Saturday, October 31, 2009

A Call To Arms For White People Of Truth

The Honorable James David Manning, PhD gives a call to arms for white people of truth.

If this Video is down it is because The Honorable James David Manning is becoming a Public Enemy. I guess "The Truth will set you Free" only applies to Marxists, Commies & Liberals. For real Patriots like The Honorable James David Manning, it means censorship.

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 30, 2009

Joys of Muslim Women

Written by Nonie Darwish
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy. Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce. To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion. The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman. In the West World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law. By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law. Learn More.... Read: Cruel and Usual Punishment - just released in most bookstores. Ripping the West in Two.
Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical
Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two. She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before emigrating to America in 1978, When she was eight years old, her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza. When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society. But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.
She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western Civilization will be destroyed. In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President! I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
This is your chance to make a difference...!

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

What Doctors Fear About Obamacare

Dr. Betsy McCaughey and Medical Doctors Speak Out Against Obamacare

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Hating Whitey Makes Unexpected Comeback

Written by Kyle-Anne Shiver

Here we are only nine months into the ubiquitously proclaimed "post-racial presidency," and all that promised harmony among the races has disappeared faster than a Chicago minute. All it took for addled minds to conjure shadows of racism behind every whitey tree in the whole American forest were voices raised in dissent over the President's far-left policies.

No sooner had congress' summer recess begun -- without the President's hoped-for passage of Obamacare -- than the racist cries began their assent. Nancy Pelosi threw down the "swastika" gauntlet aimed at townhall attendees, which essentially tarred those citizens with white-supremacy slander. In early August an African-American MSNBC newsman actually declared that the word, "socialist," being used to define Obama policies, was a new "code word" for "N**ger."

Then, Joe Wilson's impolite, but factually accurate blurt of "You lie," aimed at the President's claim regarding illegal alien coverage in the healthcare bill, was hailed as racially motivated by liberals at every level. Maureen Dowd penned a wicked screed, swearing she heard Wilson use the word, "Boy," even though no one else did - not even the recording devices. Jimmy Carter doddered forth with his feeble opinion in public, concluding that of course, the outpouring dissent had to be racist. Even Bill Cosby chimed in on the so-called white-racist motivations.

Interestingly enough, before the election, far-left feminist icon, Erica Jong, gave an interview to the Italian press, details of which were reported by the U.K. Telegraph. Jong was taking daily doses of Valium, she said, just to deal with her "pre-election anxiety." If Obama were not elected, she contended, then it would start a "second civil war" and "blood would run in the streets." Jong confided that her writer friends were equally traumatized, that Naomi Wolf was calling her every day, that Ken Follett was "extremely worried" and that Jane Fonda had sent her an email claiming that she "cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduced her to a bundle of nerves."

Well, we had the election. White America came through. Now, where's all that absolution, honey?

From anyone's pre-election calculations, an Obama presidency held the promise of relieving America's white citizens of their centuries-long guilt over slavery and civil-rights injustices. Such, however, has not been at all the case and hating whitey is making an unexpected comeback.

There was President Obama's own "teaching moment" on race wherein he reminded us we are still a racist nation where white police officers act "stupidly" against black professor-types just because of the color of their skin. Even the beer-fest afterward left divisive hard feelings and rancor among unjustly accused police officers.

Last week we saw the racist fires stoked against Rush Limbaugh for the "crime" of wishing to purchase part ownership in the St. Louis Rams. Media outlets from coast to coast used false and slanderous quotes to justify the rhetorical lynching of Limbaugh. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both with more than a few anti-Semitic slurs in their pasts, blasted Limbaugh with false racist charges. An MSNBC contributor remarked that many NFL players had said they wouldn't play for a team owned by Limbaugh because he "would just love to say he owned a plantation full of black men."

But the real cake-taker in this poisonous concoction is the proclamation by Louis Farrakhan in Memphis this week. Farrakhan spoke to a hall full of people who were gathered to celebrate the 14th anniversary of his Million Man March (attended by Barack Obama). This week he warned his Nation of Islam followers not to "become complacent" because of the election of the first black president. Speaking of Obama's election, Farrakhan said "This can pacify you and lull you to sleep in a dangerous time, making you think that we live in a post-racial America-when the opposite is true."

Now, I'm not one generally inclined to agree with the audaciously Hitler-celebrating head of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. But on the matter of a post-racial America he would seem to be nailing it. Anyone still believing in the promise of Barack Obama bringing racial peace, harmony and Christian forgiveness to White America might be suffering from a severe case of willful blindness.

When every utterance of disagreement with a president is framed as bigotry and racism, then the old black separatists' call to hate whitey has made a sure comeback and there isn't a thing Christian about it.

In fact, it would seem a very Jeremiah Wright inspired phenomenon. Lest we forget, Jeremiah Wright bestowed the lifetime service award from his church on Louis Farrakhan. Barack Obama seems to have soaked up a whole lot more from Wright and Farrakhan than he let on during the campaign. If the President is not stoking the resurgence of racial hatred, he certainly has done nothing substantial to stop it either.

Perhaps we should have paid a bit more heed to those racist associations of Barack Obama's, because in the infamous words of Spike Lee's Malcolm X, it certainly appears we whitey Americans have been utterly and thoroughly "bamboozled."
Written by Kyle-Anne Shiver

Bookmark and Share

Monday, October 26, 2009

Rightwing Fascists and Other Fables

This article really hammers home the lies about Conservatives. Compare what Liberals call Nazism, with President Bush. Sure he had the Patriot Act but were any real Americans damaged by the Patriot Act. How many American lives were saved by President Bush and VP Cheney. My, how times have changed. Compare how a Marxist President, such as B. Hussein Obama has taken over Private Business. Obama strives, like a good Nazi, to take away our Freedoms, like Freedom of Speech.
Written by Jon N. Hall
The political Left has been saying for the longest time: Fascism is an ideology of the right. In January 2008, Jonah Goldberg's excellent Liberal Fascism debuted, and in it he demonstrated for all time that fascism is most definitely an ideology of the left.

What distinguishes Mr. Goldberg's book is not that his "secret history" revealed things no one knew, but rather its singular success both in America and abroad as a work of political heresy. That success is due, I think, to the book's packaging and presentation: From the jarring title to the relentless rolling out of suppressed history to the unsettling conclusions, it's a most compelling read. (The book is now available in paperback, with a new afterword on Obama.)

Sadly, Goldberg's authoritative history has not sunk in with the media. This can be seen in the coverage of the October 22 appearance on the BBC's Question Time program of British National Party leader Nick Griffin, who is widely accused of fascism in the U.K. The main gripe against Griffin seems to be his position on immigration. But, inasmuch as the protesters were trying to silence a man and shut down debate, could this be a case of fascists protesting other fascists?

Because they're so toxic, charges of fascism and racism can't be allowed to stand. Justice Secretary Jack Straw probably wishes he hadn't launched such charges, as Mr. Griffin's comeback was devastating. (See it in this excerpt from the BBC show, which garnered a huge audience. For more British coverage of the event, read: Times of London, Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Sun, The Independent.)

In America, the press continues to conflate fascism and rightism. The Associated Press leads with: "Anti-fascist protesters broke into the BBC's west London headquarters on Thursday ahead of a far-right party leader's appearance on a leading political debate show". Another AP writer titles his story: "UK Far-Right Leader's BBC Appearance a Ratings Hit". The title of the John F. Burns' article at the New York Times' website is: "Rightist on BBC Panel Draws Protests and Viewers".

Journalists need to understand that you can be fascist or you can be rightwing but you can't be both. Ink-stained wretches, you need to brush up your Goldberg.

Although Goldberg's book is essential reading -- indeed, it should be required reading for journalists until they get up to speed on these matters -- I don't think one needs his historical research and ideological analyses to "know" that one of his central ideas is correct. But the Left's counter claim (that fascism is rightist) has taken firm root. So let's define some terms. All-purpose dictionaries can be unreliable in their treatments of certain political words, but these definitions ring true:

totalitarianism American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

Domination by a government of all political, social, and economic activities in a nation. Totalitarianism is a phenomenon of the twentieth century: earlier forms of despotism and autocracy lacked the technical capacity to control every aspect of life. The term is applied both to fascist governments (see fascism) and to many forms of communism.

totalitarian American Heritage Dictionary

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)

The reason I've trotted out the 125 words of these definitions is to show that even the slightest bit of familiarity with fascism and communism should be enough to tell you that the idea that they're opposites is nuts.

If two tribes both practiced ritual human sacrifice like we saw in Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, would you think that in all the important matters they were really quite different? If two governments each had economies based on slavery, would you say they were the exact antitheses of each other? If they each had vast networks of concentration camps or gulags, would you think of them as opposites?

If you answered in the affirmative, the political Left has assimilated you. If you answered correctly, you still need to read Goldberg's book.

Great article written by Jon N. Hall
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Liberal Logic is an Oxymoron

So by Liberals logic, we aren't supposed to question ANYTHING that THEIR president does! We're supposed to NOT criticize this administration AT ALL! We are supposed to walk lock-step with everything they want to do like all you blind sheep aligned with this moron of a president does.

Libs attacked everything that Bush did for 8 years. 8 YEARS!!! For 8 years these Nazi libs posted their vitriolic hatred for Bush, and everything the republicans stood for. Nazi Libs showed hatred for America, via their bumper stickers, their violent and destructive protests, slashing tires of republicans cars, made a movie "fantasizing" about the assassination of Bush, I saw online, numerous posters who threatened Bush, wanted him dead! Liberals who wish all conservatives dead!

What if someone made a movie about the assassination of Obama? Enough said! The "double-standard media" would chastise that Movie maker, drag them through the mud, call them racist and extremist, call them a terrorist, etc. What did the main stream media do about the Bush movie? They embraced it! Liberal Wackjobs flocked in droves to watch the movie, because their hatred was so strong, they cheered it! I personally heard libs say "too bad it's just a movie!" They actually wanted it to happen!!!! Anyone who questions Obama is labeled as a racist! I happen to know several black People (who also dislike Obama) does that make them racist too? Race relations have been dealt a negative blow. Not by anything the republicans are doing, its the twisted logic coming from the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Carter, Clinton etc. They're the ones playing the race card!

FACT: Liberals hate America and the freedoms for which it has stood for. Which is why dirtbag libs want to CHANGE it! The CHANGE these libs are bringing to America, I want no part of! If that means I am an insurgent, then so be it! So F You and your liberal ideologies, Damn You for corrupting and brainwashing the school children, who are the future of this country. Damn You for indoctrinating your liberal garbage into the minds of young, impressionable children, Damn You for ACORN and your corrupt campaigning and elections. Screw You for attempting to socialize healthcare, and for socializing the auto industry.
Your Marxist president is a failure, Woodrow Wilson style.

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 23, 2009

Troops Can't Wait

A great Article!
Written by Investor's Business Daily
Afghanistan: The president's decision to withhold more troops over the country's less-than-pristine election is nothing but stalling. For our soldiers, desperate for reinforcements, it's a slap in the face.

No doubt, a legitimate government, complete with free and fair elections, would be good for Afghanistan. Its Aug. 20 vote was loaded with trouble because the Taliban sliced off purple-inked fingers to discourage voting and because a United Nations electoral watchdog found widespread voter fraud.

Yes, correct the problems. But holding U.S. troop reinforcements hostage isn't the way to do it. Elections aren't why we have troops in that country. They're there to fight a war against terrorists that President Obama once declared to be "necessary."

Time is growing short, and the Taliban insurgency is gaining ground. Pakistan has struck hard against the Taliban in its western region, a campaign that could drive more terrorists into Afghanistan and make our war harder. Terrorist recruiting is up and the Taliban doesn't lack money. The Pentagon consensus is that the window to win is closing and the opportunity will be lost soon.

That makes the sudden concern about elections a stall.

Instead of acting on the August recommendations of our commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to send 40,000 reinforcements, the administration is delaying that hard decision. In an eerie echo of the criticism anti-war Democrats made against South Vietnam before it was abandoned to the communists, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said over the weekend that new troops would have to wait because of the electoral woes.

The delay makes winning more difficult, and it's a betrayal of U.S. troops who are fighting and dying in a war they can't suspend just to let Afghanistan get its electoral act together. The troops need backup, and to them more support is not a political carrot.

There's no word from the administration about whether President Hamid Karzai's agreement to hold a runoff election on Nov. 7 is good enough for more troops. As the election problem looks to move to resolution due to diplomatic muscle — we give credit to Sen. John Kerry for pressing Karzai — the White House seems to be signaling more stalls will follow. One staffer said that a meeting on reinforcements will have to wait until the middle of next week because Defense Secretary Robert Gates — who obliquely criticized the idea of using the electoral issue to delay reinforcements — is traveling. Next week, it will be something new.

Troops on the ground can't wait. Already constrained by unworkable rules of engagement, they are dying in unacceptable numbers. The victory plan McChrystal presented has seen no action. Morale has fallen. Troops say they no longer see a clear mission and just want to get through their tours.

The stalling is also affecting our NATO allies, who are beginning to cut away as Obama's dithering pushes them to question his commitment. Obama's second strategic war review — in which McChrystal recommended a troop buildup — raised eyebrows in Europe about what the U.S. really wants.

Since then, France has said it won't send a "single soldier more," Japan has declared its refueling mission over, and Vice President Joe Biden is visiting Eastern Europe, probably to plead for more troops. Our allies can see that Obama isn't supporting his own commander and want no part of fighting and dying in a war he has no taste to win.

Our troops have no such options, and Obama's failure to act suggests that a terrible setup, wittingly or unwittingly, is building for them to lose the war and be hung out to dry. Obama must act now on troops for Afghanistan's sake and our own.
Written by Investor's Business Daily

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 22, 2009

All the President's Mao

This article below has great points on why Obama should be impeached. Barry continues to try and destroy America with his Radical Nazi Thugs.
Written by Mac Fuller
President Obama and "the other side of Barack's brain," Valerie Jarrett -- whose stepfather coincidentally maintained close ties with the President's adolescent mentor and Communist, Frank Marshall Davis -- handpicked the following bureaucrats and placed them in positions of great authority, power, and visibility:

Van Jones, "Green Jobs Czar," self-defined Communist.

Ron Bloom, "Manufacturing Czar" cites Chairman Mao as a political guide.

Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, who stated in an address to high school students this past June that Chairman Mao Tse-tung was one of the two "philosophers" she most often turns to.

President Obama handpicked and placed the Socialists and socialist sympathizers in positions of great authority and visibility:

Carol Browner, Director, White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, an ardent Socialist activist and one of 14 leaders of Socialist International's, "Commission for a Sustainable World Society," which calls for "global governance."

Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs , "who openly argues for bringing socialism to the United States, and even lends support for communism...."

How many others, handpicked by Mr. Obama and Ms. Jarrett, are there?

Here is China's Communist Chairman, Mao Tse-tung (whose name, oddly enough means, "to shine on the East") in his own words, at the age of 24, before he became supreme ruler of all China as well as the mass murderer responsible for the death of 70,000,000 people -- in peacetime:

Mao expressed the central elements in his own character, which stayed consistent for the remaining six decades of his life and defined his rule.

Mao's attitude to morality consisted of one core, the self, "I," above everything else:

"I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one's action has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others... People like me want to ... satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me."*

Mao shunned all constraints of responsibility and duty.

"People like me only have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people." "I am responsible only for the reality that I know," he wrote, "and absolutely not responsible for anything else. I don't know about the past. I don't know about the future. They have nothing to do with the reality of my own self."

He explicitly rejected any responsibility towards future generations.

"Some say one has a responsibility for history. I don't believe it. I am only concerned about developing myself... I have my desire and act on it. I am responsible to no one.

He argued that conscience could go to hell if it was in conflict with his impulses:

"These two should be one and the same. All our actions...are driven by impulse, and the conscience that is wise goes along with this in every instance."

When he came to the question, "How do we change [China]?" Mao laid the utmost emphasis on destruction:

"...the country must be...destroyed and then re-formed."

He extended this line not just to China but to the whole world -- and event the universe:

"This applies to the country, the nation, and to mankind... The destruction of the universe is the same... People like me long for its destruction, because when the old universe is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn't that better!" **

President Obama's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, on Chairman Mao: he is one of my two "favorite political philosophers," and "one of the two who I turned to the most...."

President Obama's "Manufacturing Czar," Ron Bloom on the free market system and Chairman Mao: "We get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense.... We know this is largely about power....We kind of agree with Mao, that power comes from the barrel of a gun."

William Ayers, President Obama's unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber, friend, fellow board member, "respected" national educator, virulently anti-American, and likely ghost writer of the President's autobiography, Dreams of My Father:

"I am a radical, Leftist, small "c" Communist.... Maybe I am the last Communist willing to admit it.... The ethics of Communism still appeal to me."

Written by Mac Fuller
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Truly, the Inmates are running the Asylum!

Dear All 535 voting members of the Legislature.

It is now official: You are all morons.

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right;
it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right;
it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right;
it is broke..

War on Poverty started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor";
it hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they're broke

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right;
it is broke

Trillions of dollars in the massive political payoff called the TARP bill of 2009 shows NO sign of working.

And finally to set a new record:

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars ( that were the best some people could afford ) replaced them with high priced ( people who couldn't afford to are now making payments ) mostly Japanese models so a good percentage of the profits, from the sales, went out of the country. And lastly, the American taxpayers are now going to be dinged with paying for yet 3 billion more dollars of our governments experiments to make our wallets even thinner.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system? 15% of our economy? Are you crazy?

Truly, the inmates are running the asylum! And what does this say about voters who put such pond scum in office? Maybe we need to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010 and just vote against incumbents.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, October 19, 2009

Al Sharpton Criticizing Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

Criticizing Joe Arpaio? C'mon Al, who are you to criticize anyone, especially someone who is doing their job? Mind your own business, Al, we don't want or need you in Arizona or the United States of America!

Here's a little history of Al:

In New York, 1987, Tawana Brawley, a black 15 year old was found smeared with feces, lying in a garbage bag, her clothing torn and burned and with various slurs and epithets written on her body in charcoal. Brawley accused six white men, including police officers and a public official, of kidnapping and repeatedly raping her. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton played a major role in publicizing and campaigning on behalf of Brawley's case. It was all a hoax. The case did not pass the smell test of the grand jury. A grand jury later indicted Brawley's mother Glenda Brawley for her involvement in the hoax.

Still, Sharpton and associates accused the Dutchess County prosecutor, Steven Pagones, of racism and of being one of the perpetrators of the alleged abduction and rape.

Pagones successfully sued Sharpton and Brawley's attorneys for slander. They were ordered to pay $345,000 in damages.

Many say Sharpton knew Brawley lied. I have not found solid evidence to prove this. However, in a 2007 interview, Sharpton said he still thinks the Brawley case should have gone to trial. He said that despite there being no evidence of a crime.

Folks, white cops allegedly smearing a black teenage girl with feces. Can you imagine the intense racial hatred fueled by this evil lie? But Sharpton did not care. It was all about his racism, fame, extortion, political power and "gettin' paid".

To keep this article brief as possible, I will not go into all of Sharpton's racist statements, divisiveness and exploitation of race relations. Unlike the false Limbaugh quotes, Sharpton's crimes are easily found and documented. For example, check out the Crown Heights crisis. Talk about racist anti-Jewish smears.

These Rappin' Reverends are just Race profiteers. For years Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have earned a great living and enjoyed celebrity by betraying their own people. When you are still attempting to convince blacks they are victims in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet, the president is black and the richest woman in the country is also black, it is an insidious betrayal.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 18, 2009

This Isn't About Rush

By David Limbaugh

There will be no voluntary mea culpas from Rush's race slanderers despite the irrefutable fact that they spread poisonous and damaging lies with actual malice. To the left, Rush is the most prominent face of conservatism and the most influential opponent of President Barack Obama's destructive agenda and so must be stopped -- irrespective of the despicable means employed.

The left systematically destroyed President George W. Bush with the most egregious lies, repeated to the point that people who knew better even began to believe them. The formerly respected CBS News anchor Dan Rather was so convinced by his liberal bias that Bush was evil that he refused to apologize for slandering him with a story later proved to be manufactured -- and that's giving Rather the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware the story was fabricated from the get-go. To Rather, it didn't matter because he was convinced Bush possessed the character of someone who would have engaged in the acts of which he was falsely accused.

And what was it about Bush that led Rather to the conclusion that he possessed such low character? In Rather's eyes -- though many conservatives would strongly dispute this -- he was a conservative and conservatives are evil.

The parallel with Rush's leftist slanderers is striking. It's one of the first things that occurred to me as I heard their sniveling responses, one by one refusing to utter a syllable of apology and instead using the occasion of being caught red-handed in malicious lies as a further opportunity to reiterate their libel.

"How dare you suggest that we have done anything wrong in attributing statements to Rush he never uttered? Even if he didn't say those words, you know he was thinking them or something much worse."

On what basis do they make such preposterous statements? Purely and simply for the reason that Rush is an unabashed conservative and unabashed conservatives are presumptively racist.

There isn't an ounce of fairness in these deliberate bearers of false witness or their supporters. If the supporters were just slightly honorable, at the very least they would condemn the slanderers for their indefensible tortuous utterances. They wouldn't even have to say one word in defense of the super patriot they loathe; just call to the carpet the brutish verbal thuggery of their ideological soul mates.

Many outraged Rush fans are directing their ire at Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but I would argue that this is an inefficient allocation of their righteous indignation.

These two household name-level, race-hustling opportunists have no credibility, including with the mainstream media and other liberal prostitutes who continue to aid and abet their shenanigans, such as this one. It's a pact of mutual convenience. The liberals know full well that few on the right have the moral courage to oppose their mischief for fear of being labeled racists themselves. So they shamelessly prop them up to enable them to agitate racial disharmony and deliver race-oriented votes to the Democratic Party.

So please direct your angst not at these direct agents of racial toxicity, but at their leftist enablers in the media, the Democratic Party and the government -- those who not only empower these hate-spewing mouthpieces but also participate in the poison by issuing such destructive lies as "a vote for a Republican is a vote for another church to burn" and "President Bush left poor blacks on the rooftops in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because Republicans don't care about blacks."

While you're at it, please reserve just a smidgeon of your outrage or disgust for those lukewarm conservatives who contribute to the destruction of race relations and to the advancement of liberal causes by pandering to false characterizations of authentic conservatives, such as Rush, who aren't afraid to stand up for the truth, even when it will subject them to virulently fraudulent charges of racism or other slanders.

If any of you are sufficiently naive to believe this NFL incident is merely about Rush, you have a rude awakening in store. The left is on the march -- the march to isolate, stigmatize, demonize, discredit and ultimately silence those who stand in their way. If you haven't read up on the plans of Obama's Federal Communications Commission czar to shut down talk radio or if you aren't following the tyrannical workings of the administration in trying to cram down unpopular legislation without a shred of transparency, then you'll eventually witness the lengths to which these people will go -- as illustrated here.

At the risk of sounding trite, we are at a crossroads in this country, and the left is proving each day how ruthlessly unprincipled it will be in advancing its goal of fundamentally changing this nation.

I pray and honestly trust that conservatives will be emboldened, not cowered, by this nasty, sordid turn of events.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney.
Bookmark and Share

Barry Soetero a Closet Muslim?

Hon. James David Manning, PhD explains why Barack Hussein Obama is a hypocrite.
Do you notice a pattern here with Muslims & Liberals? They love to disrespect Women & America.

If this Video is down it is because The Honorable James David Manning is becoming a Public Enemy. I guess "The Truth will set you Free" only applies to Marxists, Commies & Liberals. For real Patriots like The Honorable James David Manning, it means censorship.

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 16, 2009

Is Obama Turning Us into the Next Evil Empire?

Written by Selwyn Duke

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" in 1983, he was articulating in the boldest terms what had always been an American understanding. The Kremlin had long been fomenting communist revolution the world over, and we had long pursued our policy of "containment."

Thus did we fight wars in Korea and Vietnam, facilitate coups d'├ętat against people such as Salvador Allende and support anti-communist rebels such as the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Of course, plans didn't always come together. There was the Bay of Pigs debacle, and the covert Iran-Contra operation getting front-page exposure. The "police action" in Korea ended in a stalemate and Vietnam just became stale, losing the public and political support necessary for victory.

Many also questioned the wisdom and even the legality of some of these foreign interventions, and other people, often for ignoble reasons, refused to wrap their minds around the fact that there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils and that it is virtually always the anti-communist option. As for any mistakes or moral lapses -- which ever plague endeavors of mortal design -- for now I'll just steal a concept from Otto von Bismarck and say that sometimes foreign policy is like sausage, in that it may look good when it's served, but you wouldn't want to be there when it's made. Other times, though, viewing it in its totality is like being presented with whole octopus. The only way it can be stomached is if you keep your eyes closed.

But although the dishes did vary, American presidents had always served the same cuisine. John Kennedy didn't flinch during the Cuban missile crisis, and, although he stumbled dreadfully, at least could contemplate a Bay of Pigs. Lyndon Johnson might have had a dark heart, but he certainly seemed to have it in opposing the Viet Cong guerrillas. Even Jimmy Carter, the poster-boy for peanut policy and appeasement, signed an order approving aid for the mujahedeen. But now, finally, we may have turned a corner.

Barack Obama's support for the Honduran ex-president who would be king, Manuel Zelaya, is without American precedent. Zelaya is Hugo Chavez' mini-me, as he, like the vitriolic Venezuelan, sought to subvert his nation's constitution and extend and expand his power. And of this there is no doubt. The Honduran constitution prohibits a president from serving more than one term, and Zelaya, aided and abetted by Chavez and a mob of thugs, was using illegal methods to circumvent the prohibition. This is why Honduras' supreme court ruled against him; it's why he was opposed by the nation's congress, the majority of its people and the Catholic Church. It's why Zelaya was removed from office.

In taking the wrong side, Obama has turned what could have been a temporary crisis into a protracted one, a situation that could devolve into bloody civil war. And what's so tragic is that supporting the interim government of Roberto Micheletti likely would have diffused the situation and yielded long-term stability. After all, there was no reason to think that Honduran authorities who enforced the law in removing Zelaya would depart from this and not hold the planned November elections. As for Micheletti, he is from Zelaya's own Liberal Party and shows no strongman tendencies. So what is the bottom line? It's plain that Honduras was bucking the banana-republic stereotype in upholding the rule of law. And now Obama is giving us banana-republic foreign policy in promoting the rule of the lawless.

Yet Obama's actions cannot truly be appreciated without a bit more perspective. It's not just that he has adopted a policy that was unthinkable for most of America's history. There is something far more striking, far more telling and far more alarming: in the current Honduran situation, Zelaya is precisely the man the Soviet Union -- that evil empire -- would have sided with.

Now I want you to let that sink in for a moment . . . .

This reality merely illustrates the obvious in an emotionally gripping way. While Reagan opposed Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega by funding his anti-communist opponents, Obama sides with a reinvented Ortega in supporting Zelaya. In doing so, he also lines up with unrepentant communists, either in name or spirit, such as Chavez and Fidel Castro. Fine company you keep there, Mr. Obama.

Of course, many would scoff at the notion that Obama isn't anti-communist. They may point out that Zelaya's passions seem to lie with socialism and that even Chavez, odious though he is, only claims to be thus disposed. But this is an old song. Note that the U.S.S.R. stood for the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and that communists such as Mao Tse-tung would often speak of the "socialist revolution." And it's important to understand why. In classical Marxism, there cannot be a communist revolution or a communist state because communism is not a process but an end result that obviates government. The revolution is how you achieve communism, which eliminates the need for a state. And that revolution?

It's called "socialism."

And the state that exists until the communist utopia blooms (don't hold your breath) is called a socialist one.

Thus, within this context, when those we view as communist claim they're socialist, they just may be telling the truth. Only, they may simply mean that they are orchestrators of "The Process," of a transition whose end result supposedly will be communism. How they just may smile on the inside when laymen don't understand the distinction.

Because of this, we should realize that not being anti-socialist can equate to not being anti-communist. And while Obama claims to not be a socialist, he may simply lack self-knowledge or, like the classical Marxists, may be concealing his lupine true self in a pretty fleece. Remember that this is the man who is stimulating us into bankruptcy as he nationalizes banks, insurance companies and automobile manufacturers; whom an analysis showed was the most left-wing member of the Senate in 2007, even surpassing that body's only avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont; who made an ally of avowed communist Bill Ayers and an appointee of avowed communist Van Jones; and who seems to have been a member of the socialist New Party in Illinois in the 1990s. As to the last point, it's striking how little coverage this association has received -- even in the alternative (honest) media. If the documents exposing Obama's New Party connections (linked in this piece) are authentic -- and I have no reason to believe they aren't -- it's a front-page story.

But on top of all this, we now have the Obama administration, like the Soviet Union a quarter century ago, seeking to facilitate "socialist" power grabs. So the question is: is Barack Obama turning us into the next evil empire?

An even better question is whether we will be deserving of the label. The implication here may sound harsh, but people do tend to get the government they deserve. Now, sure, "people" doesn't mean everyone; there are always many who stand against tyranny. But it is what we do collectively that shapes the nation. And, collectively, America voted for Obama last year, and approximately 50 percent of us still approve of his performance. Of course, you may say that those who pulled the lever for him didn't know what they were getting, but neither did the Russians who effected the October Revolution. The greater mass of them weren't evil - and they certainly didn't want an evil empire. But that's exactly what they got.

There are a couple of differences between us and the Russians, though. One is that they never actually voted for their "socialist" revolutionaries. Another is that they just might have learned from their mistake, as evidenced by the ironic fact that Vladimir Putin recently warned the West about the perils of embracing socialism.

Americans need to heed this warning, rise up and make socialism into the dirty word it should be. They need to not only attend tea parties and shout a Wilsonian "You lie!" they also need to vote the liars -- all those who aid and abet Obama -- out of office in 2010.

But will they do it? Will Putin's warning against descent into evil empire status fall on deaf ears? So far it doesn't look good. Many young Americans today don't even know what socialism and communism are. This is because the adults in their lives failed to teach them and often don't understand these dangers themselves. They consequently voted for a man who stands against democracy and for socialist revolution in Honduras, a man who recently was praised by Hugo Chavez, a man who Chavez had previously referred to as "Comrade Obama." Let's just hope that, seven years hence, we all won't have to address him that way.

Written by Selwyn Duke
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Why I Hate Obama’s America

By Ben Shapiro
According to the left, I am now a member of a treasonous group. I cheered when President Obama and his newly made-over milquetoast wife made asses of themselves in Copenhagen while attempting to wheedle the Europeans into granting Chicago the 2016 Olympics. And I gnashed my teeth when the Nobel Prize Committee decided to fete Obama with the Peace Prize. So, that makes me an America-hater.

“Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?” asks Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, singling out Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as paradigmatic of the conservative “hate America” movement. “The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they concerned, couldn’t possible do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition.”

No, Eugene, that isn’t the problem for us. Here’s our problem: President Obama seeks an America that resembles modern France far more than the free and prosperous America our forefathers fought and bled and died for. President Obama’s America is not America: It is the United Nations writ large, with socialist redistribution at its center and moral relativism at its core. I root against President Obama’s America because I don’t want to see it become a reality. And the only way it will become a reality is if President Obama is able to make it a reality.

And so I root for events that drain away Obama’s political capital.

I rooted against him when he visited Copenhagen to bring the Olympics home. That’s not because I opposed the Olympics going to Chicago—a Chicago Olympics would have been great. I rooted against Obama because if he had achieved his goals with regard to the Olympics, too many Americans would have thought that such success somehow legitimated his agenda here at home—an agenda totally at odds with all notions of constitutionality, limited government, and liberty of enterprise and thought. By winning in Copenhagen, he would have raised his chances of ramming through his domestic and foreign policy programs—and that’s the last thing I want to see.

I was enraged when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s not simply because I think he didn’t deserve it, though he clearly doesn’t. It’s because the Peace Prize was just another sop to Obama’s inflated ego. It was a blatant attempt by the “world community” to hand Obama a personal consolation prize for his fiasco in Copenhagen. It was their attempt to screw his courage to the sticking place, to reinforce his self-inflicted perception that he is a world leader destined to direct America toward a more global future.

The Nobel Committee gave Obama the Peace Prize because he has already demonstrated real commitment to undermining American strength on the world stage, and they want to see him follow through on that commitment.

In short, I don’t root against President Obama because I hate America. I root against President Obama because I hate his vision for America.

It is those like President Obama who see America as a dark and dangerous place that requires earth-shaking change along European lines. It is those like President Obama who feel that Americans are nothing special—and that America is nothing special. As Obama himself put it: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, America is not exceptional—it’s just because we live here that we feel it is. And the American people are not exceptional—they are merely Greeks or Brits or Russians or Chinese or Frenchmen born within our borders, with values no better or worse than their foreign compatriots.

Obama’s belief in America’s unexceptionalism—his view that America’s government, not her people, is the formative force in her values; his view that the American people bear the stain of racial, sexual and military guilt; his view that America must abandon her scrupulous adherence to equality of opportunity in favor of equality of result, traditional morals in favor of alternative ethics, and liberty of enterprise in favor of redistributionism—that set of beliefs is antithetical to what makes America great.

So yes, I hate Obama’s America. Because Obama’s America isn’t America—it’s the European view of America, implemented from high office. Opposing the total redefinition of America isn’t anti-American; it’s patriotic. And opposing those, like Obama, who push for that drastic redefinition, isn’t “hating America”—it’s fighting in favor of the America that ended slavery, built the greatest economic empire in world history and liberated tens of millions around the globe. If that isn’t patriotic, I don’t know what is.
By Ben Shapiro

Bookmark and Share

Monday, October 12, 2009

Obama’s Reward for Corruption

Did the Left Wing Norwegians look into Barrack Hussein Obama’s past or only into his initial 12 days in Office?
If these elite Nobel Peace Prize Judges knew how to read they might find some disturbing information on Obama.

Obama would leave a Baby, alone in a Utility Room to die, yet he wins a Nobel Peace Prize. This has to be one of the most heinous ideas by any President which we have ever had.

Obama hangs around and works with Terrorist Bill Ayers, yet he wins a Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama sits in a Vile Racist Church for 20 years, yet he wins a Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama praises Cuba, where Political Prisoners are locked up for speaking the truth. No problem, let’s give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama hugs Dictators who rape and kill their Men & Women Citizens at will, but hey, Obama is cool, give him the Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama marries a Radical Person who wants Blacks to have more advantages than Whites, yet he wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hussein Obama gives Millions of dollars to Odinga who wreaks havoc on Poor Blacks in Kenya. Odinga’s Thugs rape young boys & Women, of the Kenyan tribes. Who cares, right, Obama can read a teleprompter so give him a Nobel Peace Prize.

Barry Soetero, aka Obama, nominates a disgusting Racist Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. A person who looks like George Costanza in Drag and wants to take jobs away from “Qualified” Italian-Americans or White Men or however she qualifies People. What Racism? Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

Let us not forget Obama and his cohorts at ACORN, which is a Criminal Enterprise. There are far too many atrocities to name, involving ACORN so just give the damn Nobel PEACE Prize to Obama.

Why not just call it the Nobel Crime Prize. At this point in time, the Nobel Peace Prize is just a mockery of Peace.

Bookmark and Share

Open Letter to Senator Barbara Boxer: Unemployment in America

Written by John Lillpop
California Senator Barbara Boxer recently took time from her busy schedule to write me concerning America’s escalating unemployment rate and to announce her call for an extension of benefits for those out of work.

My Response:

October 11, 2009
Senator Barbara Boxer
Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator:

I am in receipt of your most recent correspondence concerning the gloomy unemployment picture in America, and especially in California where the number is over twelve percent.

While I agree with you that action is needed, I disagree that we need to extend unemployment benefits at this time.

As you are aware, on February 17, 2009, newly installed President Barack Obama signed a so-called “stimulus” bill with a price tag of $787 billion dollars. The stimulus was promoted by Democrats and rushed to the president for signature, although very few, if any, of those who voted for the measure actually read it.

I note that you voted for the bill, Senator Boxer. Did you read the provisions thereof before casting your vote?

If not, you were not be alone.

President Obama surely did not read it, and it was he who said the bill had to be enacted immediately to stave off economic disaster and to put America back to work.

Another question, senator: How long can our democracy survive when our elected officials find it acceptable to approve and sign bills which they have not read because of length and complexity, but which obligate taxpayers with close to one trillion dollars in expenditures?

As you are also aware, at the stimulus signing ceremony President Obama claimed that the bill would create or save about 3.5 million jobs, many of them in infrastructure and renewable energy projects. The president also said the measure marked “the beginning of the first steps to set our economy on a firmer foundation.”

Eight months later, and our economy continues to hemorrhage jobs with no relief in sight. Unemployment is close to 10 percent nationally, the worst since 1983.

Clearly, the Democrat model of spend, and spend more, is not the answer to our vexing problem. In fact, because of the exploding federal deficit that the Obama administration and Democrat Congress has presided over, the spending strategy actually appears to be exacerbating America’s economic woes.

In addition, further spending proposals, each costing about one trillion dollars, are in the Democrat pipeline. That being health care reform and the so-called “Cap and Trade” plan that you are personally affiliated with and so knowledgeable about.

Given the depressed state of our economy, government’s fiduciary responsibility must take precedent over political ambitions and ideological passions.

Therefore, I request that you take the lead in promoting the following actions:

Across the board tax cuts for individual taxpayers (fifteen percent) and corporations (twenty five percent).
Cancellation of all planned legislation for health care reform and Cap and Trade legislation until the Fall of 2012.
Require that all members of Congress read and understand all legislation presented for approval and that bills be posted on-line for the public to review at least 14 days before any Congressional vote.
Senator Boxer, if the Democrat party is serious about lifting up the disadvantaged, two basic concepts must be fully embraced:

Government spending (and higher taxes) stifles economic growth and the creation of jobs for middle class and poor Americans, and
Private enterprise—not government spending—creates jobs and the opportunity for prosperity in our economy.
The Democrat party must stop waging war on private enterprise and work with the business people who create jobs and who have made America the most prosperous society in human history.

John Lillpop
Written by John Lillpop

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Buchanan to Obama

Written by Pat Buchanan
"Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America. Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individ uals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??

Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona? And Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids? Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Written by Pat Buchanan
Submitted by Mr. I
Bookmark and Share

Arizona Sheriff Vows to Enforce Immigration Law Whether ‘Feds’ Like It or Not

Written by Penny Starr
( – Calling himself “the poster boy” for those who support the enforcement of federal immigration laws, Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he will continue to arrest individuals who are in the country illegally, even if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not renew the 287(g) agreement that the Maricopa County (Ariz.) Sheriff’s Office has operated under for the past two years.

“We’ve been doing it for two years and have been very successful, but I guess they don’t like to enforce illegal immigration laws,” Arpaio told “[It] doesn’t make any difference. I’m still going to continue my programs, regardless of what the feds like or don’t like.”

Under that agreement, authorized in the 287(g) section of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, more than 100 officers and deputies with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office were trained and certified by ICE to enforce federal immigration laws in 2007.

Arpaio claims that ICE is renewing the part of the agreement that allows his personnel to check the immigration status of those booked into the county jail, but will not renew the portion that authorizes officers to make arrests based on immigration status.

“When we come across illegal aliens, we arrest them,” Arpaio said. “That’s the part they don’t like, and that’s the one they took away.”

But an ICE spokesman told that the 90-day window for state and local law enforcement agencies to review and sign new “standardized” agreements is Oct. 14 and that no decision will be made on those agreements until each has been reviewed by John Morton, assistant secretary of ICE.

“As Sheriff Arpaio knows, no decisions have been made on his 287(g) agreement,” Vincent Picard told “ICE is committed to smart and effective immigration enforcement, and we will review all of the new 287(g )Agreements at the conclusion of the 90 days.”

According to ICE officials, its Office of Professional Responsibility is also conducting audits of law enforcement agencies, including one done in July on the Maricopa County agency, a copy of which was obtained by

ICE spokesman Richard Rocha told that the agency doesn’t routinely release audits but that “several agencies have been audited” to date.

“It’s part of the general review process,” Rocha said. “It’s part of our office’s effort to make sure programs are working as effectively as possible and to identify any challenges that need to be addressed.”

Rocha was unable to say what agencies or exactly how many have been audited by his office.

Arpaio’s outspoken manner and the “crime suppression sweeps” his office has conducted in Maricopa County have been characterized by critics as racial profiling, and the Department of Justice launched an investigation into those charges earlier this year.

The ICE audit of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department (MCSD), however, is generally positive, including the following remarks included in the executive summary of the report:

-- “Since February of 2007, the MCSO 287(g) program has processed more than 15,000 illegal aliens, saving ICE considerable resources.”

-- “The communications and working relationship between the OI (Office of Investigations), DRO (Office of Detention and Removal Operations) and MCSD (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department) are excellent.”

The summary said that most of the officers operating under the 287(g) program were assigned to either the Human Smuggling Unit (HSU), the Community Action Team (CAT) or the jail operations unit. It said the HSU and the jail operations were not mentioned in the current Memorandum of Agreement or MOA.

“The CAT Unit is a catchall term used for all 287(g) deputies, mainly patrol officers, who are not assigned to the HSU or to the jail component,” the summary states. “The CAT 287(g) patrol deputies rarely use their authority; most CAT officers rely on the jail officers to determine if someone who has been arrested for state violations may be an illegal alien. If the LEA encounter does not result in an arrest on State charges, the CAT 287(g) officers normally release the individual without attempting to determine if the subject may be an illegal alien.”

Arpaio claims that more than 30,000 individuals have been identified as illegal aliens since his department signed on with ICE in 2007.

He also claims that even without the 287(g), federal law allows state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws if probable cause exists.

Kris Kobach, former counsel to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, told that there is a federal statute that addresses immigration law and local law enforcement.

“Federal law does expressly authorize state and local police to make immigration arrests of previously deported felons who return to the United States and are in the country unlawfully,” Kobach said.

“That federal statute is found at 8 U.S.C. 1252c. In addition, as the U.S. Department of Justice officially recognized in 2002, state and local police possess the inherent authority to arrest illegal aliens and detain them briefly in order to transfer them to federal custody,” Kobach added.

“Those are two forms of arrest authority that Sheriff Arpaio possesses, apart from Section 287(g) authority,” Kobach said.

Arpaio said that the law usually isn’t enforced, but he would like to change that.

“You know what?” Arpaio said. “I’m going to start enforcing that law.”
By Penny Starr

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 8, 2009

ACORN's Recent History With Prostitution

Perhaps we shouldn't have been completely surprised by the videos we've seen of ACORN workers offering assistance to prostitution rings.

I mean, there was Cincinnati . . .

Shari Bell, 41, of Walnut Hills was arrested Wednesday night by Cincinnati police, reported WCPO, NewsChannel5's Cincinnati sister station.

Bell allegedly approached an undercover officer's car in Evanston and offered him sex for money. Police also said they found a crack pipe in Bell's coat pocket. Bell told police she works for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now at the time of her arrest.

And then there was Cleveland:

An Ohio man who cast an illegal early ballot after being caught registering to vote several times with ACORN is a longtime scammer who was arrested last year — as a woman.

The bizarre tale of Darnell Nash — a k a Serina "Sexy Slay" Gibbs — came to light after Cuyahoga County election officials charged him with voter fraud and this week turned him in to prosecutors.

It turns out that Nash, 24, who has a criminal record as a man, is now a transsexual escort who claims to make $150 an hour turning tricks as the self-proclaimed "Queen of Cleveland Gender Benders."

Maybe this really is just another day at the office for the folks at ACORN . . .

UPDATE: Then there's Milwaukee:

At least seven felons convicted of crimes including cocaine possession and robbery were recruited by a liberal group to register voters in Milwaukee, raising fears they may have committed voter fraud . . . Along with the seven felons, court records show one special registration deputy has a pending felony charge for heroin possession and another is facing a misdemeanor prostitution charge. A third was convicted of misdemeanor prostitution.

ANOTHER UPDATE: And I guess we shouldn't be stunned by the nonchalant reaction to underage prostitution, considering the history of New Mexico branch:

The head of a community reform organization faces sentencing after pleading no contest to two counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor in Torrance County. Ben McGartland of Albuquerque, head of the New Mexico chapter of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, was charged in July in state District Court in Estancia with 10 counts, including second-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor, three counts of criminal sexual contact, attempt to commit a felony, kidnapping, concealing identity, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana.

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Who's Side Is Obama On?

Jackie Mason takes on B. Hussein Obama cutting our defense budget, dismantling of our missile shield, interrogating CIA officials who only did their job.
Jackie makes sense to me.

Bookmark and Share

Something I will never understand



Courtesy of Mr. I

Bookmark and Share

Monday, October 5, 2009

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals

Written By Fred Lucas

President Barack Obama making announcement canceling missile defense shield. (AP photo) ( – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.

“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”

According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.

By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.

“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”

Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4trillion when adjusted for inflation.

Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.

Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.

Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.

“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game the taxpayer can never win.”

Changing how the money is spent could go a long way in achieving better results, the study says.

“Annual means tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to eliminate poverty in the United States,” the study reports. “If welfare spending were converted into case benefits, the sum would be nearly four times the amount needed to raise the income of all poor families above the official poverty line.”
By Fred Lucas

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Top 10 reasons Chicago lost

10. Dead people can't vote at IOC meetings

9. Obama distracted by 25 min meeting with Gen. McChrystal

8. Who cares if Obama couldn't talk the IOC into Chicago? He'll be able to talk Iran out of nukes.

7. The impediment is Israel still building settlements.

6. Obviously no president would have been able to accomplish it.

5. We've been quite clear and said all along that we didn't want the Olympics.

4. This isn't about the number of Olympics "lost", it's about the number of Olympics "saved" or "created".

3. Clearly not enough wise Latina judges on the committee

2. Because the IOC is racist.

1. It's George Bush's fault.

Submitted by Mr. P
Bookmark and Share

The Obamas Violated First Three Rules of Selling

By C. Edmund Wright

Of course Barack and Michelle Obama failed in Copenhagen. Their strategy could not possibly succeed. In their academic arrogance, they thought they could sell a product they clearly do not believe in (the United States) and moreover, they could do so by stressing the benefits to the seller (Chicago) and not the buyer (the IOC). And to top it off, they committed the faux pas of talking too much about the sales force (themselves) and not about the product or the buyer.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Anyone who has had to succeed in the real business world -- and that includes few if any on Team Obama -- instinctively knows that to get business done you have to believe in what you are doing and offer a product or service that is focused on the benefits to the customer. In the Obama World of Chicago pay-to-play power, business gets done by flexing muscle and clearing the field of your competitors. You don't have to sell anything. You don't have to believe in anything. It is fine to be self-focused. You simply have to apply the power of the applicable political machinery and you win.

Which could explain why the First Couple was so apparently lost in an attempt to actually have to make a sale to an audience not cowed by Chicago-style clout, inoculated by our own fawning Jurassic media, nor remotely interested in their life stories. Perhaps that is how and why they botched it so badly.

That is not to say that Chicago was a slam dunk in the first place. I have no way of knowing what their ultimate chances were. But the embarrassing first round knockout was a definitive rejection of both the Obamas and their approach. Their hearts were in selling the Obama brand, not U-S-A.

The Obamas' sales pitch was awful by any definition. Of course. How can our President, who has made his political fortune at the expense of the reputation of the country, sell our country to the IOC with a straight face?

The answer is he could not. And although it would have been an out of body experience, I still thought he would at least attempt to sell America and some notion of our logistical competence and love of sports and so on. I didn't think he would believe it, but certainly thought the teleprompter would sneak in something good about the country for him to read.


He and the First Lady did not even pretend to be proud of us. They went on an unseemly, surreal begging campaign that mixed in uncomfortable bits and pieces of their personal histories with platitudes about what the Olympic Games could do for the children of Chicago. Oh, BTW, the Obama family would personally find it kind of a cool thing for the neighborhood.

So ask not what our country can do for your Olympics - ask what your Olympics can do for our city. Heck, that was the First Lady's closing argument:
Chicago's vision for the Olympic and Paralympic Movement is about so more than
what we can offer the Games -- it's about what the Games can offer all of us.

That was how she ended her speech. That was her "please sign here" moment. For the record, her talk mentioned NOTHING about what we could offer the games. Not a word. No wonder they didn't sign on the dotted line.

Before that, some 40% of her speech was about her Dad and his M.S. Apparently the IOC didn't see the relevance. When she wasn't talking about her Dad, she was fantasizing about what a Chicago Olympiad would mean to her and the children of the city:

But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago.... that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.

To which the IOC's answer was something like "get them ESPN and ESPN 2 if they need to be exposed to new sports and role models. And by the way, we're not so sure about that regardless of ability" concept either.

She was followed by the President -- who in all fairness did shelve some his blatantly anti-American sentiment for the time being -- but who also would only couch positive things about the nation in terms of diversity or Obama-ness.

Nearly one year ago... people from every corner of the world ...gathered to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America's experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals.

That our experiment in democracy was hanging on by the thread of whether he won the election or not was the point, not to mention the point that the world was interested only because he was involved. But his stance that modern history started with his inauguration continued:

Now, that work is far from over, but it has begun in earnest... (and) there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family's home, with Michelle and our two girls, and welcome the world back into our neighborhood.

Well where do I sign? How can I possibly turn down an opportunity to make the 2016 Olympics so convenient for family Obama? After all, they are the family that has finally started -- in earnest -- the work of, well, whatever it is they are transforming in America.


When you consider these words in light of what Obama said about the United States last week at the U.N and the G20, it is clear to see that this is a man who really does think history started when he was born and America's greatness started when he was elected. These thoughts dominate any sober analysis of the written words of his speeches.

While our own Jurassic media is totally under his spell, the IOC and the much of the rest of the world media is not. They saw the Copenhagen sales pitch and rejected it out of hand. It came in fourth place out of four.

There is analysis out of the D.C.-Manhattan corridor already that the racists in the United States and the Republicans and talk radio and Fox News and the right leaning blogosphere are to blame for the Denmark disaster. They are not.

Neither is George Bush or Dick Cheney or even Donald Rumsfeld.

Elsewhere, there is talk that it was not-that-big-a-deal and that Chicago was done a favor by not getting the games. That may be true, but the Obama's and their Chicago buddies wanted it badly -- and thought they had it in the bag.

The bottom line is this: this was an Obama epic fail period. They were the sales force, they were the focus of the sales presentation and they were the product. The Obamas were there to sell the Obamas with the Obamas. All Obama all the time. And the world said no thanks.
By C. Edmund Wright
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Listen to Overpaid Celebrities

This is a great little video. It pokes fun at the overpaid, Nazi Celebrities from Hollywood.
Will Ferrell was ranked #9 in regards to Forbes richest actors of 2008 for the top 10richest actors of 2008. People like this are dictating how the rest of us average Joes should suffer with a poorly run Government Health care program (Can I predict it would be poorly run when our Horrible Leader wants to give our Elders more medicine, not operations). These overpaid Celebrity Nazis will be able to afford the best care while middle America will be kicked to the curb. Isn't that the Marxist goal?
Submitted by Mr. P.

Bookmark and Share