will flow immediately to endangered Democratic candidates in competitive House and Senate races this year.
So in the name of still another “stimulus,” Democrats are rewarding their own political funders, putting the most fiscally responsible states into even greater distress, and postponing the day of reckoning for spendthrift states. Oh, and Mr. Obama rushed to sign the bill Tuesday, violating his campaign pledge to give the public five days to read legislation online. As we say, the only way for voters to stop such fiscal abuse is to run this crowd out of town.
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.
This one is a few years old but it still applies
Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, “Mexican visitor’s lament” — 10/25/07.
She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, “They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes…what happens to your country’s economy if 20 million people go away?”
That’s a good question – it deserves an answer. Over 80 percent of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers may surprise you!
In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupted hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominate language again.
In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids – would move back “home,” mostly to Mexico. That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 BIL) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop-out/flunk-out rate via thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver’s four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law and English.
In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.
If 20 million illegal aliens returned “home”:
If 20 million illegal aliens returned “home,” the U.S. economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn’t be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local state and city coffers.
No more push ‘1′ for Spanish or ‘2′ for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must content with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.
We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country. In cities like L.A, 20,000 members of the” 18th Street Gang” would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!
Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!
Drain on America’s economy; taxpayers harmed, employers get rich:
Over $80 billion annually wouldn’t return to their home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America’s economy – which currently suffers a $13 trillion debt.
At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupted out of existence because illegal’s pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans wouldn’t suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegal’s unscreened at our borders.
Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the “progressives” on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.
Over one million of Mexico’s poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in what the New York Times called, “colonias” or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation. The New York Times reported them to be America’s new” Third World” inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I’ve seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it’s sickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico.
We invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We invite a million people into our country legally, more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our country and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.
Revealed: The Obama Donor List
posted at 12:55 pm on July 23, 2010 by Anita MonCrief
For a number of years traditional print media has been on life support, but after the revelations from Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller, it looks like someone finally pulled the plug. The expose on Journolist, a now defunct, listserv that included hundreds of liberal journalists, detailed:
- the Journolisters’ attempt, during the 2008 presidential campaign to kill and bury stories about Obama’s relationship with “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright;
- their push to deliberately smear innocent conservative journalists and politicos as “racists” and “bigots”
- their twisted passion to see Rush Limbaugh killed off and dead;
- their intolerant desire to have the government censor and shut down Fox News; and
- their baldly partisan effort to coordinate liberal talking points that would discredit Sarah Palin and John McCain, while helping to elect Barack Obama president.
Considering that Journolist included journalists from Washington Post, the New York Times, National Public Radio, New Republic, and Time, one has to wonder if the biggest story covered up in 2008 was the illegal coordination between ACORN and the Obama campaign.
Below is a screen shot from the newly released Obama 2nd quarter 2007 donor list. ACORN obtained this donor list from the Obama Campaign in 2007 to target maxed out presidential donors.
VIEW THE FULL OBAMA DONOR FILES
As a confidential source for the New York Times, I turned this document over to reporter Stephanie Strom months before the 2008 presidential elections and though the list includes information more complete than what the Obama campaign turned over to the Federal Election Commission, the NYT decided to bury the story.
Strom and I used pseudonymous e-mail addresses while communicating and in 2008, Strom wrote:
“I’m calling a halt to my efforts. I just had two unpleasant calls with the Obama campaign, wherein the spokesman was screaming and yelling and cursing me, calling me a rightwing nut and a conspiracy theorist and everything else…”
After this weeks revelations about the efforts of the liberal media to cover-up or spike stories damaging to Obama, Strom’s next words are even more telling:
“What’s happened is that the campaign has answered some of my questions on the record — but when I sought on-the-record answers to my questions about the meeting and about the list, the campaign insisted on speaking only on background. When I asked why, I got the barrage I described earlier. Clearly, I’ve hit a nerve with what you’ve told me. The campaign knows that having the allegations of meeting attributed to ‘former employees’ — and there are more than one of you talking — and having an anonymous denial of the meeting makes it harder for me to get it into the paper.”
In 2008 the liberal media provided the cover needed for Obama to get elected, but two years later, questions remain about his relationship with ACORN and it has been clear that Obama has lied repeatedly to the American people. Its time to get Obama and ACORN on the record about what really happened with the donor lists in 2007 and 2008.
The release of the Obama donor list to the public will be followed by a formal complaint to the FEC, which both Obama and ACORN will have to respond to – on-the-record.
In 2009, the Democrat controlled Judiciary Committee heard testimony from attorney Heather Heidelbaugh, who read my 2008 testimony against ACORN into Congressional record. Evidence, and sworn testimony were among the facts ignored by the members of the committee:
“Based on the testimony, Project Vote, ACORN and other ACORN affiliated entities illegally coordinated activities with the Obama presidential campaign, converting the expenditures by Project Vote, ACORN and ACORN affiliated entities to illegal, excessive corporate contributions to the Obama presidential campaign, in violation of federal law.”
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity. – Wendell Phillips, speech in Boston, Massachusetts, January 28, 1852.”
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.
Yet another surprise coming from our Post Racial President. We see the heavy hand of race politics in almost every move by Mr. Obama as he attacks Red States and reward his Union base and Blue State supporters. November 2, 2010 is only the start, the battle isn’t over until November 2012, and We the People have to stand and be counted.
EDITORIAL: Engineered by Obama Motors
Automakers run on race-based political calculations
-7:46 p.m., Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Bottom of Form
A report by the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s inspector general, Neil M. Barofsky, underscores the danger of handing control of private enterprise to government bureaucrats. In running General Motors and Chrysler, the Obama administration‘s Auto Team made decisions based on what its members know best: race and politics.
After taking over the bankrupt carmakers, the administration ordered the immediate termination of one-quarter of existing dealerships – but not for business reasons. “Key members of the Auto Team … stated that they did not consider cost savings to be a factor in determining the need for dealership closures,” Mr. Barofsky wrote in his July 19 report. “Nevertheless, GM officials stated that they developed the cost-savings estimate … after being ‘pressed’ during meetings with congressional representatives to explain the cost savings that would result from the dealership terminations.”
These after-the-fact justifications were needed after Congress learned that closing 2,243 dealerships would cost nearly 100,000 jobs. GM invented a savings estimate of $2.6 billion, and Chrysler said its closings would save $35.9 million. Insiders reported the numbers were little more than a “math exercise” based on highly questionable assumptions, with one GM official admitting the hasty closure plan “might even cost GM money.”
GM set up a scoring system to determine the most valuable dealerships, but affirmative action was used to pick which survived. “Other dealerships were retained because they … were minority- or woman-owned dealerships,” Mr. Barofsky explained. The administration also pressured GM to cut rural dealerships. Mr. Barofsky‘s office interviewed independent experts who confirmed that domestic automakers “had an advantage over their import competitors” in rural markets and that cutting dealerships in those areas would harm domestic sales. The O Force’s disdain for red states and their tendency to “cling to guns or religion” can’t be coincidental.
The Obama administration denied that political calculations determined dealership closures