Friday, April 30, 2010
Arizona's Man-Made Environmental Disaster
This is just a small sample of what kind of hell the people in Arizona is going through. All the morons who are raising a raucous over Arizona's attempt to control its border should pay attention to this video. Where is a environmentalist nut job when you need one?
John McCain who is in a tough primary with challenger J.D. Hayworth has apparently seen the error of his ways. That is until he gets re-elected and then he will again screw his constituents over when he is safely ensconced in the senate for another term.
There is a huge disconnect between the political class and the citizens of this country. It's as though our laws and constitution are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is currying favor with a group of people who don't even have the right to vote. It is ridiculous. We have lost all common sense.
In the meantime, an Arizona deputy sheriff was just shot in the gut by an illegal alien with an AK-47.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
S.W.A.T. Team Confronts Tea Partiers
A S.W.A.T. team was sent out to confront tea party protesters. Apparently, some official thought the community organizer in chief was in a life threatening situation from the Geritol crowd.
These geezers armed with walkers, canes and Metamucil were confronted with a wall of armed professionals who know how to stop an octogenarian with an oxygen tank. I don't know how Barack Obama deals with the threats from these people who are obviously a threat to society. Did you get a look at that one Grandma? Wow...she was scary. Whatever you do, don't eat any of her cookies!
I'm glad we use the resources of these professionals on crowds who obviously have such pent up rage. Hell, they might have went on a frenzied killing spree; those knitting needles are deadly.
I wonder why the tea partiers can't act like these All-American citizens who respect the laws of our nation:
And let's not forget the exemplary conduct of these protesters:
Here are some more pictures of rabid tea partiers: http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/04/28/team-obama-calls-out-swat-team-on-tea-party-patriots/
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sodom to Boycott Arizona
San Francisco, the city where men are women; women are men; and the gerbils are scared has proclaimed a boycott on Arizona. The city of deviants and self-loathing Americans has thrown down the leather whip and rubber ball gag in protest over passage of a law that takes to task illegal aliens who have invaded that great state
Mayor Gavin Newsome has suspended all non-essential travel for city employees to Arizona. He and his fellow popper sniffers have organized "Arizona Boycott Workgroup" to analyze how an economic boycott could backfire on San Francisco businesses:
"Would Arizona and other states that are more conservative than San Francisco retaliate and stop sending conventions to San Francisco?" asked Kevin Westly of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. "Certainly in a recession, we don't want any retaliation."
Oh, but you do deserve retaliation for all the crap you have pulled over the years. San Francisco is a sanctuary city. They have given the American people the finger not only on this issue, but also on their demonstrable hostility to the men and women in our military. And with California's irresponsible, fiscal behavior dangling like the sword of Damocles; I would love to see them get their just desserts.
Arizona may lose patronage in the S & M business from the boycott; but at least the gerbils can sleep better at night.
Mayor Gavin Newsome has suspended all non-essential travel for city employees to Arizona. He and his fellow popper sniffers have organized "Arizona Boycott Workgroup" to analyze how an economic boycott could backfire on San Francisco businesses:
"Would Arizona and other states that are more conservative than San Francisco retaliate and stop sending conventions to San Francisco?" asked Kevin Westly of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. "Certainly in a recession, we don't want any retaliation."
Oh, but you do deserve retaliation for all the crap you have pulled over the years. San Francisco is a sanctuary city. They have given the American people the finger not only on this issue, but also on their demonstrable hostility to the men and women in our military. And with California's irresponsible, fiscal behavior dangling like the sword of Damocles; I would love to see them get their just desserts.
Arizona may lose patronage in the S & M business from the boycott; but at least the gerbils can sleep better at night.
Charlie Crist: The Rat Who Ran Down the Rabbit Hole
Charlie Crist, the Governor of Florida who is running for the United States Senate is going to make an announcement that he is quitting the republican primary as a candidate and will declare himself an independent.
Crist was in a double digit lead over his opponent Marco Rubio early in the race. That was until he kissed the ring of Obama and accepted his share of the fool's gold i.e. Stimulus Money. Now, Crist is sinking rapidly in the polls, as his constituents see the folly of government bailouts and cure-alls. The Quinnipiac Poll has Marco Rubio leading Crist by 23 points.
Charlie Crist once declared he would not run as an independent if he were losing in the the polls, now he states "that things change."
Ahhh...the fickleness of a self-absorbed, conceited politician. Where would life be without one? I would say it would be as rare as a rabbit with a waistcoat and pocket watch frantically running around over a late appointment.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Thomas Friedman Tells Us Plebians to Go Green?
Here we have another limousine liberal telling the rest of us to go green. I wonder what the carbon footprint is for Thomas Friedman. Look at this mansion! This guy must wear the biggest pair of underwear, in order to carry the huge set of balls that demands that we go green.
Here is an excerpt from his condescending article published by the even more condescending New York Times:
Become the Green Tea Party.
I’d be happy to design the T-shirt logo and write the manifesto. The logo is easy. It would show young Americans throwing barrels of oil imported from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia into Boston Harbor.
The manifesto is easy, too: “We, the Green Tea Party, believe that the most effective way to advance America’s national security and economic vitality would be to impose a $10 “Patriot Fee” on every barrel of imported oil, with all proceeds going to pay down our national debt.”
He goes on to add:
If we put a Patriot Fee on all of those imported barrels, we would use less, cease enriching bad regimes, strengthen our own dollar, make the air cleaner and the climate more stable, foster the exploitation of domestic and renewable energy sources, promote electric vehicles, help bring down the global price of oil (which hurts Iran and helps poor Africa), and we could use the revenue to shrink the deficit. It’s win, win, win, win, win, win ...
Really...you are going to pay down the debt by imposing $10 fee on every barrel of imported oil? My question is what are you going to do with the rampant, irresponsible spending by the statist in Washington D.C.? The fees will have to be a whole lot bigger than $10 dollars a barrel; and there isn't enough oil reserves in the world to pay for the monstrous spending by this Congress and Administration!
Friedman obviously hangs around like minded, self-righteous idiots who still believe in man made global warming. My suggestion to Mr. Friedman is to get out of the echo-chamber and read more reputable newspapers such as the U.K. Telegraph or the Guardian who has exposed this fraud.
He goes on to lament the Cap and Trade Bill that is languishing in congress:
The bipartisan energy bill is ready to go. It is far from perfect. Indeed, it is a shame the fossil fuel industries still have such a stranglehold on Congress. But it’s the best we’re going to get, and we have got to get started. However, without a centrist Green Tea Party movement — one that brings the same passion to cutting emissions that the Tea Party brings to cutting deficits — even this effort will never pass.
One republican does not make a bipartisan bill. Friedman decries the stranglehold of the fossil fuel industry on Congress? What about the special interest from universities and the green lobby? They make the "fossil fuel" industry look like a bunch of pikers!
The only fossils I see that spew pollution throughout the country is hypocrites like Thomas Friedman, Al Gore and the New York Times.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/opinion/25friedman.html?ref=opinion
Americans Renounce Citizenship Around the World
Americans who live overseas are renouncing their citizenship. They are finding it difficult to pay what is essentially double taxation; both to the United States and the host country. The United States is the only industrialized nation that treats its citizens this way.
There are 3 to 6 million Americans who reside abroad. In the last quarter of 2009, 502 citizens renounced their citizenship; doubling the number of all of 2008. Experts say there are thousands of applications languishing in embassies and consulates around the world.
The expansion of the federal government and its thirst for tax dollars are putting the squeeze on its citizens. All expatriates who have foreign bank accounts over $10,000 have to report to the I.R.S.
An ex-American reports his dilemma:
"Cutting my ties with America hasn't been easy," says Ben, who as a foreigner can now spend only 90 days a year in the U.S. "My family and friends think I am a traitor. But the financial burden was killing me."
More comments from ex-Americans:
Chicago native Ben loves his country and is proud to be an American. Yet the longtime resident of Melbourne has just relinquished his U.S. citizenship. "This is not something I did lightly or happily, but I saw no other choice," says Ben, a businessman who became an Australian citizen two years ago.
His words resonate with another American expatriate, John, a business owner based near Lausanne, Switzerland, who like Ben asked that his last name be withheld for fear of alienating his family in the U.S. "Giving up my U.S. citizenship is a genuine option," says the Ohio native, who recently received his Swiss passport and is considering relinquishing his American one. "I am at a breaking point — being American costs me time [and] money, but mostly aggravation."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983238,00.html#ixzz0mFaDXvZ2
There are 3 to 6 million Americans who reside abroad. In the last quarter of 2009, 502 citizens renounced their citizenship; doubling the number of all of 2008. Experts say there are thousands of applications languishing in embassies and consulates around the world.
The expansion of the federal government and its thirst for tax dollars are putting the squeeze on its citizens. All expatriates who have foreign bank accounts over $10,000 have to report to the I.R.S.
An ex-American reports his dilemma:
"Cutting my ties with America hasn't been easy," says Ben, who as a foreigner can now spend only 90 days a year in the U.S. "My family and friends think I am a traitor. But the financial burden was killing me."
More comments from ex-Americans:
Chicago native Ben loves his country and is proud to be an American. Yet the longtime resident of Melbourne has just relinquished his U.S. citizenship. "This is not something I did lightly or happily, but I saw no other choice," says Ben, a businessman who became an Australian citizen two years ago.
His words resonate with another American expatriate, John, a business owner based near Lausanne, Switzerland, who like Ben asked that his last name be withheld for fear of alienating his family in the U.S. "Giving up my U.S. citizenship is a genuine option," says the Ohio native, who recently received his Swiss passport and is considering relinquishing his American one. "I am at a breaking point — being American costs me time [and] money, but mostly aggravation."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983238,00.html#ixzz0mFaDXvZ2
Illegals Riot in Arizona
Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a much needed cure for what is ailing not only Arizona but the rest of the country; a comprehensive measure to ensure the integrity of our borders and citizenship of the United States.
The law would make it illegal for anyone in the state of Arizona that does not have proof of citizenship, or legal permission to be in the United States, i.e. passport or green card. The law also permits police officers to question the status of suspect individuals.
The federal government has failed to uphold their constitutionally mandated obligation of protecting our borders and citizens. Arizona has no other choice but to takeover that responsibility. The citizens of that great state have endured property damage, kidnapping, and death at the hands of foreign invaders.
After the passage of this landmark bill, a horde of illegals demonstrated at the state capitol. A riot almost broke out when the police had to escort a counter-protester in fear that the unruly mob might cause injury or death:
Look at the contrast between these people and the tea partiers. Who is the unruly mob? I seriously doubt that the illegals cleaned up after their mess like the tea partiers.
Are these the type of people that we want as citizens of this country? The Constitution specifically states that the legislature will establish uniform rules for naturalization. These illegals determined for themselves that they will have all of the benefits of a citizen and without our consent.
Barack Obama, another person who decided for himself that he meets the requirements of a natural born citizen despite what our founding fathers thought about children born to a foreign nationals i.e. his father; has made his thoughts known about Arizona's self-preservation law:
Violate the civil rights of who? Since when do illegals have the rights and privileges of a citizen?
Now we have one of the nations biggest haters and race merchants speaking out on behalf of foreign nationals: Al Sharpton. Why does the main stream media give this dirt bag a national forum to spew his hate. Doesn't anyone remember Tawna Brawley?
The American people are beginning to see through the smoke screen that is designed to play upon their sympathies. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation that favors a subset of people, who will perpetuate votes for a party that looks the other way when it benefits their purpose? If we keep going down this road, we will end up just like Venezuela.
The law would make it illegal for anyone in the state of Arizona that does not have proof of citizenship, or legal permission to be in the United States, i.e. passport or green card. The law also permits police officers to question the status of suspect individuals.
The federal government has failed to uphold their constitutionally mandated obligation of protecting our borders and citizens. Arizona has no other choice but to takeover that responsibility. The citizens of that great state have endured property damage, kidnapping, and death at the hands of foreign invaders.
After the passage of this landmark bill, a horde of illegals demonstrated at the state capitol. A riot almost broke out when the police had to escort a counter-protester in fear that the unruly mob might cause injury or death:
Look at the contrast between these people and the tea partiers. Who is the unruly mob? I seriously doubt that the illegals cleaned up after their mess like the tea partiers.
Are these the type of people that we want as citizens of this country? The Constitution specifically states that the legislature will establish uniform rules for naturalization. These illegals determined for themselves that they will have all of the benefits of a citizen and without our consent.
Barack Obama, another person who decided for himself that he meets the requirements of a natural born citizen despite what our founding fathers thought about children born to a foreign nationals i.e. his father; has made his thoughts known about Arizona's self-preservation law:
Violate the civil rights of who? Since when do illegals have the rights and privileges of a citizen?
Now we have one of the nations biggest haters and race merchants speaking out on behalf of foreign nationals: Al Sharpton. Why does the main stream media give this dirt bag a national forum to spew his hate. Doesn't anyone remember Tawna Brawley?
The American people are beginning to see through the smoke screen that is designed to play upon their sympathies. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation that favors a subset of people, who will perpetuate votes for a party that looks the other way when it benefits their purpose? If we keep going down this road, we will end up just like Venezuela.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Earth Day Should be May Day
The above picture is the goal of the entire environmentalist movement who are really Marxist adherents. Their goal is to turn us into another North Korea.
April 22 is Earth Day. This pseudo holy day is celebrating its 40th anniversary. My question is why didn’t they designate it on May Day in solidarity with their commie forbearers?
The anthropologist Margaret Mead defined the reasoning for the date of Earth Day in 1978:
"EARTH DAY is the first holy day which transcends all national borders, yet preserves all geographical integrities, spans mountains and oceans and time belts, and yet brings people all over the world into one resonating accord, is devoted to the preservation of the harmony in nature and yet draws upon the triumphs of technology, the measurement of time, and instantaneous communication through space.
EARTH DAY draws on astronomical phenomena in a new way – which is also the most ancient way – by using the vernal Equinox, the time when the Sun crosses the equator making the length of night and day equal in all parts of the Earth. To this point in the annual calendar, EARTH DAY attaches no local or divisive set of symbols, no statement of the truth or superiority of one way of life over another. But the selection of the March Equinox makes planetary observance of a shared event possible, and a flag which shows the Earth, as seen from space, appropriate."
Notice How Earth Day transcends all borders; just like communism. It brings people all over the world into one resonating accord: a mutual suffering, except of course for the elites, who would lord their power over us.
Margaret Mead’s assertion on the triumphs of technology would fly in the face of the true believers. But her reference of Earth Day as a holy day is spot on. So much so that the congregants of the holy church of environmentalism do see their way of life as the truth; one which is superior to the American way of life; one which is communal; one which is celebrated on May Day.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
George Washington Fails to Return Vattel's Law of Nations to Library
George Washington checked out two volumes of books from the New York Society Library in 1789. It was during his first term as president of the United States. As reported by The Guardian:
"The library's ledgers show that Washington took out the books on 5 October 1789, some five months into his presidency at a time when New York was still the capital. They were an essay on international affairs called Law of Nations and the twelfth volume of a 14-volume collection of debates from the English House of Commons."
The essay on international affairs is Vattel's Law of Nations. This essay had a profound influence on our founding fathers and the framing of our Constitution. Apparently George Washington found it of such importance that he failed to return it to the library.
A very important provision in that essay is the interpretation of a natural born citizen:
THE LAW OF NATIONS
212. Citizens and Nations
The citizens are the members of the civil society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, and served to all of their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IT OWES TO ITS OWN PRESERVATION; and it is presumed as matter, that each citizen, on entering into society; reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHER IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; and these become true citizens merely by tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming of the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe society in which they were born. I SAY IN THAT ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH, AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.
Are we or are we not a constitutional republic? It is time that we stand up and demand that our elected representatives address whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications that our founding fathers outlined in Article II Section I.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books
"The library's ledgers show that Washington took out the books on 5 October 1789, some five months into his presidency at a time when New York was still the capital. They were an essay on international affairs called Law of Nations and the twelfth volume of a 14-volume collection of debates from the English House of Commons."
The essay on international affairs is Vattel's Law of Nations. This essay had a profound influence on our founding fathers and the framing of our Constitution. Apparently George Washington found it of such importance that he failed to return it to the library.
A very important provision in that essay is the interpretation of a natural born citizen:
THE LAW OF NATIONS
212. Citizens and Nations
The citizens are the members of the civil society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, and served to all of their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IT OWES TO ITS OWN PRESERVATION; and it is presumed as matter, that each citizen, on entering into society; reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHER IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; and these become true citizens merely by tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming of the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe society in which they were born. I SAY IN THAT ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH, AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.
Are we or are we not a constitutional republic? It is time that we stand up and demand that our elected representatives address whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications that our founding fathers outlined in Article II Section I.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books
Amnesty for Illegals Again!!
Barack Obama contacted newly elected senator, Scott Brown soliciting his support for a bill that will grant amnesty to illegals. Senator Brown reported to the Wall Street Journal:
“He called me originally about illegal immigration, something that he wanted me to look at that was coming down the pike,” Brown says of the call, which also roamed onto other topics like basketball and financial regulation. “I told him and others that I will read anything and make a judgment when it comes forth.”
Alluding to the issue a few minutes later, Brown clarified what he told Obama. “When I said I have an open mind, it means I have an open mind to read the bill,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that I will vote for granting amnesty to anyone. But I want to be respectful to the president and to any member who brings me a proposal.”
This issue turned the country upside down a couple of years ago and yet these people don't care. They are going to shove amnesty down our throats just like they did with the so-called health care reform bill.
The two dirt bags who are carrying the water on this issue is no other than Chucky Schumer and the ever disappointing South Carolinian, Senator Lindsey Graham.
John McCain has stated he will oppose any legislation that will award amnesty to illegals. If this weren't an election year he would be right there with his little toadie Graham giving the American people the finger.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/20/next-up-obama-calls-sen-scott-brown-about-immigration/
“He called me originally about illegal immigration, something that he wanted me to look at that was coming down the pike,” Brown says of the call, which also roamed onto other topics like basketball and financial regulation. “I told him and others that I will read anything and make a judgment when it comes forth.”
Alluding to the issue a few minutes later, Brown clarified what he told Obama. “When I said I have an open mind, it means I have an open mind to read the bill,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that I will vote for granting amnesty to anyone. But I want to be respectful to the president and to any member who brings me a proposal.”
This issue turned the country upside down a couple of years ago and yet these people don't care. They are going to shove amnesty down our throats just like they did with the so-called health care reform bill.
The two dirt bags who are carrying the water on this issue is no other than Chucky Schumer and the ever disappointing South Carolinian, Senator Lindsey Graham.
John McCain has stated he will oppose any legislation that will award amnesty to illegals. If this weren't an election year he would be right there with his little toadie Graham giving the American people the finger.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/20/next-up-obama-calls-sen-scott-brown-about-immigration/
Sunday, April 18, 2010
The Changing Demographics of North Carolina
As I drive along the roads, one of my habits is to check out the license plates on the cars around me. It is a small measure of who is visiting the area, or who has just moved into town. Usually you see plates from New York, Ohio, Michigan, and various New England States; but more frequently I've noticed California plates.
I am a transplanted Yankee. I first moved to Florida from a northern state; then moved to North Carolina. People like me have been given the moniker "half-backs" because we moved half way back home. I actually find that amusing.
I left my home state for a reason. I realized a long time ago that I can never go back. The state that I grew up in, where my family and friends live; is a financial nightmare. And the demographics demonstrate the disenchantment of those who have decided to leave it.
Michigan is a perfect example of how to economically screw up a state. The fiscal policies and entitlement mentality of the populace (through the actions of their state politicians) have hamstrung intrastate business, and discouraged others to relocate there. In 2009, Forbes.com published its annual "The best states for business," Michigan ranked 49th. The biggest factor for Michigan's low ranking is the cost of doing business. And that of course is taxes.
The exodus from that once great state is astonishing. Detroit, once the powerhouse of the Midwest, with a 1950's population of 2 million has lost more than half that number. Detroit has 40 square miles of vacant property, and finds it impossible to service these areas. Michigan as a whole has lost 25% of its population. Just where are these people moving?
The United States Census Bureau has published a report of migration trends in the past decade:
Net Domestic Migration by State | ||||
2009 Rank | Net Domestic Migration | Rank 2000-2009 | ||
State | 2009 | 2000-2009 | ||
1 | Texas | 143,423 | 838,126 | 2 |
2 | North Carolina | 59,108 | 663,892 | 4 |
3 | Washington | 38,201 | 239,037 | 9 |
4 | Colorado | 35,591 | 202,735 | 10 |
5 | South Carolina | 31,480 | 306,045 | 7 |
6 | Georgia | 26,604 | 550,369 | 5 |
7 | Tennessee | 20,605 | 259,711 | 8 |
8 | Oklahoma | 18,345 | 42,284 | 19 |
9 | Virginia | 18,238 | 164,930 | 12 |
10 | Oregon | 16,173 | 177,375 | 11 |
11 | Arizona | 15,111 | 696,793 | 3 |
12 | Louisiana | 14,647 | (311,368) | 45 |
13 | Alabama | 11,044 | 87,199 | 14 |
14 | Utah | 8,623 | 53,390 | 17 |
15 | Wyoming | 7,192 | 22,883 | 25 |
16 | Kentucky | 6,268 | 81,711 | 15 |
17 | Arkansas | 5,298 | 75,163 | 16 |
18 | West Virginia | 4,510 | 17,727 | 26 |
19 | District of Columbia | 4,454 | (39,814) | 37 |
20 | Massachusetts | 3,614 | (274,722) | 44 |
21 | New Mexico | 3,366 | 26,383 | 24 |
22 | Delaware | 2,580 | 45,424 | 18 |
23 | Montana | 2,410 | 39,853 | 21 |
24 | South Dakota | 1,619 | 7,182 | 27 |
25 | Idaho | 1,555 | 110,279 | 13 |
26 | North Dakota | 1,375 | (18,071) | 31 |
27 | Pennsylvania | 1,346 | (33,119) | 34 |
28 | Alaska | 979 | (7,360) | 29 |
29 | Missouri | (124) | 41,278 | 20 |
30 | Nebraska | (956) | (39,275) | 36 |
31 | Vermont | (975) | (1,505) | 28 |
32 | Kansas | (1,242) | (67,762) | 41 |
33 | Iowa | (2,135) | (49,589) | 40 |
34 | New Hampshire | (2,602) | 32,588 | 22 |
35 | Maine | (2,937) | 29,260 | 23 |
36 | Nevada | (3,801) | 361,512 | 6 |
37 | Hawaii | (5,298) | (29,022) | 33 |
38 | Mississippi | (5,529) | (36,061) | 35 |
39 | Wisconsin | (5,672) | (11,981) | 30 |
40 | Rhode Island | (6,172) | (45,159) | 38 |
41 | Indiana | (6,805) | (21,467) | 32 |
42 | Connecticut | (7,824) | (94,376) | 42 |
43 | Minnesota | (8,813) | (46,635) | 39 |
44 | Maryland | (11,163) | (95,775) | 43 |
45 | Florida | (31,179) | 1,154,213 | 1 |
46 | New Jersey | (31,690) | (451,407) | 47 |
47 | Ohio | (36,278) | (361,038) | 46 |
48 | Illinois | (48,249) | (614,616) | 49 |
49 | Michigan | (87,339) | (537,471) | 48 |
50 | New York | (98,178) | (1,649,644) | 51 |
51 | California | (98,798) | (1,490,105) | 50 |
Derived from US Bureau of the Census data | ||||
And with the changes in demographics comes the change in socio-political trends within a state. North Carolina once considered a red state is now purple. The election of socialist politicians such as Barack Obama and Kay Hagan is just a small indication in the shift from conservative, self-reliant people to a government handout, its all about me mentality.
The past decade democrats have owned the governorship and state general assembly. North Carolina subsequently has the highest tax rate in the southeast. Now that is something to brag about. Let's turn this great state into another Michigan or California.
With that in mind I look out my window and glance at my next door neighbor's porch, which hails a Boston Red Sox flag. And every election cycle you can bet that a sign for every leftist radical will be planted in his front yard. I wonder if he has ever contemplated the reasons why he left his home state? I doubt it.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Congressman doesn't know Constitution
It amazes me that these representatives who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution have no idea what it states and stands for. We have a serious problem.
Thank God for citizens like this man who stood up and took the congressman to task.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Utah Exercises Eminent Domain on Federal Land
The sleeping giant has awaken and we want to know what in the hell happened to the 10th amendment. After passage of Obamacare, the states are exerting their rights as defined in our Constitution. State attorneys from around the country are lining up to contest this monstrosity.
Utah is taking a bigger step to exert its authority. In 1996 Bill Clinton used an executive order to confiscate millions in acres of land that belonged to the state of Utah. He did so on the eve of an election in order to satisfy the environmental nut jobs that infest the democrat party.
In 2008 President George W. Bush authorized gas and oil exploration, only to have Barack Obama reverse that decision. Currently the federal government owns 60% of the land in Utah by fiat.
A Utah congressman sounded the clarion call that the Obama administration is again going to declare more land as a national monument. The state legislature has had enough of these abuses and declared eminent domain over land that currently is held by the feds.
Governor Gary Herbert supports the concept of eminent domain but doubts it would survive in court. He announced that he will meet with the Secretary of the Interior.
Many believe that a federal court will trample all over Utah’s rights; and history has proven that to be correct. Whatever the courts decide the states must assert their constitutional rights and that ultimately means NULLIFICATION.
source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-utah-domain3-2010mar03/2
Utah is taking a bigger step to exert its authority. In 1996 Bill Clinton used an executive order to confiscate millions in acres of land that belonged to the state of Utah. He did so on the eve of an election in order to satisfy the environmental nut jobs that infest the democrat party.
In 2008 President George W. Bush authorized gas and oil exploration, only to have Barack Obama reverse that decision. Currently the federal government owns 60% of the land in Utah by fiat.
A Utah congressman sounded the clarion call that the Obama administration is again going to declare more land as a national monument. The state legislature has had enough of these abuses and declared eminent domain over land that currently is held by the feds.
Governor Gary Herbert supports the concept of eminent domain but doubts it would survive in court. He announced that he will meet with the Secretary of the Interior.
Many believe that a federal court will trample all over Utah’s rights; and history has proven that to be correct. Whatever the courts decide the states must assert their constitutional rights and that ultimately means NULLIFICATION.
source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-utah-domain3-2010mar03/2
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Fringe Group to Infiltrate Tea Party Protest
An organization has proclaimed their intent to disrupt the tax day tea party protest that will take place nationwide. Here is their declaration:
“WHO WE ARE: A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself The Tea Party.”
You must have a very small network of Republicans and Independents in your organization. And I might add a diminishing number of Democrats. The more conservative Dems see what is happening to their party the more disgusted they are becoming.
Here is their mission:
“WHAT WE WANT: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary. HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies. We will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.
Well, I guess when it comes to subversion, we can cross off genius in this groups leadership. Apparently these people haven't thought the whole process out. In order to be effective you have to operate with the opposition not knowing about it. Publishing your intentions on the internet for all to see is not exactly the brightest idea you could have come up with.
Now, when someone comes across a "racist, homophobic, and moron" tea partier who spews stupid hateful remarks, people are going to think it is someone from this fringe counter-protest group. The intellect of these people is something to marvel at.
I have been to many tea party protest and have yet to encounter one person who fits the aforementioned template. If these people had participated in "meetings" or rallies they would know better.
“WHO WE ARE: A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself The Tea Party.”
You must have a very small network of Republicans and Independents in your organization. And I might add a diminishing number of Democrats. The more conservative Dems see what is happening to their party the more disgusted they are becoming.
Here is their mission:
“WHAT WE WANT: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary. HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies. We will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.
Well, I guess when it comes to subversion, we can cross off genius in this groups leadership. Apparently these people haven't thought the whole process out. In order to be effective you have to operate with the opposition not knowing about it. Publishing your intentions on the internet for all to see is not exactly the brightest idea you could have come up with.
Now, when someone comes across a "racist, homophobic, and moron" tea partier who spews stupid hateful remarks, people are going to think it is someone from this fringe counter-protest group. The intellect of these people is something to marvel at.
I have been to many tea party protest and have yet to encounter one person who fits the aforementioned template. If these people had participated in "meetings" or rallies they would know better.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The Destruction of Community Spirit
When Alexis De Tocqueville toured the United States in the early 19th century, he made poignant observations of the essence of community; particularly the townships of New England. He contrasted that with the peoples and governments of Europe:
In America, not only do institutions belong to the community but also they are kept alive and supported by a community spirit.
The New England township possesses two advantages which strongly arouse the interest of men, namely independence and authority. Its sphere of action is indeed restricted but, within that sphere, its movements are unlimited. This independence alone guarantees it real importance even though its populations and size would not warrant it.
It is best to realize that men’s affections, in general, come down on the side of authority. Patriotism does not long prevail in a conquered nation. The inhabitant of New England is devoted to his township, not because he was born there as much as because he views the township as a strong, free social body of which he is part and which merits the care he devotes to its management.
In Europe, governments often bewail the absence of this community spirit, for everyone agrees that it is an ingredient in public order and tranquility, even though they do not know how to create it. By making the township strong and independent, they are afraid they might disintegrate the social fabric and expose the state to the forces of anarchy. Once you remove the strength and independence of the township, you will reduce the citizens to administrative units.
Americans have a long history of personal philanthropy and community works that predates our founding. Benjamin Franklin helped establish the first free library, voluntary fire department, and hospital. Many charitable foundations have been established by other prominent citizens such as Ford, Kellogg, Carnegie, and Rockefeller to name a few.
The best and most effective organizations were founded by ordinary citizens. The famous Hull House was founded by Jane Addams and Ellen Gales Starr and funded by private contributors.
During the American civil war citizens organized and raised funds to address the deplorable living conditions of their soldiers. George Templeton Strong, Henry Whitney Bellows, and Frederick Law Olmstead helped found the Sanitary Commission. They and their volunteers raised $5 million dollars and $15 million in donated supplies. They are responsible for saving the lives of thousands of soldiers.
The citizens of Massachusetts during the throes of the Great Depression raised money for the jobless by employing benefit concerts, ball games, and wrestling matches. They forsook federal relief. That was until they found out that states like Illinois seized huge amounts of money. Massachusetts wasn’t just taking care of its own citizens; they were taking care of others as well. They wouldn’t make the same mistake the second time around.
We in the United States are losing that sense of community spirit and are being reduced to administrative units in a far off capitol in Washington D.C. These political and intellectual “elites” want to turn our country into what our ancestors escaped from and that is a European model.
FDR’s New Deal was the germ that infected our body politic, and now our people are forsaking their independence and participation in their local community in the belief that the feds will take care of all their problems. We now look to D.C. for funding of our roads, public buildings, infrastructure and even bailing out of businesses. Everyone is looking for a handout instead of taking the bull by the horns themselves.
The Uncle Sam will take care of everything mentality has even pervaded charitable organizations. Instead of ordinary citizens volunteering their time, we now have professional community organizers. An example is AmeriCorps.
AmeriCorps is a federal government program that ostensibly promotes community service, but does so at the expense of American taxpayers. As with any government program corruption, bribery, and waste are basic elements of any bureaucratic institution.
An example of corruption is Barack Obama’s firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Walpin was investigating prominent Obama supporter Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, California. Johnson founded a non-profit organization St. Hope. St. Hope received an AmeriCorps grant of $850,000. Johnson used a portion of these funds to promote school board political activities, run personal errands, and even to wash his car. When word reached Obama of this investigation, Inspector General Walpin was given one hour to resign or become fired.
Today, AmeriCorps has tripled in size and Obama is considering making VOLUNTEERING mandatory service. What is really disturbing is his vision of a national civilian corps that is just as powerful and well funded as the military. Does this not remind you of a certain socialist European country in the not to distant past?
If De Tocqueville were alive today and touring the United States, I wonder if he would have the same observations of community spirit that he had in the early 1800’s . I sadly doubt it.
In America, not only do institutions belong to the community but also they are kept alive and supported by a community spirit.
The New England township possesses two advantages which strongly arouse the interest of men, namely independence and authority. Its sphere of action is indeed restricted but, within that sphere, its movements are unlimited. This independence alone guarantees it real importance even though its populations and size would not warrant it.
It is best to realize that men’s affections, in general, come down on the side of authority. Patriotism does not long prevail in a conquered nation. The inhabitant of New England is devoted to his township, not because he was born there as much as because he views the township as a strong, free social body of which he is part and which merits the care he devotes to its management.
In Europe, governments often bewail the absence of this community spirit, for everyone agrees that it is an ingredient in public order and tranquility, even though they do not know how to create it. By making the township strong and independent, they are afraid they might disintegrate the social fabric and expose the state to the forces of anarchy. Once you remove the strength and independence of the township, you will reduce the citizens to administrative units.
Americans have a long history of personal philanthropy and community works that predates our founding. Benjamin Franklin helped establish the first free library, voluntary fire department, and hospital. Many charitable foundations have been established by other prominent citizens such as Ford, Kellogg, Carnegie, and Rockefeller to name a few.
The best and most effective organizations were founded by ordinary citizens. The famous Hull House was founded by Jane Addams and Ellen Gales Starr and funded by private contributors.
During the American civil war citizens organized and raised funds to address the deplorable living conditions of their soldiers. George Templeton Strong, Henry Whitney Bellows, and Frederick Law Olmstead helped found the Sanitary Commission. They and their volunteers raised $5 million dollars and $15 million in donated supplies. They are responsible for saving the lives of thousands of soldiers.
The citizens of Massachusetts during the throes of the Great Depression raised money for the jobless by employing benefit concerts, ball games, and wrestling matches. They forsook federal relief. That was until they found out that states like Illinois seized huge amounts of money. Massachusetts wasn’t just taking care of its own citizens; they were taking care of others as well. They wouldn’t make the same mistake the second time around.
We in the United States are losing that sense of community spirit and are being reduced to administrative units in a far off capitol in Washington D.C. These political and intellectual “elites” want to turn our country into what our ancestors escaped from and that is a European model.
FDR’s New Deal was the germ that infected our body politic, and now our people are forsaking their independence and participation in their local community in the belief that the feds will take care of all their problems. We now look to D.C. for funding of our roads, public buildings, infrastructure and even bailing out of businesses. Everyone is looking for a handout instead of taking the bull by the horns themselves.
The Uncle Sam will take care of everything mentality has even pervaded charitable organizations. Instead of ordinary citizens volunteering their time, we now have professional community organizers. An example is AmeriCorps.
AmeriCorps is a federal government program that ostensibly promotes community service, but does so at the expense of American taxpayers. As with any government program corruption, bribery, and waste are basic elements of any bureaucratic institution.
An example of corruption is Barack Obama’s firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Walpin was investigating prominent Obama supporter Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, California. Johnson founded a non-profit organization St. Hope. St. Hope received an AmeriCorps grant of $850,000. Johnson used a portion of these funds to promote school board political activities, run personal errands, and even to wash his car. When word reached Obama of this investigation, Inspector General Walpin was given one hour to resign or become fired.
Today, AmeriCorps has tripled in size and Obama is considering making VOLUNTEERING mandatory service. What is really disturbing is his vision of a national civilian corps that is just as powerful and well funded as the military. Does this not remind you of a certain socialist European country in the not to distant past?
If De Tocqueville were alive today and touring the United States, I wonder if he would have the same observations of community spirit that he had in the early 1800’s . I sadly doubt it.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Rep. Bart "The Back Stabber" Stupak Quits
He wants to spend more time with his wife? He has been married how long? Yeah, right! Let's just see what kind of job he gets from Obama and his cronies for that vote on health care. He knows damn well that re-election is impossible after that betrayal.
Good riddance dirtbag.
Massachusetts Imposes Price Controls on Insurance Companies
Massachusetts state regulators have instituted price controls on health insurance, by blocking proposed rate increases by carriers. The insurers are currently waiting for an injunction from the court. They state that caps are justified only if health care providers are to receive the same treatment; as of now, no one looking for a new policy can buy or get a quote.
“We’re in limbo until the issue gets resolved,’’ said Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, a trade group representing most of the state’s insurance companies. “There are no approved rates in the market right now. You’re seeing the first sign of the kind of market chaos we were worried about.’’
This being an election year, Governor Deval Patrick is using the proposed rate increases as a wedge issue against his republican opponent Charles Barker. Barker is a former president of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.
Insurance Commissioner Joseph Murphy rejected 235 of 274 rate increases by the industry. Harvard Pilgrim had 25 out of 26 that met the same fate.
Barack Obama and his fellow democrats used Massachusetts as the premier model for the nation. The way it looks, if Deval Patrick and his cronies get their way, private insurance companies will be driven out of the state; and with Obamacare coming down the pike we could witness the extinction of the industry as a whole.
People bemoan the “injustice” of insurance companies. It is state and federal regulations that are driving up the cost. But for some reason people look upon these politicians and bureaucrats as our saviors, when in fact they are the ones who are putting the yoke around our necks
Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_bi_ge/ma_premium_cap
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/04/07/mass_health_insurers_halt_new_coverage_offers/?page=2
“We’re in limbo until the issue gets resolved,’’ said Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, a trade group representing most of the state’s insurance companies. “There are no approved rates in the market right now. You’re seeing the first sign of the kind of market chaos we were worried about.’’
This being an election year, Governor Deval Patrick is using the proposed rate increases as a wedge issue against his republican opponent Charles Barker. Barker is a former president of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.
Insurance Commissioner Joseph Murphy rejected 235 of 274 rate increases by the industry. Harvard Pilgrim had 25 out of 26 that met the same fate.
Barack Obama and his fellow democrats used Massachusetts as the premier model for the nation. The way it looks, if Deval Patrick and his cronies get their way, private insurance companies will be driven out of the state; and with Obamacare coming down the pike we could witness the extinction of the industry as a whole.
People bemoan the “injustice” of insurance companies. It is state and federal regulations that are driving up the cost. But for some reason people look upon these politicians and bureaucrats as our saviors, when in fact they are the ones who are putting the yoke around our necks
Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_bi_ge/ma_premium_cap
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/04/07/mass_health_insurers_halt_new_coverage_offers/?page=2
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Michelle Obama: Barack's Home Country of Kenya
This is just coming out now? Why would she make an admission like this?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Obama's Resume is a Fraud?
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d3-Investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-Obama-resume?cid=email-this-article
According to the examiner.com:
In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'
The claim turns out to be false.
As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.
According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.
The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.
In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.
In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.
According to Doug Ross:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?
Further,
Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.
2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.
There is more from Ross, however:
6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video.
9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."
10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.
Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.
According to the examiner.com:
In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'
The claim turns out to be false.
As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be. The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.
According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama. The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.
The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor. Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.
In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.
In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham. The President of the United States is a complete fraud.
According to Doug Ross:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
Thus, the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position? And why?
Further,
Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.
2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.
There is more from Ross, however:
6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video.
9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."
10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.
Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight. And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Mom Teaches Son to be a Pansy
I've seen this commercial I don't know how many times. It was just recently that I began to pay attention to it, and I'm appalled. This mother is teaching her son to be a quitter.
The first scene is the boy running with a football. He gets knocked down, and what does his mother say? "Maybe baseball is your game." Instead of showing her son how to evade or run through a tackle she just gives up. A father wouldn't have given up. He would have shown him the proper technique.
The second scene is the boy throwing an errant baseball; again the mother quits. A father wouldn't have said that's it. He would have taken the time to show him the proper way to throw. And it goes on and on, until finally the boy is dressed in a bow tie singing in a choir.
The mother has just turned her son into a pansy. That's what the real message of this commercial should be entitled.
George Will had written a column about men and the making of modern immaturity. Well if this commercial is any indication of what has happened to the male gender; it's called feminizing by single mothers.
Obama and Moses have Something in Common
I again watched The Ten Commandments for the umpteenth time this Easter eve, but something in this viewing stuck out; and that is loyalty to family and country.
Everyone knows the story of how Moses was put afloat down the Nile and found by Pharaoh’s daughter. She secretly adopted him. Moses was brought up in privilege, power, and position. He didn’t know the meaning of want.
Upon learning of his true parentage, he turns his back upon those who raised him and becomes defiant to the state that he was once loyal too. After killing a slave master for brutalizing a fellow Hebrew; Moses flees Egypt, after learning of Pharaoh’s decree to arrest and execute him. The movie depicts Pharaoh as banishing Moses.
The theme of family and loyalty to country reminded me of our current president: Barack Hussein Obama. In his memoir Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, he idolizes his African father who abandoned him at age two, while ignoring his white mother who sacrificed everything for him.
Barack Obama Sr. was a Harvard trained economist. He went back to Kenya and served in the ministry of tourism. He began to attack the pro-western economic policies of Tom Myoba, and sided with communist leader Oginga Odinga. The following is from Ludwig Von Mises Institute:
Obama stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:
1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced “development plan”, an important element of his attack on the government’s advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)
2. Obama advocated the nationalization of “European” and “Asian” owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the “indigenous” black population. (pp. 32 -33)
3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
4. Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of “African Socialism” negatively with the well-defined ideology of “scientific socialism”, i.e. communism. Obama views “African Socialism” pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only “a little” from the capitalist system. (p. 26)
5. Obama advocates an “active” rather than a “passive” program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28) “While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. “ (pp. 29-30)
6. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)
7. Obama advocates government owned and operated “model farms” as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers. (p. 33)
8. Obama strongly supports the governments assertion of a “non-aligned” status in the contest between Western nations and communist nations aligned with the Soviet Union and China.
Also noted is the character trait of stubbornness that Obama inherited from his father:
Now if we fill in the missing information we have now learned about Barack Obama the elder — that he held uncompromising socialist and anti-Western views in line with Kenyatta’s principle political rival Oginga Odinga — we can understand why he had conflicts of “principle” with Kenyatta and government.
Read more: Obama Hid His Father’s Socialism From Readers — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/8007/obama-hid-his-fathers-socialism-from-readers/#ixzz0k9VFmE5
President Barack Obama has alienated our traditional allies. When Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to visit in 2009, he brought symbolic gifts to honor Obama and the United States. The gifts were a pen holder carved out of the timbers of the H.M.S. Resolute, along with a framed commission of that ship; he also presented a seven volume biography of Winston Churchill.
What did Obama give in return? Twenty five DVD’s that is incompatible with British players, and a bust of Winston Churchill that was loaned to George W. Bush after 9/11. The British even offered to give it to the White House permanently, but Obama said no thanks! Do you detect a hint of hostility for British neo-colonization of South Africa?
Barack not only snubbed our British allies with his gift giving faux pas, he insulted them by not holding a joint press conference. He did the same thing to our Israeli allies when Netanyahu visited the White House. Obama wouldn’t even dine with him. It makes you wonder how much influence his stepfather, who was an Indonesian Muslim, has had when it comes to Jews, not to mention the United States in general.
The old adage that blood is thicker than water is true. Moses displayed it upon learning of his parentage; Obama who idolizes his father is turning our nation into what his father dreamt of doing to Kenya.
Vattel’s law of nations warns us of those who are not of natural born status and what it means to a country who does not heed his warning:
THE LAW OF NATIONS
212.
Citizens and Nations the citizens are the members of the civil society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, and served to all of their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IT OWES TO ITS OWN PRESERVATION; and it is presumed as matter, that each citizen, on entering into society; reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHER IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; and these become true citizens merely by tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming of the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe society in which they were born. I SAY IN THAT ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH, AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.
When Obama goes around the world bowing and scraping to dictators, and apologizes for perceived wrongs of the United States; his actions undermine our country’s prestige and authority. If a president thinks our nation is this corrupt and evil, do you think he will protect the tenets of our Constitution; or undermine it? I believe we are witnessing the answer to that question.
Everyone knows the story of how Moses was put afloat down the Nile and found by Pharaoh’s daughter. She secretly adopted him. Moses was brought up in privilege, power, and position. He didn’t know the meaning of want.
Upon learning of his true parentage, he turns his back upon those who raised him and becomes defiant to the state that he was once loyal too. After killing a slave master for brutalizing a fellow Hebrew; Moses flees Egypt, after learning of Pharaoh’s decree to arrest and execute him. The movie depicts Pharaoh as banishing Moses.
The theme of family and loyalty to country reminded me of our current president: Barack Hussein Obama. In his memoir Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, he idolizes his African father who abandoned him at age two, while ignoring his white mother who sacrificed everything for him.
Barack Obama Sr. was a Harvard trained economist. He went back to Kenya and served in the ministry of tourism. He began to attack the pro-western economic policies of Tom Myoba, and sided with communist leader Oginga Odinga. The following is from Ludwig Von Mises Institute:
Obama stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:
1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced “development plan”, an important element of his attack on the government’s advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)
2. Obama advocated the nationalization of “European” and “Asian” owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the “indigenous” black population. (pp. 32 -33)
3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
4. Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of “African Socialism” negatively with the well-defined ideology of “scientific socialism”, i.e. communism. Obama views “African Socialism” pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only “a little” from the capitalist system. (p. 26)
5. Obama advocates an “active” rather than a “passive” program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28) “While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. “ (pp. 29-30)
6. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)
7. Obama advocates government owned and operated “model farms” as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers. (p. 33)
8. Obama strongly supports the governments assertion of a “non-aligned” status in the contest between Western nations and communist nations aligned with the Soviet Union and China.
Also noted is the character trait of stubbornness that Obama inherited from his father:
Now if we fill in the missing information we have now learned about Barack Obama the elder — that he held uncompromising socialist and anti-Western views in line with Kenyatta’s principle political rival Oginga Odinga — we can understand why he had conflicts of “principle” with Kenyatta and government.
Read more: Obama Hid His Father’s Socialism From Readers — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/8007/obama-hid-his-fathers-socialism-from-readers/#ixzz0k9VFmE5
President Barack Obama has alienated our traditional allies. When Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to visit in 2009, he brought symbolic gifts to honor Obama and the United States. The gifts were a pen holder carved out of the timbers of the H.M.S. Resolute, along with a framed commission of that ship; he also presented a seven volume biography of Winston Churchill.
What did Obama give in return? Twenty five DVD’s that is incompatible with British players, and a bust of Winston Churchill that was loaned to George W. Bush after 9/11. The British even offered to give it to the White House permanently, but Obama said no thanks! Do you detect a hint of hostility for British neo-colonization of South Africa?
Barack not only snubbed our British allies with his gift giving faux pas, he insulted them by not holding a joint press conference. He did the same thing to our Israeli allies when Netanyahu visited the White House. Obama wouldn’t even dine with him. It makes you wonder how much influence his stepfather, who was an Indonesian Muslim, has had when it comes to Jews, not to mention the United States in general.
The old adage that blood is thicker than water is true. Moses displayed it upon learning of his parentage; Obama who idolizes his father is turning our nation into what his father dreamt of doing to Kenya.
Vattel’s law of nations warns us of those who are not of natural born status and what it means to a country who does not heed his warning:
THE LAW OF NATIONS
212.
Citizens and Nations the citizens are the members of the civil society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, and served to all of their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT IT OWES TO ITS OWN PRESERVATION; and it is presumed as matter, that each citizen, on entering into society; reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHER IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN; and these become true citizens merely by tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming of the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe society in which they were born. I SAY IN THAT ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNTRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH, AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.
When Obama goes around the world bowing and scraping to dictators, and apologizes for perceived wrongs of the United States; his actions undermine our country’s prestige and authority. If a president thinks our nation is this corrupt and evil, do you think he will protect the tenets of our Constitution; or undermine it? I believe we are witnessing the answer to that question.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Democratic Congressman Phil Hare Shows Disdain for Constitution
Another democrat tells us exactly what he thinks about our Constitution. You have to love the new media.
Friday, April 2, 2010
New Jersey Tea Partiers to Recall Senator Menendez
The New Jersey tea partiers are taking their anger at public officials to a whole new level. They won an appellate court case that would allow them to recall U.S. Senator Robert Menendez. However they must collect 1.3 million signatures to put Menendez on the ballot.
In 1993 New Jersey voted themselves the right to recall elected officials in the state legislature or those who represent them in the United States Congress. In 1995 the New Jersey's state constitution was officially amended under Article I, 2b.
"the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State or representing this State in the United States Congress."
Secretary of State Nina Wells tried to deny the tea partiers by stating that the "New Jersey constitution was unconstitutional." The appellate court thought otherwise.
Secretary Wells is a controversial character. Biggovernment.com outlined her exploits:
Appointed to her post in January 2006 by outgoing Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, Wells was a key democratic fundraiser and close friend to Corzine. She has been called one of the Garden State's 101 most influential people, and NJ Monthly profiled her and high-profile attorney husband Ted Wells in its Power Issue. Daughter Teresa worked on Senator John Edwards' presidential campaign and as Corzine's traveling press secretary, prior to accepting a position at the Rockefeller Foundation as chief media strategist. In her capacity as Secretary of State, Ms. Wells is perhaps best known for the Obama birth certificate case, Donofrio v. Wells. But Wells has faced more plausible scrutiny, such as fallout after a Princeton University professor's successful hacking attempts on NJ voting machines, and a multitude of indictments of Vote-by-Mail voter fraud, including forgery of messenger ballots, on her watch (see here, here, here, here, and Dem. State Committee lawyer Josephson letter here). In 2008, Wells also overlooked a state law prohibiting candidates from running for President and US Senate in the same election, and improperly certified candidate Jeff Boss for both offices. (who on an unrelated note runs on a 9/11 truther platform).
There are currently 18 states whose constitution allows the recall of public officials as outlined by the National Conference of State Legislatures:
Table 1: Summary of State Recall Provisions for Statewide and Legislative Officers
| Who Can Be Recalled | Signature Requirement | Circulation Time |
Alaska | All but judicial officers | 25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled | Not specified |
Arizona | All | 25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled | 120 days |
California | All | For statewide officers: Others: 20% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled12% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled, 1% from each of 5 counties | 160 days |
Colorado | All | 25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled | 60 days |
Georgia | All | For statewide officers: Others: 30% of eligible voters for office at time of last election 15% of eligible voters for office at time of last election, 1/5 from each congressional district | 90 days |
Idaho | All but judicial officers | 20% of eligible voters for office at time of last election | 60 days |
Kansas | All but judicial officers | 40% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled | 90 days |
Louisiana | All but judicial officers | If over 1,000 eligible voters: If fewer than 1,000 eligible voters: 40% of eligible voters for office at time of last election 33.3% of eligible voters for office at time of last election | 180 days |
Michigan | All but judicial officers | 25% of total votes cast for position at last election | 90 days |
Minnesota | State executive officers, legislators, judicial officers | 25% of total votes cast for position at last election | 90 days |
Montana | All | For statewide officers: For district officers: 15% of eligible voters for office at time of last election 10% of eligible voters for office at time of last election | 3 months |
Nevada | All | 25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled | 60 days |
New Jersey | All | 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled | Governor or U.S. Senator: All others: 160 days 320 days |
North Dakota | All but U.S. Congress | 25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled | Not specified |
Oregon | All but U.S. Congress | 15% of total votes cast in officer's district for all candidates for governor in the last election | 90 days |
Rhode Island | Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General | 15% of total votes cast for said office in last general election | 90 days |
Washington | All but judicial officers | For statewide officers: Others: 35% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled 25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled | Statewide officers: Others: 180 days 270 days |
Wisconsin | All | For statewide officers: Others: 25% of the votes cast for position of president in last election 25% of total votes cast for position at last election | 60 days |
All states should have recall provisions in their constitution. North Carolina definitely needs this measure in order to protect its citizens from the machinations of Senator Kay Hagan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)