This is a well written article by Mark Steyn of the respected Investor's Business Daily concerning just how far America has slid under the Obama Administration.
Descending from the heavens for the G-8 summit at beautiful Lough Erne this week, President Obama caused some amusement to his British hosts. The chancellor of the Exchequer had been invited to give a presentation to the assembled heads of government on the matter of tax avoidance (one of the big items on the agenda, for those of you who think what the IRS could really use right now is even more enforcement powers). The president evidently enjoyed it. Thrice, he piped up to say how much he agreed with Jeffrey, eventually concluding the presentation with the words, "Thank you, Jeffrey."
Unfortunately, the chancellor of the Exchequer is a bloke called George Osborne, not Jeffrey Osborne.
Obama subsequently apologized for confusing George with Jeffrey, who was a popular vocal artiste back in the '80s when Obama was dating his composite girlfriend and making composite whoopee to the composite remix of Jeffrey Osborne's 1982 smoocheroo, "On the Wings of Love."
I suppose it might have been worse. When Angela Merkel proposed a toast to a strong West, he could have assumed that was the name of Kim and Kanye's new baby.
At any rate, Obama's mishap had faint echoes of a famous social faux pas during the Second World War. Irving Berlin, the celebrated composer of "White Christmas," was invited to lunch at 10 Downing Street and was surprised to find that Churchill, instead of asking what's that Bing Crosby really like, badgered him with complex moral and strategic questions and requests for estimates of U.S. war production.
It turned out the prime minister had confused Irving Berlin with the philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin, then under secondment to the British Embassy in Washington, and thought it was the latter he'd invited to No. 10.
In the Obama era, any confusion is the other way around. It would be a terrible thing for the president to invite the eminent rapper Jay-Z to lunch only to find himself stuck next to the turgid British philosopher professor Sir Jay Zed.
Although Obama's confusion went largely unreported in America, the BBC's enterprising Eddie Mair got Jeffrey Osborne on the line and inveigled him into singing George Osborne's best-known words — "Tax cuts should be for life, not just Christmas time" — to Jeffrey's best-known tune.
The following day Mangue Obama — whoops, my mistake, Mangue Obama was the prime minister of Equatorial Guinea from 2006 to 2008, and has a way smaller and less incompetent entourage — Barack Obama departed for Berlin (the German city, not the American songwriter or British philosopher). Five years ago at the Brandenburg Gate, he thrilled a crowd of 200,000 with his stirring clarion call to himself, "Ich bin ein Baracker." This time, he spoke to an audience barely a 50th of that size — 4,500, most of whom were bored out of their lederhosen.
As I wrote of Obama's Massachusetts yawnfest in 2010, he went to the trouble of flying in to phone it in. If the BBC's mash-up of Jeffrey Osborne's 1982 Billboard hit and Chancellor Osborne's recent speech at the Mansion House in London was something of an awkward fit, you could slip large slabs of "On the Wings of Love" into Obama's telepromptered pap and none of the 27 Germans still awake would have noticed the difference:
"Peace with justice means extending a hand to those who reach for freedom, wherever they live. Come take my hand and together we will rise, on the wings of love, up and above the clouds, the only way to fly ...
"Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons — no matter how distant that dream may be, just smile for me and let the day begin. You are the sunshine that lights my heat within, and we can reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking, because we are angels in disguise, we live and breathe each other, inseparable ...
"The effort to slow climate change requires bold action. For the grim alternative affects all nations — more severe storms, more famine and floods ... coastlines that vanish, oceans that rise, you look at me and I begin to melt, just like the snow when a ray of sun is felt ... This is the future we must avert. This is the global threat of our time… That is our task. We have to get to work. We're flowing like a stream, running free, flowing on the wings of love ..."
The wings of love don't seem to carry Obama as far as they used to. MSNBC's Chris Matthews blamed the lackluster performance on the sun's glare affecting his ability to read the text. That's how bad it is: global warming melted his prompter.
But the speech itself was barely distinguishable in its cobwebbed utopian pabulum from the video for a nuclear-free world just released by Michael Douglas and other celebrities. And Douglas, who recently gave a fascinating interview to The Guardian in which he blamed his cancerous walnut-sized tongue tumor upon his addiction to oral sex, at least has a better excuse as to why his silvery tongue doesn't work its magic quite the way it used to. Der Spiegel, which is the very definition of mainstream media in Germany, described the president's Berlin stop as a visit by "the head of the largest and most all-encompassing surveillance system ever invented" — and under the headline "Obama's Soft Totalitarianism".
Obama isn't a "soft" totalitarian so much as a slapdash one. His apparatchiks monitor the emails of both Jeffrey and George Osborne, but he still can't tell one from the other.
Likewise, in Syria as in Libya, "the largest and most all-encompassing surveillance system ever invented" can't tell a plucky freedom fighter itching to build Massachusetts in the sands of Araby from your neighborhood al-Qaida subsidiary whose health care plan only covers clitoridectomies.
His G-8 colleagues have begun to figure out that America no longer matters. To be sure, the trappings of the presidency are a lagging indicator: He still flies in with more limos and Secret Service agents than everybody else, combined.
Then again, the other American story to catch the fancy of the Fleet Street tabloids in recent days is that of the unfortunate Las Vegas man with the world's biggest scrotum, weighing 140 pounds, yet unable to perform.
Of his talks with Vladimir Putin, the president said, "With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence." Putin aims to reduce the violence by getting his boy Assad to kill everyone he needs to. Obama aims to reduce the violence by giving a speech about the "intolerance that fuels extremism" — or is it the other way round? The world understands that Putin means it and Obama doesn't — just as in Afghanistan everyone knows the Taliban means it and the fainthearted superpower doesn't.
Thanks to the stork delivering his bundle to Miss Kardashian (see above), Americans seem not to have noticed that the U.S. has just lost yet another war.
But in Moscow, Beijing, Teheran, they noticed, and they will act accordingly. On the wings of love, up and above the clouds, Obama wafts ever higher on his own gaseous uplift. Down on solid ground, the rest of the world must occasionally wonder if they haven't confused the U.S. delegation with the world's most empty-headed boy band.
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Taliban Murders Innocents
As reported by the Associated Press, at least a dozen Islamic militants wearing police uniforms shot to death nine foreign tourists and one Pakistani before dawn this last Sunday as they were visiting one of the world's highest mountains in a remote area of northern Pakistan that has been largely peaceful, officials said.
Make no mistake about it, Jihadist's hate everything Christians and Westerners stand for. There is no reasoning with them. There is no rehabilitation. They must be wiped off the face of the earth.
The foreigners who were killed included five Ukrainians, three Chinese and one Russian, said Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. One Chinese tourist was wounded in the attack and was rescued, he said.
The local branch of the Taliban took responsibility for the killings, saying it was to avenge the death of a leader killed in a recent U.S. drone strike.
The shooting was one of the worst attacks on foreigners in Pakistan in recent years and is likely to damage the country's already struggling tourism industry. Pakistan's mountainous north — considered until now relatively safe — is one of the main attractions in a country beset with insurgency and other political instability.
The attack took place at the base camp of Nanga Parbat, the ninth highest mountain in the world at 8,126 meters (26,660 feet). Nanga Parbat is notoriously difficult to climb and is known as the "killer mountain" because of numerous mountaineering deaths in the past. It's unclear if the tourists were planning to climb the mountain or were just visiting the base camp, which is located in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan.
The gunmen were wearing uniforms used by the Gilgit Scouts, a paramilitary police force that patrols the area, said the interior minister. The attackers abducted two local guides to find their way to the remote base camp. One of the guides was killed in the shooting, and the other has been detained and is being questioned, said Khan.
"The purpose of this attack was to give a message to the world that Pakistan is unsafe for travel," said the interior minister in a speech in the National Assembly, which passed a resolution condemning the incident. "The government will take all measures to ensure the safety of foreign tourists."
Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan claimed responsibility for the attack, saying their Jundul Hafsa group carried out the shooting as retaliation for the death of the Taliban's deputy leader, Waliur Rehman, in a U.S. drone attack on May 29.
"By killing foreigners, we wanted to give a message to the world to play their role in bringing an end to the drone attacks," Ahsan told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location.
At least a dozen gunmen were involved in the attack, local police officer Jahangir Khan said.
The attackers beat up the Pakistanis who were accompanying the tourists, took their money and tied them up, said a senior local government official. They checked the identities of the Pakistanis and shot to death one of them, possibly because he was a minority Shiite Muslim, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.
Although Gilgit-Baltistan is a relatively peaceful area, it has experienced attacks by radical Sunni Muslims on Shiites in recent years.
The attackers took the money and passports from the foreigners and then gunned them down, said the official. It's unclear how the Chinese tourist who was rescued managed to avoid being killed. The base camp has basic wooden huts, but most tourists choose to sleep in their own tents.
Local police chief Barkat Ali said they first learned of the attack when one of the local guides called the police station around 1 a.m. on Sunday. The military airlifted the bodies to Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, Sunday afternoon.
"We hope Pakistani authorities will do their best to find the culprits of this crime," the Ukrainian ambassador to Pakistan, Volodymyr Lakomov, told reporters outside the hospital where the bodies were taken.
The Pakistani government condemned the "brutal act of terrorism" in a statement sent to reporters.
"Those who have committed this heinous crime seem to be attempting to disrupt the growing relations of Pakistan with China and other friendly countries," said a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry.
Pakistan has very close ties with neighboring China and is sensitive to any issue that could harm the relationship. Pakistani officials have reached out to representatives from China and Ukraine to convey their sympathies, the Foreign Ministry said.
Many foreign tourists stay away from Pakistan because of the perceived danger of visiting a country that is home to a large number of Islamic militant groups, such as the Taliban and al-Qaida, which mostly reside in the northwest near the Afghan border. A relatively small number of intrepid foreigners visit Gilgit-Baltistan during the summer to marvel at the peaks of the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges, including K2, the second highest mountain in the world.
Syed Mehdi Shah, the chief minister of Gilgit-Baltistan, condemned the attack and expressed fear that it would seriously damage the region's tourism industry.
"A lot of tourists come to this area in the summer, and our local people work to earn money from these people," said Shah. "This will not only affect our area, but will adversely affect all of Pakistan."
The area has been cordoned off by police and paramilitary soldiers, and a military helicopter was searching the area, said Shah.
"God willing we will find the perpetrators of this tragic incident," said Shah.
The government suspended the chief secretary and top police chief in Gilgit-Baltistan following the attack and ordered an inquiry into the incident, said Khan, the interior minister.
Make no mistake about it, Jihadist's hate everything Christians and Westerners stand for. There is no reasoning with them. There is no rehabilitation. They must be wiped off the face of the earth.
The foreigners who were killed included five Ukrainians, three Chinese and one Russian, said Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. One Chinese tourist was wounded in the attack and was rescued, he said.
The local branch of the Taliban took responsibility for the killings, saying it was to avenge the death of a leader killed in a recent U.S. drone strike.
The shooting was one of the worst attacks on foreigners in Pakistan in recent years and is likely to damage the country's already struggling tourism industry. Pakistan's mountainous north — considered until now relatively safe — is one of the main attractions in a country beset with insurgency and other political instability.
The attack took place at the base camp of Nanga Parbat, the ninth highest mountain in the world at 8,126 meters (26,660 feet). Nanga Parbat is notoriously difficult to climb and is known as the "killer mountain" because of numerous mountaineering deaths in the past. It's unclear if the tourists were planning to climb the mountain or were just visiting the base camp, which is located in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan.
The gunmen were wearing uniforms used by the Gilgit Scouts, a paramilitary police force that patrols the area, said the interior minister. The attackers abducted two local guides to find their way to the remote base camp. One of the guides was killed in the shooting, and the other has been detained and is being questioned, said Khan.
"The purpose of this attack was to give a message to the world that Pakistan is unsafe for travel," said the interior minister in a speech in the National Assembly, which passed a resolution condemning the incident. "The government will take all measures to ensure the safety of foreign tourists."
Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan claimed responsibility for the attack, saying their Jundul Hafsa group carried out the shooting as retaliation for the death of the Taliban's deputy leader, Waliur Rehman, in a U.S. drone attack on May 29.
"By killing foreigners, we wanted to give a message to the world to play their role in bringing an end to the drone attacks," Ahsan told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location.
At least a dozen gunmen were involved in the attack, local police officer Jahangir Khan said.
The attackers beat up the Pakistanis who were accompanying the tourists, took their money and tied them up, said a senior local government official. They checked the identities of the Pakistanis and shot to death one of them, possibly because he was a minority Shiite Muslim, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.
Although Gilgit-Baltistan is a relatively peaceful area, it has experienced attacks by radical Sunni Muslims on Shiites in recent years.
The attackers took the money and passports from the foreigners and then gunned them down, said the official. It's unclear how the Chinese tourist who was rescued managed to avoid being killed. The base camp has basic wooden huts, but most tourists choose to sleep in their own tents.
Local police chief Barkat Ali said they first learned of the attack when one of the local guides called the police station around 1 a.m. on Sunday. The military airlifted the bodies to Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, Sunday afternoon.
"We hope Pakistani authorities will do their best to find the culprits of this crime," the Ukrainian ambassador to Pakistan, Volodymyr Lakomov, told reporters outside the hospital where the bodies were taken.
The Pakistani government condemned the "brutal act of terrorism" in a statement sent to reporters.
"Those who have committed this heinous crime seem to be attempting to disrupt the growing relations of Pakistan with China and other friendly countries," said a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry.
Pakistan has very close ties with neighboring China and is sensitive to any issue that could harm the relationship. Pakistani officials have reached out to representatives from China and Ukraine to convey their sympathies, the Foreign Ministry said.
Many foreign tourists stay away from Pakistan because of the perceived danger of visiting a country that is home to a large number of Islamic militant groups, such as the Taliban and al-Qaida, which mostly reside in the northwest near the Afghan border. A relatively small number of intrepid foreigners visit Gilgit-Baltistan during the summer to marvel at the peaks of the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges, including K2, the second highest mountain in the world.
Syed Mehdi Shah, the chief minister of Gilgit-Baltistan, condemned the attack and expressed fear that it would seriously damage the region's tourism industry.
"A lot of tourists come to this area in the summer, and our local people work to earn money from these people," said Shah. "This will not only affect our area, but will adversely affect all of Pakistan."
The area has been cordoned off by police and paramilitary soldiers, and a military helicopter was searching the area, said Shah.
"God willing we will find the perpetrators of this tragic incident," said Shah.
The government suspended the chief secretary and top police chief in Gilgit-Baltistan following the attack and ordered an inquiry into the incident, said Khan, the interior minister.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
States Rights: Federal Nullification Efforts Mounting in States
Federal nullification efforts mounting in states, A state's rights article by David A. Lieb of the Associated Press
Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested — charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.
Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.
The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.
The Missouri legislation is perhaps the most extreme example of a states' rights movement that has been spreading across the nation. States are increasingly adopting laws that purport to nullify federal laws — setting up intentional legal conflicts, directing local police not to enforce federal laws and, in rare cases, even threatening criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs.
An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.
Some states, such as Montana and Arizona, have said "no" to the feds again and again — passing states' rights measures on all four subjects examined by the AP — despite questions about whether their "no" carries any legal significance.
"It seems that there has been an uptick in nullification efforts from both the left and the right," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law.
Yet "the law is clear — the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn't like those laws," Winkler added. The fact that U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld federal laws over conflicting state ones hasn't stopped some states from flouting those federal laws — sometimes successfully.
About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments — despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama's administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn't worth their time to target those people.
Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism law that set stringent requirements for photo identification cards to be used to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings. The law has been stymied, in part, because about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama's 2010 health care laws, many of which specifically reject the provision mandating that most people have health insurance or face tax penalties beginning in 2014.
After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don't apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws. Gun activist Gary Marbut said he crafted the Montana measure as a foundation for a legal challenge to the federal power to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. His lawsuit was dismissed by a trial judge but is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The states created this federal monster, and so it's time for the states to get their monster on a leash," said Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that local police could not be compelled to carry out provisions of a federal gun control law. But some states are now attempting to take that a step further by asserting that certain federal laws can't even be enforced by federal authorities.
A new Kansas law makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas. A similar Wyoming law, passed in 2010, made it a misdemeanor. The Missouri bill also would declare it a misdemeanor crime but would apply more broadly to all federal gun laws and regulations — past, present, or future — that "infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter in late April to the Kansas governor warning that the federal government is willing to go to court over the new law.
"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote.
Federal authorities in the western district of Missouri led the nation in prosecutions for federal weapons offenses through the first seven months of the 2013 fiscal year, with Kansas close behind, according to a data clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
Felons illegally possessing firearms is the most common charge nationally. But the Missouri measure sets it sights on nullifying federal firearms registrations and, among other things, a 1934 law that imposes a tax on transferring machine guns or silencers. Last year, the federal government prosecuted 83 people nationally for unlawful possession of machine guns.
So what would happen if a local prosecutor actually charges a federal agent for doing his or her job?
"They're going to have problems if they do it — there's no doubt about it," said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based entity that promotes states' rights. "There's no federal court in the country that's going to say that a state can pull this off."
Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.
If enough states resist, "it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.
Missouri's governor has not said whether he will sign or veto the bill nullifying federal gun laws. Meanwhile, thousands of people have sent online messages to the governor's office about the legislation.
Signing the measure "will show other states how to resist the tyranny of federal bureaucrats who want to rob you of your right to self-defense," said one message, signed by Jim and Arlena Sowash, who own a gun shop in rural Stover, Mo.
Others urged a veto.
"Outlandish bills like this — completely flouting our federal system — make Missouri the laughingstock of the nation," said a message written by Ann Havelka, of the Kansas City suburb of Gladstone.
Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested — charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.
Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.
The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.
The Missouri legislation is perhaps the most extreme example of a states' rights movement that has been spreading across the nation. States are increasingly adopting laws that purport to nullify federal laws — setting up intentional legal conflicts, directing local police not to enforce federal laws and, in rare cases, even threatening criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs.
An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.
Some states, such as Montana and Arizona, have said "no" to the feds again and again — passing states' rights measures on all four subjects examined by the AP — despite questions about whether their "no" carries any legal significance.
"It seems that there has been an uptick in nullification efforts from both the left and the right," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law.
Yet "the law is clear — the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn't like those laws," Winkler added. The fact that U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld federal laws over conflicting state ones hasn't stopped some states from flouting those federal laws — sometimes successfully.
About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments — despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama's administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn't worth their time to target those people.
Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism law that set stringent requirements for photo identification cards to be used to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings. The law has been stymied, in part, because about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama's 2010 health care laws, many of which specifically reject the provision mandating that most people have health insurance or face tax penalties beginning in 2014.
After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don't apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws. Gun activist Gary Marbut said he crafted the Montana measure as a foundation for a legal challenge to the federal power to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. His lawsuit was dismissed by a trial judge but is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The states created this federal monster, and so it's time for the states to get their monster on a leash," said Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that local police could not be compelled to carry out provisions of a federal gun control law. But some states are now attempting to take that a step further by asserting that certain federal laws can't even be enforced by federal authorities.
A new Kansas law makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas. A similar Wyoming law, passed in 2010, made it a misdemeanor. The Missouri bill also would declare it a misdemeanor crime but would apply more broadly to all federal gun laws and regulations — past, present, or future — that "infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter in late April to the Kansas governor warning that the federal government is willing to go to court over the new law.
"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote.
Federal authorities in the western district of Missouri led the nation in prosecutions for federal weapons offenses through the first seven months of the 2013 fiscal year, with Kansas close behind, according to a data clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
Felons illegally possessing firearms is the most common charge nationally. But the Missouri measure sets it sights on nullifying federal firearms registrations and, among other things, a 1934 law that imposes a tax on transferring machine guns or silencers. Last year, the federal government prosecuted 83 people nationally for unlawful possession of machine guns.
So what would happen if a local prosecutor actually charges a federal agent for doing his or her job?
"They're going to have problems if they do it — there's no doubt about it," said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based entity that promotes states' rights. "There's no federal court in the country that's going to say that a state can pull this off."
Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.
If enough states resist, "it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.
Missouri's governor has not said whether he will sign or veto the bill nullifying federal gun laws. Meanwhile, thousands of people have sent online messages to the governor's office about the legislation.
Signing the measure "will show other states how to resist the tyranny of federal bureaucrats who want to rob you of your right to self-defense," said one message, signed by Jim and Arlena Sowash, who own a gun shop in rural Stover, Mo.
Others urged a veto.
"Outlandish bills like this — completely flouting our federal system — make Missouri the laughingstock of the nation," said a message written by Ann Havelka, of the Kansas City suburb of Gladstone.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Jewish Quarterback
The new Head Football Coach had put together the perfect team for the Chicago Bears. The only thing that was missing was a good quarterback. He had scouted all the colleges and even the Canadian and European Leagues, but he couldn't find a ringer who could ensure a Super Bowl win.
Then one night while watching CNN he saw a war-zone scene in the West Bank. In one corner of the background, he spotted a young Israeli soldier with a truly incredible arm. He threw a hand-grenade straight into a 15th story window 100 yards away. KABOOM!
He threw another hand-grenade 75 yards away, right into a chimney. KA-BLOOEY!
Then he threw another at a passing car going 90 mph. BULLS-EYE!
"I've got to get this guy!" Coach said to himself. "He has the perfect arm!"
So, he brings him to the States and teaches him the great game of football. And the Bears go on to win the Super Bowl. The young man is hailed as the great hero of football, and when the coach asks him what he wants, all the young man wants is to call his mother.
"Mom," he says into the phone, "I just won the Super Bowl!"
"I don't want to talk to you, the old woman says. "You are not my son!"
"I don't think you understand, Mother," the young man pleads. "I've won the greatest sporting event in the world. I'm here among thousands of my adoring fans."
"No! Let me tell you!" his mother retorts. "At this very moment, there are gunshots all around us. The neighborhood is a pile of rubble. Your two brothers were beaten within an inch of their lives last week, and I have to keep your sister in the house so she doesn't get raped!"
The old lady pauses, and then tearfully says,.......... "I will never forgive you for making us move to Chicago !!!!
Monday, June 24, 2013
Russia Has No Respect for Obama
From FreedomOutPost, a report that say's "Russian Paper Says “Weak Eyed Obama” Is Leader Of Sodom & Gomorrah Following G8 "
Although Obama is painted as a great President here in the United States, we must wonder just what do the nations of the world really think of President Barack Obama. We do use the label “President” very loosely here. It seems that the people of Russia are calling the United States the modern day Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah! We will get into that comment later. One now has to wonder just how in the world did the United States, once heralded as the greatest nation on earth, get such a very bad reputation by some outside our nation? It seems that the United States has taken a slide since 2008, but actually it could be traced even father back. We will just continue on what has been presented recently in the Russian Paper Pravda!
We received a communication from our friend Xavier Lerma and he sent us a very disturbing article based upon the perception of the people, not just in Russia, but maybe even the world. This has come to us and we are seeing the world now laugh at the United States to the point where the United States is now considered as a huge boiling pot of hate, anti-Christian, and very weak. Given this, we now wonder just why should we decide to drop our guard now with the other powers of the world gearing up to perhaps just walk into our nation and declare parts of it for themselves! Many have seen the two versions of the movie “Red Dawn,” but few will ever think that maybe we should be well prepared for such an invasion, especially since it seems that Obama wishes to nearly give the other powers of the world the way to do just as is done in both of those movies.
Now that we have primed up your interest about what we have to show as proof that we as a nation should not just start being concerned about such an event, but even get ourselves prepared for this. The only thing keeping those who wish to do as was done in that movie is the fact that the vast population of this nation owns guns and that is being slowly taken away by Obama and once that happens, we may well see a “RED DAWN” scenario. Our thinking on this comes from the latest article by Mr. Xavier Lerma. It shows some things that we as a nation should look at and then yell at those who seem to be doing just what Mr. Lerma states!
In his article Mr. Lerma shows us just how Russia thinks of our nation. It is an insight that we as a nation should look at and realize just how far backwards we have gone since 2009! Mr. Lerma shows just what the people in Russia think of Obama just in the first paragraph alone. He shows the way many perceive Obama to be. The Russian people have such little regard for Obama and the United States that they call Obama out in the second paragraph as “The weak eyed Obama…”
“Not so fast Mr. Hope and Change. Haven’t you heard? There’s a new Sheriff in town in the Middle East. President Putin reminded Barry that he’s in charge. He already reminded Netanyahu recently after Israel fired into Damascus in early May. Afterward, Bibi sang a different tune. Putin’s talent as a Judo expert is always useful in these situations. When Obama was continually arming Syrian rebels; declaring no fly zones and moving his Marines into Jordan Putin took quick action. Obama sang a different tune as well and even said, “and finally we compared notes on President Putin’s expertise in Judo and my declining skills in basketball.” The following video is in English and Russian:
The weak eyed Obama went on further to say, “And we both agree as you get older it takes more time to recover.” He unbelievably even talked about the removal of the Jackson-Vanik Act. Obama nervously looked over his notes as Putin spoke clearly from his memory and intelligence. At meetings end Obama then went on to try and slap a handshake. It was met with President Putin’s stone hand which withered Obama’s smile away. Putin’s firm grip declared who’s top dog in this world.”
If you see this and think it is a joke and this does not reflect just what the people of the world think, remember that in 2008 when Obama went to Germany, they had hundreds of thousands of people there to see him and cheer him. However when he went to the same place, they had less than ten thousand and that would be if you counted all the security people! Yes, the United States is very quickly becoming the third world nation that Obama discussed with John Drew while he was at Occidental College under the huge picture of Karl Marx while learning the Marxist way. Obama is fulfilling his dream to weaken the United Sates and change it and make it unlike anything the Founding Fathers ever could envision it to be. But let us get back to that article by Mr. Lerma.
As shown below, Mr. Lerma shows us just how much we should fear what Obama and his Administration are doing to our military and to our status in the world.
“Obama got the message. Russia has a naval base in Tartus and Russia’s fleet is continually growing in the Mediterranean. I’m sure all the loose change and hope fell out of Mr. Hope and Change during one of Putin’s judo throws. Obama has now become aware of Putin’s arms race. While Obama was having his many expensive vacations Putin had no choice but to increase military spending to halt US aggression. A Russian military having already an edge over the US.”
Here we see without a doubt that while our “friends” a term we have to use, build up their military and expand their drilling for oil our nation is made fun of and shown as once again a weak nation which fails to use the vast minerals we have and it also shows that the people in Russia even question Obama’s expensive vacations while cutting military and other parts of this nation’s wealth. But we do just have to go back and listen to what Obama said before he took office, “We will fundamentally change the United States.” Looking at what is written in the Pravda article, it seems that maybe Obama is doing what he envisioned! But the article continues and goes to the very root of our demise.
“The US is broke and Russia is the world’s largest oil producer with a growing economy. Russia is not backing down and they have China to back them up. Who will back the US? Tiny Britain? Americans are turning gay and Russian men are looking more like the Klitschko brothers. The US is the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah while Christianity triumphs in Russia. No ACLU in Russia suing Christians to be sure. The largest country in the world shows only contempt at the US Bomb & Missile Diplomacy.”
Here Mr. Lerma shows that Russia is using and obtaining their oil while Obama refuses to allow one drop of our vast amounts of oil to be obtained. Let us remind you that our nation has some 3 TRILLION barrels of oil waiting to be removed in just 3 states; Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, but Obama and his environmentalists refuse to allow this vast reserve to be taken. Once again Mr. Lerma shows just how Obama has weakened the stand of the United States to the point that it has almost become a laugh to even discuss this! He even mentions the ACLU of which many things have evolved to the detriment of the nation. We like to call that acronym American Communist Leader Union. Mr. Lerma evens shows how the Obama administration is attacking the very core of our nation, Christianity!
The article even shows how the lame stream media seem to show only what Obama wants them to show! Of course, we know what befalls the people that speak out against Obama in the open public forum. We even have suspicions that our phones have been tapped. However, in his article, Mr. Lerma goes on with even more very curious statements about just how at least Russia feels about the United States and maybe even the world also has the same ideas.
“The western media will warp the truth as usual. They will not show the entire video of Putin and Obama fearing that Americans will see things as they are and wise up. No mention of Christianity under attack in the Middle East and North Africa. Loud music and commanding voices will tell American citizens what to think and who to hate as they become mesmerized by their idiot boxes. Little is mentioned of Christians or priests murdered in Syria or the Christian Bishops that were kidnapped. Again the western cry is here reiterated, “What difference does it make! Assad must go!” Amerikan Demonocracy foaming at the mouth rabid with hate.”
Here he even uses the statement by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when he nearly quotes her with her most famous words, “What difference does it make…” Is it any wonder that our nation is now perceived as weak? Mr. Lerma even points to the news media and how they “cover up” what is really going on!
Obama still surrounds himself with people that have backgrounds deeply twisted with Socialism and Communism.
We have shown what Russia thinks of our nation; they perceive it as a weak nation near the end of its time. Can we as a people allow this to happen? We must wake up or we will forever leave to our children and grandchildren a nation that becomes very poor with only poor and elite and looking like a lesser third world nation, instead of the once proud and powerful nation we should be! Obama is about to send an executive order to the EPA, which may well double our electric bills as he did promise in 2008! This is the “Carbon Tax” he could not get passed, but he is going to use his executive order to pass something that will hurt every United States Citizen through higher electric bills! This should make Mr. Lerma and Russia laugh out loud!
Although Obama is painted as a great President here in the United States, we must wonder just what do the nations of the world really think of President Barack Obama. We do use the label “President” very loosely here. It seems that the people of Russia are calling the United States the modern day Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah! We will get into that comment later. One now has to wonder just how in the world did the United States, once heralded as the greatest nation on earth, get such a very bad reputation by some outside our nation? It seems that the United States has taken a slide since 2008, but actually it could be traced even father back. We will just continue on what has been presented recently in the Russian Paper Pravda!
We received a communication from our friend Xavier Lerma and he sent us a very disturbing article based upon the perception of the people, not just in Russia, but maybe even the world. This has come to us and we are seeing the world now laugh at the United States to the point where the United States is now considered as a huge boiling pot of hate, anti-Christian, and very weak. Given this, we now wonder just why should we decide to drop our guard now with the other powers of the world gearing up to perhaps just walk into our nation and declare parts of it for themselves! Many have seen the two versions of the movie “Red Dawn,” but few will ever think that maybe we should be well prepared for such an invasion, especially since it seems that Obama wishes to nearly give the other powers of the world the way to do just as is done in both of those movies.
Now that we have primed up your interest about what we have to show as proof that we as a nation should not just start being concerned about such an event, but even get ourselves prepared for this. The only thing keeping those who wish to do as was done in that movie is the fact that the vast population of this nation owns guns and that is being slowly taken away by Obama and once that happens, we may well see a “RED DAWN” scenario. Our thinking on this comes from the latest article by Mr. Xavier Lerma. It shows some things that we as a nation should look at and then yell at those who seem to be doing just what Mr. Lerma states!
In his article Mr. Lerma shows us just how Russia thinks of our nation. It is an insight that we as a nation should look at and realize just how far backwards we have gone since 2009! Mr. Lerma shows just what the people in Russia think of Obama just in the first paragraph alone. He shows the way many perceive Obama to be. The Russian people have such little regard for Obama and the United States that they call Obama out in the second paragraph as “The weak eyed Obama…”
“Not so fast Mr. Hope and Change. Haven’t you heard? There’s a new Sheriff in town in the Middle East. President Putin reminded Barry that he’s in charge. He already reminded Netanyahu recently after Israel fired into Damascus in early May. Afterward, Bibi sang a different tune. Putin’s talent as a Judo expert is always useful in these situations. When Obama was continually arming Syrian rebels; declaring no fly zones and moving his Marines into Jordan Putin took quick action. Obama sang a different tune as well and even said, “and finally we compared notes on President Putin’s expertise in Judo and my declining skills in basketball.” The following video is in English and Russian:
The weak eyed Obama went on further to say, “And we both agree as you get older it takes more time to recover.” He unbelievably even talked about the removal of the Jackson-Vanik Act. Obama nervously looked over his notes as Putin spoke clearly from his memory and intelligence. At meetings end Obama then went on to try and slap a handshake. It was met with President Putin’s stone hand which withered Obama’s smile away. Putin’s firm grip declared who’s top dog in this world.”
If you see this and think it is a joke and this does not reflect just what the people of the world think, remember that in 2008 when Obama went to Germany, they had hundreds of thousands of people there to see him and cheer him. However when he went to the same place, they had less than ten thousand and that would be if you counted all the security people! Yes, the United States is very quickly becoming the third world nation that Obama discussed with John Drew while he was at Occidental College under the huge picture of Karl Marx while learning the Marxist way. Obama is fulfilling his dream to weaken the United Sates and change it and make it unlike anything the Founding Fathers ever could envision it to be. But let us get back to that article by Mr. Lerma.
As shown below, Mr. Lerma shows us just how much we should fear what Obama and his Administration are doing to our military and to our status in the world.
“Obama got the message. Russia has a naval base in Tartus and Russia’s fleet is continually growing in the Mediterranean. I’m sure all the loose change and hope fell out of Mr. Hope and Change during one of Putin’s judo throws. Obama has now become aware of Putin’s arms race. While Obama was having his many expensive vacations Putin had no choice but to increase military spending to halt US aggression. A Russian military having already an edge over the US.”
Here we see without a doubt that while our “friends” a term we have to use, build up their military and expand their drilling for oil our nation is made fun of and shown as once again a weak nation which fails to use the vast minerals we have and it also shows that the people in Russia even question Obama’s expensive vacations while cutting military and other parts of this nation’s wealth. But we do just have to go back and listen to what Obama said before he took office, “We will fundamentally change the United States.” Looking at what is written in the Pravda article, it seems that maybe Obama is doing what he envisioned! But the article continues and goes to the very root of our demise.
“The US is broke and Russia is the world’s largest oil producer with a growing economy. Russia is not backing down and they have China to back them up. Who will back the US? Tiny Britain? Americans are turning gay and Russian men are looking more like the Klitschko brothers. The US is the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah while Christianity triumphs in Russia. No ACLU in Russia suing Christians to be sure. The largest country in the world shows only contempt at the US Bomb & Missile Diplomacy.”
Here Mr. Lerma shows that Russia is using and obtaining their oil while Obama refuses to allow one drop of our vast amounts of oil to be obtained. Let us remind you that our nation has some 3 TRILLION barrels of oil waiting to be removed in just 3 states; Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, but Obama and his environmentalists refuse to allow this vast reserve to be taken. Once again Mr. Lerma shows just how Obama has weakened the stand of the United States to the point that it has almost become a laugh to even discuss this! He even mentions the ACLU of which many things have evolved to the detriment of the nation. We like to call that acronym American Communist Leader Union. Mr. Lerma evens shows how the Obama administration is attacking the very core of our nation, Christianity!
The article even shows how the lame stream media seem to show only what Obama wants them to show! Of course, we know what befalls the people that speak out against Obama in the open public forum. We even have suspicions that our phones have been tapped. However, in his article, Mr. Lerma goes on with even more very curious statements about just how at least Russia feels about the United States and maybe even the world also has the same ideas.
“The western media will warp the truth as usual. They will not show the entire video of Putin and Obama fearing that Americans will see things as they are and wise up. No mention of Christianity under attack in the Middle East and North Africa. Loud music and commanding voices will tell American citizens what to think and who to hate as they become mesmerized by their idiot boxes. Little is mentioned of Christians or priests murdered in Syria or the Christian Bishops that were kidnapped. Again the western cry is here reiterated, “What difference does it make! Assad must go!” Amerikan Demonocracy foaming at the mouth rabid with hate.”
Here he even uses the statement by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when he nearly quotes her with her most famous words, “What difference does it make…” Is it any wonder that our nation is now perceived as weak? Mr. Lerma even points to the news media and how they “cover up” what is really going on!
Obama still surrounds himself with people that have backgrounds deeply twisted with Socialism and Communism.
We have shown what Russia thinks of our nation; they perceive it as a weak nation near the end of its time. Can we as a people allow this to happen? We must wake up or we will forever leave to our children and grandchildren a nation that becomes very poor with only poor and elite and looking like a lesser third world nation, instead of the once proud and powerful nation we should be! Obama is about to send an executive order to the EPA, which may well double our electric bills as he did promise in 2008! This is the “Carbon Tax” he could not get passed, but he is going to use his executive order to pass something that will hurt every United States Citizen through higher electric bills! This should make Mr. Lerma and Russia laugh out loud!
Sunday, June 23, 2013
The Best from Dennis Miller
Dennis Miller is one of the former liberal Hollywood types who saw the truth. He keeps everyone honest by engaging in a humorous and sometimes (okay, usually) sarcastic look at what's wrong with this Country,...that is mostly Democrat politicians, and some Republicans to be fair, lying to the people, looting the treasuary and trampling on the Constitution.
"The White House looked into a plan that would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the United States. The plan called for a million Mexicans to marry a million of our ugliest citizens."
"We should fight to preserve a country where people such as Michael Moore get to miss the point as badly as he misses it. Michael Moore represents everything I detest in a human being."
"I didn't know my Dad - he moved out early. And my mom's politics were kind of hardscrabble. She didn't think about Democrats or Republicans. She thought about who made sense. I've been both in my life."
"Police in Washington D.C. are now using cameras to catch drivers who go through red lights. Many congressmen this week opposed the use of the red light cameras incorrectly assuming they were being used for surveillance at local brothels."
Saturday, June 22, 2013
The Syrian Mess
The Syrian Civil War is a giant mess with the Syrian Government of Assad being supported by Russian with new anti-aicraft missiles and Irna providing 4,000 Republican Guard troops as well as Hezbollah provindg increasing support for Surian operations against the insurgents. The Insurgents? Well they are mostly al-Qa'ida groups being supported by Osama Bin Dead Laden's heir apparent and his call for Jihadists to join the fight against the Assad regime.
Now Obama (ass clown #1) wants to arm the insurgents who are the same group killing our soldiers in Afghanistan and John McCain (ass clown #2) wants American air support or support to counter the Syrian air superiority. Now Russia has told Obama not to declare a no-fly zone or conceivably they (the Russians) would forceably violate it.
What a mess! But the U.S. should stay out of this unless the violence spills over to Israel, Jordan or Turkey. Sarah Palin explains it well in the video below:
Now Obama (ass clown #1) wants to arm the insurgents who are the same group killing our soldiers in Afghanistan and John McCain (ass clown #2) wants American air support or support to counter the Syrian air superiority. Now Russia has told Obama not to declare a no-fly zone or conceivably they (the Russians) would forceably violate it.
What a mess! But the U.S. should stay out of this unless the violence spills over to Israel, Jordan or Turkey. Sarah Palin explains it well in the video below:
Friday, June 21, 2013
Obama's Approval Rating Tumble
Lying to the American people and scandal after scandal has taken it's toll,.... President Barack Obama’s job approval rating fell sharply over the past month—from 53 to 45 percent, according to a new CNN poll. Fifty-four percent of Americans disapprove of the job he’s doing, also up from 45 percent, the survey found.
Sixty-one percent disapprove of the way he’s handling government surveillance of Americans in the aftermath of a series of dramatic reports about National Security Agency spying, while 35 percent approve.
Obama's early second term has been buffeted by a series of controversies—not just about the NSA surveillance, but also allegations of misconduct at the IRS and government spying on reporters. The president was expected to address those issues in a new interview with Charlie Rose, which airs Monday night.
What about Edward Snowden, who says he revealed the government’s secret to expose abuses? Forty-four percent approve of what he did, while 52 percent disapprove. Should the U.S. government attempt to bring him back to U.S. soil and prosecute him? Fifty-four percent say yes, 42 percent say no.
Even as the economy picks up steam, the poll found that Obama’s disapproval rating on that issue has ticked up steadily over the first six months of the year, from 51 percent in January, to 54 percent in April, to 57 percent in June.
Is Obama honest and trustworthy? Fifty percent say no, up from 41 percent in mid-May, while 49 percent say yes, down from 58 percent.
Americans are sending mixed messages on the NSA surveillance controversy—43 percent say Obama has gone too far in restricting civil liberties in the name of national security, 38 percent agree with him that he’s found the right balance, and 17 percent say he hasn’t gone far enough.
At the same time, 51 percent say the administration was right to collect the telephone records of Americans. Forty-eight percent say it was wrong.
Approval soars to 66 percent regarding the government’s snooping on personal information over the Internet. Thirty-three percent say it was wrong. (CNN’s question phrasing might have something to do with that. “The government reportedly does not target Internet usage by U.S. citizens and if such data is collected, it is kept under strict controls.”)
Still, it’s not because people don’t think it hasn’t happened to them: 62 percent told CNN they thought the government had collected and stored data about their personal telephone and Internet. Thirty-four percent say they did not think so.
Does the federal government pose an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of American citizens? A whopping 62 percent say it does, up from 56 percent the last time the question was asked, in February 2010.
The survey had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
What suprises me is that anybody approves of Obama, but then again we are a nation of low information voters. More telling poll numbers would be the 75% of Americans who want Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and the AP phone tapping investigated to determine who is at fault for these crimes.
"Americans who will trade liberty for security will deserve and receive neither. "
Sixty-one percent disapprove of the way he’s handling government surveillance of Americans in the aftermath of a series of dramatic reports about National Security Agency spying, while 35 percent approve.
Obama's early second term has been buffeted by a series of controversies—not just about the NSA surveillance, but also allegations of misconduct at the IRS and government spying on reporters. The president was expected to address those issues in a new interview with Charlie Rose, which airs Monday night.
What about Edward Snowden, who says he revealed the government’s secret to expose abuses? Forty-four percent approve of what he did, while 52 percent disapprove. Should the U.S. government attempt to bring him back to U.S. soil and prosecute him? Fifty-four percent say yes, 42 percent say no.
Even as the economy picks up steam, the poll found that Obama’s disapproval rating on that issue has ticked up steadily over the first six months of the year, from 51 percent in January, to 54 percent in April, to 57 percent in June.
Is Obama honest and trustworthy? Fifty percent say no, up from 41 percent in mid-May, while 49 percent say yes, down from 58 percent.
Americans are sending mixed messages on the NSA surveillance controversy—43 percent say Obama has gone too far in restricting civil liberties in the name of national security, 38 percent agree with him that he’s found the right balance, and 17 percent say he hasn’t gone far enough.
At the same time, 51 percent say the administration was right to collect the telephone records of Americans. Forty-eight percent say it was wrong.
Approval soars to 66 percent regarding the government’s snooping on personal information over the Internet. Thirty-three percent say it was wrong. (CNN’s question phrasing might have something to do with that. “The government reportedly does not target Internet usage by U.S. citizens and if such data is collected, it is kept under strict controls.”)
Still, it’s not because people don’t think it hasn’t happened to them: 62 percent told CNN they thought the government had collected and stored data about their personal telephone and Internet. Thirty-four percent say they did not think so.
Does the federal government pose an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of American citizens? A whopping 62 percent say it does, up from 56 percent the last time the question was asked, in February 2010.
The survey had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
What suprises me is that anybody approves of Obama, but then again we are a nation of low information voters. More telling poll numbers would be the 75% of Americans who want Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and the AP phone tapping investigated to determine who is at fault for these crimes.
"Americans who will trade liberty for security will deserve and receive neither. "
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Democratic Ballot Fraud in Indiana Punished
Indiana Democrat official sentenced to prison for '08 ballot fraud in Obama-Clinton primary is a Report by Eric Shawn of FoxNews.com
As Hillary Clinton prepares for a possible presidential run in 2016, it appears that she could have knocked then-candidate Barack Obama off the 2008 primary ballot in Indiana.
If anyone, including her campaign, had challenged the names and signatures on the presidential petitions that put Obama on the ballot, election fraud would have been detected during the race.
But at the time, no one did.
On Monday, there was some closure to the case, though, as the four defendants who were convicted or pleaded guilty in the state's presidential petition fraud scandal were sentenced. Only one received prison time for the illegal scheme that touched the race for the White House.
"If there is a victim here, it is probably the Democratic Party," said St. Joseph Superior Court Judge John Marnocha. "The defendants who were saying, 'I was just following orders,' or 'I was just doing my duty,' that's no excuse. Through history a lot of evil has been done by those saying they were just following orders."
The plot successfully faked names and signatures on both the Obama and Clinton presidential petitions that were used to place the candidates on the ballot. So many names were forged -- an estimated 200 or more -- that prosecutor Stanley Levco said that had the fraud been caught during the primary, "the worst that would have happened, is maybe Barack Obama wouldn't have been on the ballot for the
"I think that Obama would still have been elected president, no matter what," he said.
In court, former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Chairman Butch Morgan, Jr. was sentenced to one year behind bars, and is expected to serve half that, as well as Community Corrections and probation. Former St. Joseph County Board of Elections worker and Democratic volunteer Dustin Blythe received a sentence of one year in Community Corrections and probation, which means no jail time.
In April, a jury convicted Morgan and Blythe on numerous felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and felony forgery counts.
Former St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration Democratic board member Pam Brunette and Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton previously pleaded guilty and testified for prosecutors against Morgan and Blythe. They both received two years of probation.
"When you do something like this, we are going to find out and you're going to be held accountable," declared Levco. He called the sentences "appropriate."
Others disagreed.
"We would like to have seen more jail time for Morgan ... but it was more than we were expecting," said St. Joseph County Republican Party Executive Director Jake Teshka. He thinks the three other defendants "got off easy."
The election fraud was first uncovered by Yale University junior Ryan Nees, who wrote about the scheme for the independent political newsletter Howey Politics Indiana and the South Bend Tribune.
Nees has told Fox News that the fraud was clearly evident, "because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting."
He also noted that no one raised any red flags about the forgeries, and that the petitions sailed through the Board of Elections without any problems, "because election workers in charge of verifying their validity were the same people faking the signatures."
"The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Charwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.
Morgan was accused of being the scheme's mastermind who ordered the petition fraud. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.
Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify for the primary ballots with 500 signatures from each of the state's nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional district, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton's camp had 704.
Prosecutors said that in President Obama's case, nine of the petition pages were apparently forged. Each petition contains up to 10 names, making a possible total of 90 faked names, which could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit that was required for him to qualify for the ballot.
Prosecutors said 13 Clinton petitions were apparently forged, meaning up to 130 possibly fake signatures. Even if those names had been challenged, Clinton would still have been left with enough signatures to meet the 500-person threshold comfortably.
The scheme was hatched in January of 2008, four months before the primary, according to affidavits from investigators. Former Board of Registration worker and Democratic Party volunteer Lucas Burkett told them he forged signatures and was part of the forgery plan at first, but then became uneasy about what was going on and quit.
Burkett told investigators that "there were meetings at which several people explicitly agreed to forge these petitions," and that it was his job to "forge petitions for candidate Barack Obama." He told authorities that Shelton "was assigned to forge petitions for candidate Hillary Clinton" and Blythe "was assigned to forge petitions for candidate John Edwards." When Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January 2008 and Burkett refused to continue the forgeries, Burkett said Morgan ordered Blythe to take over his job and forge the Obama petitions.
Numerous voters told Fox News that they never signed them.
"That's not my signature," Charity Rorie, a mother of four, told Fox News when showed the Obama petition with her name and signature on it. She was stunned, saying that it "absolutely" was a fake, as well as the name and signature of her husband, Jeff.
"It's scary, it's shocking. It definitely is illegal," she told us.
Robert Hunter, Jr. told Fox News that his name was faked, too.
"I did not sign for Barack Obama," he said, as he looked at the petition listing his name and signature.
Even a former Democratic governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged.
Clinton narrowly won the Indiana 2008 primary, and Obama barely won the state during the general election.
Democratic officials insist that the petition procedures involved in placing candidates on the ballot have since been cleaned up.
"The St. Joseph County Democratic Party has taken many steps to ensure that an incident of this sort never occurs again," insisted Indiana state Sen. John Broden, the St. Joseph County Democratic Party chairman. He notes that no Democratic elected officials or political candidates were implicated in the wrongdoing.
In a statement to Fox News, Broden explained that officials have taken a variety of steps to prevent a repeat of the 2008 election fraud.
During the recent 2012 presidential election, he said that those steps included examining and cross checking "every single signature ... with the voter's actual signature on file," as well as the Board of Elections working "in a bipartisan fashion to review the signatures submitted."
Broden said that since the new safeguards were put in place, "there has been no allegation of any impropriety concerning the 2012 ballot petitions."
As Hillary Clinton prepares for a possible presidential run in 2016, it appears that she could have knocked then-candidate Barack Obama off the 2008 primary ballot in Indiana.
If anyone, including her campaign, had challenged the names and signatures on the presidential petitions that put Obama on the ballot, election fraud would have been detected during the race.
But at the time, no one did.
On Monday, there was some closure to the case, though, as the four defendants who were convicted or pleaded guilty in the state's presidential petition fraud scandal were sentenced. Only one received prison time for the illegal scheme that touched the race for the White House.
"If there is a victim here, it is probably the Democratic Party," said St. Joseph Superior Court Judge John Marnocha. "The defendants who were saying, 'I was just following orders,' or 'I was just doing my duty,' that's no excuse. Through history a lot of evil has been done by those saying they were just following orders."
The plot successfully faked names and signatures on both the Obama and Clinton presidential petitions that were used to place the candidates on the ballot. So many names were forged -- an estimated 200 or more -- that prosecutor Stanley Levco said that had the fraud been caught during the primary, "the worst that would have happened, is maybe Barack Obama wouldn't have been on the ballot for the
"I think that Obama would still have been elected president, no matter what," he said.
In court, former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Chairman Butch Morgan, Jr. was sentenced to one year behind bars, and is expected to serve half that, as well as Community Corrections and probation. Former St. Joseph County Board of Elections worker and Democratic volunteer Dustin Blythe received a sentence of one year in Community Corrections and probation, which means no jail time.
In April, a jury convicted Morgan and Blythe on numerous felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and felony forgery counts.
Former St. Joseph County Board of Voter Registration Democratic board member Pam Brunette and Board of Voter Registration worker Beverly Shelton previously pleaded guilty and testified for prosecutors against Morgan and Blythe. They both received two years of probation.
"When you do something like this, we are going to find out and you're going to be held accountable," declared Levco. He called the sentences "appropriate."
Others disagreed.
"We would like to have seen more jail time for Morgan ... but it was more than we were expecting," said St. Joseph County Republican Party Executive Director Jake Teshka. He thinks the three other defendants "got off easy."
The election fraud was first uncovered by Yale University junior Ryan Nees, who wrote about the scheme for the independent political newsletter Howey Politics Indiana and the South Bend Tribune.
Nees has told Fox News that the fraud was clearly evident, "because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting."
He also noted that no one raised any red flags about the forgeries, and that the petitions sailed through the Board of Elections without any problems, "because election workers in charge of verifying their validity were the same people faking the signatures."
"The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Charwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.
Morgan was accused of being the scheme's mastermind who ordered the petition fraud. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.
Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify for the primary ballots with 500 signatures from each of the state's nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional district, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton's camp had 704.
Prosecutors said that in President Obama's case, nine of the petition pages were apparently forged. Each petition contains up to 10 names, making a possible total of 90 faked names, which could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit that was required for him to qualify for the ballot.
Prosecutors said 13 Clinton petitions were apparently forged, meaning up to 130 possibly fake signatures. Even if those names had been challenged, Clinton would still have been left with enough signatures to meet the 500-person threshold comfortably.
The scheme was hatched in January of 2008, four months before the primary, according to affidavits from investigators. Former Board of Registration worker and Democratic Party volunteer Lucas Burkett told them he forged signatures and was part of the forgery plan at first, but then became uneasy about what was going on and quit.
Burkett told investigators that "there were meetings at which several people explicitly agreed to forge these petitions," and that it was his job to "forge petitions for candidate Barack Obama." He told authorities that Shelton "was assigned to forge petitions for candidate Hillary Clinton" and Blythe "was assigned to forge petitions for candidate John Edwards." When Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January 2008 and Burkett refused to continue the forgeries, Burkett said Morgan ordered Blythe to take over his job and forge the Obama petitions.
Numerous voters told Fox News that they never signed them.
"That's not my signature," Charity Rorie, a mother of four, told Fox News when showed the Obama petition with her name and signature on it. She was stunned, saying that it "absolutely" was a fake, as well as the name and signature of her husband, Jeff.
"It's scary, it's shocking. It definitely is illegal," she told us.
Robert Hunter, Jr. told Fox News that his name was faked, too.
"I did not sign for Barack Obama," he said, as he looked at the petition listing his name and signature.
Even a former Democratic governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged.
Clinton narrowly won the Indiana 2008 primary, and Obama barely won the state during the general election.
Democratic officials insist that the petition procedures involved in placing candidates on the ballot have since been cleaned up.
"The St. Joseph County Democratic Party has taken many steps to ensure that an incident of this sort never occurs again," insisted Indiana state Sen. John Broden, the St. Joseph County Democratic Party chairman. He notes that no Democratic elected officials or political candidates were implicated in the wrongdoing.
In a statement to Fox News, Broden explained that officials have taken a variety of steps to prevent a repeat of the 2008 election fraud.
During the recent 2012 presidential election, he said that those steps included examining and cross checking "every single signature ... with the voter's actual signature on file," as well as the Board of Elections working "in a bipartisan fashion to review the signatures submitted."
Broden said that since the new safeguards were put in place, "there has been no allegation of any impropriety concerning the 2012 ballot petitions."
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
When the Government Lies
Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press wrote this excellent article with the by-line: "When lying is acceptable, public loses"
WASHINGTON (AP) — A member of Congress asks the director of national intelligence if the National Security Agency collects data on millions of Americans. "No, sir," James Clapper responds. Pressed, he adds a caveat: "Not wittingly."
Then, NSA programs that do precisely that are disclosed.
It turns out that President Barack Obama's intelligence chief lied. Or as he put it last week: "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least most untruthful manner, by saying, 'No,' because the program was classified."
The White House stands by him. Press secretary Jay Carney says Obama "certainly believes that Director Clapper has been straight and direct in the answers that he's given." Congress, always adept at performing verbal gymnastics, seems generally unmiffed about Clapper's lack of candor. If there have been repercussions, the public doesn't know about them.
Welcome to the intelligence community, a shadowy network of secrets and lies reserved, apparently, not only for this country's enemies but also for its own citizens.
Sometimes it feels as if the government operates in a parallel universe where lying has no consequences and everyone but the people it represents is complicit in deception. Looking at episodes like this, it's unsurprising that people have lost faith in their elected leaders and the institution of government. This all reinforces what polls show people think: Washington plays by its own rules.
Since when is it acceptable for government — elected leaders or those they appoint — to be directly untruthful to Americans? Do people even care about the deception? Or is this kind of behavior expected these days? After all, most politicians parse words, tell half-truths and omit facts. Some lie outright. It's called spin.
And yet this feels different.
The government quite legitimately keeps loads of secrets from its people for security reasons, with gag orders in effect over top-secret information that adversaries could use against us. But does that authority also give the government permission to lie to its people in the name of their own safety without repercussions? Should Congress simply be accepting those falsehoods?
It wasn't always this way.
Congress was apoplectic when former aides to President Richard Nixon perjured themselves in the Watergate cover-up and when President Bill Clinton was less than truthful during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But in those cases, the issues divided over partisan lines, and classified information relating to national security wasn't involved.
In this instance, most Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill support the underlying NSA programs even though the public is divided over them. And lawmakers aren't quick to hold Clapper accountable because, when it comes to telling the truth to Americans, their hands are hardly clean.
The public, meanwhile, has responded to Clapper's falsehood with a collective shrug. Are we just resigned to this?
Consider the results of 2012 surveys.
One from the Public Affairs Council found that 57 percent of Americans felt that public officials in Washington had below-average honesty and ethical standards. Another from the Pew Research Center found 54 percent of Americans felt the federal government in Washington was mostly corrupt, while 31 percent rated it mostly honest.
Trust in government has dropped dramatically since the 1950s, when a majority of the country placed faith in it most of the time. But by April 2013, an Associated Press-GfK poll had found just 21 percent feeling that way. And people have even less faith in Congress; a new Gallup poll found just 10 percent of Americans say they have confidence in the House and Senate — the lowest level for any institution on record.
In this case, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, long had tried to raise concerns over the scope and breadth of post-9/11 intelligence gathering.
They were privy to the secret techniques but were barred by law from disclosing any classified information. So they had to be subtle.
Discussion on Capitol Hill about top-secret programs usually takes place in a secure room so opponents of the United States won't learn of the details.
Nevertheless, in March — before the programs the senator knew existed had been disclosed to the world — Wyden put Clapper on the spot. The senator asked about the classified intelligence operations, which Clapper was prohibited from talking openly about, in a public committee hearing.
"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Wyden asked.
"No, sir," Clapper answered.
"It does not?" asked Wyden.
"Not wittingly," Clapper said, offering a more nuanced response. "There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect — but not wittingly."
Three months later, a former NSA contractor leaked information on top-secret surveillance programs that do, in fact, file away phone records on millions of Americans. Wittingly.
That, said Udall, "is the type of surveillance I have long said would shock the public if they knew about it."
Within days, Wyden — who says he gave Clapper a heads up a day earlier that he would be asking the question about classified information at an open hearing — accused Clapper of misleading the Senate committee in public and later in private when the intelligence director declined to change his answer from the firm "no" to the question.
"The American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives," Wyden said.
Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., called for Clapper to resign and suggested perjury, saying he "lied under oath to Congress and the American people" and that "Congress can't make informed decisions on intelligence issues when the head of the intelligence community willfully makes false statements."
In interviews, Clapper tried to explain.
To National Journal, he said: "What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mail. I stand by that." But Clapper didn't tell the committee during the hearing that he was referring specifically to email, though he did indicate his reservations about being questioned in public on confidential matters.
Clapper also told NBC News that "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner." He added that his response technically wasn't false because of semantics over the word "collection." But he also allowed that his response may have been "too cute by half."
Whatever else it does, the episode illuminates a conflict in our system — one that we dance around whenever the subject of secrets comes up.
The Obama administration says it wants the American people to allow the NSA to do what it must to protect the nation. The president himself has assured Americans that Congress has been in the loop, making sure the NSA isn't going too far. But it's hard to see how a real check on that power is possible if Congress is unable or unwilling to provide actual oversight, much less take action when a key official involved in the program isn't straight with lawmakers.
In this case, it nudges accountability further into the shadows — and gives the American public even less of a stake in the security of the open society that we say we hold so dear.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A member of Congress asks the director of national intelligence if the National Security Agency collects data on millions of Americans. "No, sir," James Clapper responds. Pressed, he adds a caveat: "Not wittingly."
Then, NSA programs that do precisely that are disclosed.
It turns out that President Barack Obama's intelligence chief lied. Or as he put it last week: "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least most untruthful manner, by saying, 'No,' because the program was classified."
The White House stands by him. Press secretary Jay Carney says Obama "certainly believes that Director Clapper has been straight and direct in the answers that he's given." Congress, always adept at performing verbal gymnastics, seems generally unmiffed about Clapper's lack of candor. If there have been repercussions, the public doesn't know about them.
Welcome to the intelligence community, a shadowy network of secrets and lies reserved, apparently, not only for this country's enemies but also for its own citizens.
Sometimes it feels as if the government operates in a parallel universe where lying has no consequences and everyone but the people it represents is complicit in deception. Looking at episodes like this, it's unsurprising that people have lost faith in their elected leaders and the institution of government. This all reinforces what polls show people think: Washington plays by its own rules.
Since when is it acceptable for government — elected leaders or those they appoint — to be directly untruthful to Americans? Do people even care about the deception? Or is this kind of behavior expected these days? After all, most politicians parse words, tell half-truths and omit facts. Some lie outright. It's called spin.
And yet this feels different.
The government quite legitimately keeps loads of secrets from its people for security reasons, with gag orders in effect over top-secret information that adversaries could use against us. But does that authority also give the government permission to lie to its people in the name of their own safety without repercussions? Should Congress simply be accepting those falsehoods?
It wasn't always this way.
Congress was apoplectic when former aides to President Richard Nixon perjured themselves in the Watergate cover-up and when President Bill Clinton was less than truthful during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But in those cases, the issues divided over partisan lines, and classified information relating to national security wasn't involved.
In this instance, most Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill support the underlying NSA programs even though the public is divided over them. And lawmakers aren't quick to hold Clapper accountable because, when it comes to telling the truth to Americans, their hands are hardly clean.
The public, meanwhile, has responded to Clapper's falsehood with a collective shrug. Are we just resigned to this?
Consider the results of 2012 surveys.
One from the Public Affairs Council found that 57 percent of Americans felt that public officials in Washington had below-average honesty and ethical standards. Another from the Pew Research Center found 54 percent of Americans felt the federal government in Washington was mostly corrupt, while 31 percent rated it mostly honest.
Trust in government has dropped dramatically since the 1950s, when a majority of the country placed faith in it most of the time. But by April 2013, an Associated Press-GfK poll had found just 21 percent feeling that way. And people have even less faith in Congress; a new Gallup poll found just 10 percent of Americans say they have confidence in the House and Senate — the lowest level for any institution on record.
In this case, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, long had tried to raise concerns over the scope and breadth of post-9/11 intelligence gathering.
They were privy to the secret techniques but were barred by law from disclosing any classified information. So they had to be subtle.
Discussion on Capitol Hill about top-secret programs usually takes place in a secure room so opponents of the United States won't learn of the details.
Nevertheless, in March — before the programs the senator knew existed had been disclosed to the world — Wyden put Clapper on the spot. The senator asked about the classified intelligence operations, which Clapper was prohibited from talking openly about, in a public committee hearing.
"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Wyden asked.
"No, sir," Clapper answered.
"It does not?" asked Wyden.
"Not wittingly," Clapper said, offering a more nuanced response. "There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect — but not wittingly."
Three months later, a former NSA contractor leaked information on top-secret surveillance programs that do, in fact, file away phone records on millions of Americans. Wittingly.
That, said Udall, "is the type of surveillance I have long said would shock the public if they knew about it."
Within days, Wyden — who says he gave Clapper a heads up a day earlier that he would be asking the question about classified information at an open hearing — accused Clapper of misleading the Senate committee in public and later in private when the intelligence director declined to change his answer from the firm "no" to the question.
"The American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives," Wyden said.
Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., called for Clapper to resign and suggested perjury, saying he "lied under oath to Congress and the American people" and that "Congress can't make informed decisions on intelligence issues when the head of the intelligence community willfully makes false statements."
In interviews, Clapper tried to explain.
To National Journal, he said: "What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mail. I stand by that." But Clapper didn't tell the committee during the hearing that he was referring specifically to email, though he did indicate his reservations about being questioned in public on confidential matters.
Clapper also told NBC News that "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner." He added that his response technically wasn't false because of semantics over the word "collection." But he also allowed that his response may have been "too cute by half."
Whatever else it does, the episode illuminates a conflict in our system — one that we dance around whenever the subject of secrets comes up.
The Obama administration says it wants the American people to allow the NSA to do what it must to protect the nation. The president himself has assured Americans that Congress has been in the loop, making sure the NSA isn't going too far. But it's hard to see how a real check on that power is possible if Congress is unable or unwilling to provide actual oversight, much less take action when a key official involved in the program isn't straight with lawmakers.
In this case, it nudges accountability further into the shadows — and gives the American public even less of a stake in the security of the open society that we say we hold so dear.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Obama's Political pick for Deputy CIA Director
Why Obama would chose a woman with no CIA experience for No. 2 CIA job can only be answered by his need to place political allies and those who share his ideology in these important positions. Avril Haines will be the first woman to be second in command at the CIA, but critics point not to her gender but her lack of CIA experience. Her choice screams loud about how Obama views his political survival over national security.
An article by Jennifer Skalka Tulumello of the Christian Science Monitor
Plucking from a collection of high-powered female lawyers serving the White House, President Obama has nominated Avril Haines as the next deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ms. Haines is the first woman to hold the job. She replaces Michael Morell, who announced his retirement after more than three decades in the CIA to spend time with family. She’s an unexpected pick in that she hasn’t any background with the agency. In fact, Haines was slated just a couple months ago to move to the State Department as its legal adviser.
How unusual is it for a lawyer – and one without spook experience – to fill such a powerful agency job?
One former senior CIA official tells the Monitor that her nomination has prompted surprise among his former colleagues, not due to Haines’s gender, of course, but because she is a relative unknown in the community. He says the law is “not a typical track” for the deputy director job and that she’ll likely “face some skepticism among the ranks until she can prove that she has learned the intricacies of the organization and doesn’t automatically default to an overly legalistic, risk averse, view of everything.”
“She has the disadvantage of following Michael J. Morell who is much admired across the board,” the official adds. “Thirty-three years of experience being replaced by none. She faces quite an uphill climb.”
CIA Director John Brennan provided his full support for Haines, however, suggesting “she knows more about covert action than anyone in the US government outside of the CIA.”
"She has participated in virtually every Deputies and Principals Committee meeting over the past two years and chairs the Lawyers' Group that reviews the agency's most sensitive programs," he added, in a statement reported by UPI.
But the former senior CIA official says Haines’s experience doesn’t add up to the job. “Sitting in National Security Committee meetings on covert action is nice, but being deputy CIA director involves much, much more that covert action, and she has no known experience in those things,” he says.
Forget about the women angle, or the lawyer piece, or, for that matter, Haines’s lack of agency experience, says Philip Mudd, former deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center. With Mr. Brennan and Haines in the top two jobs, the CIA has a direct pipeline to the White House.
“I think this underscores the relevance of the CIA in the post-9/11 era,” Mudd says. “You want people with firepower there – and that’s political firepower. Because the White House needs that agency in ways they’ve never needed it before.”
Mudd says the CIA is a flat organization – it’s not military-oriented and it’s not hierarchical.
“The key question people on the inside are going to ask is, ‘Is she going to listen?’ ” Mudd says. “It’s a proud organization. They’re going to sniff her. ‘Is she going to ask us what we think?’ ”
At the White House, Haines served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president for national security affairs. According to her White House bio, the Georgetown University Law Center graduate formerly worked for the State Department as assistant legal adviser for treaty affairs and in the office of the legal adviser. And she served as deputy chief counsel for the majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She holds a bachelor’s degree in physics from the University of Chicago.
Some are suggesting the Haines appointment is less about elevating her than ousting Mr. Morell for his role in extracting from official administration talking points references to the CIA’s warnings that terrorists could attack the Benghazi diplomatic compound.
The Benghazi controversy continues to dog the Obama administration politically.
Morell issued a statement pushing back on that speculation.
“Whenever someone involved in the rough and tumble of Washington decides to move on, there is speculation in various quarters about the ‘real reason,’” he said. “But when I say that it is time for my family, nothing could be more real than that.”
Morell’s last day is Aug. 9. Haines is not subject to Senate confirmation in the new post.
An article by Jennifer Skalka Tulumello of the Christian Science Monitor
Plucking from a collection of high-powered female lawyers serving the White House, President Obama has nominated Avril Haines as the next deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ms. Haines is the first woman to hold the job. She replaces Michael Morell, who announced his retirement after more than three decades in the CIA to spend time with family. She’s an unexpected pick in that she hasn’t any background with the agency. In fact, Haines was slated just a couple months ago to move to the State Department as its legal adviser.
How unusual is it for a lawyer – and one without spook experience – to fill such a powerful agency job?
One former senior CIA official tells the Monitor that her nomination has prompted surprise among his former colleagues, not due to Haines’s gender, of course, but because she is a relative unknown in the community. He says the law is “not a typical track” for the deputy director job and that she’ll likely “face some skepticism among the ranks until she can prove that she has learned the intricacies of the organization and doesn’t automatically default to an overly legalistic, risk averse, view of everything.”
“She has the disadvantage of following Michael J. Morell who is much admired across the board,” the official adds. “Thirty-three years of experience being replaced by none. She faces quite an uphill climb.”
CIA Director John Brennan provided his full support for Haines, however, suggesting “she knows more about covert action than anyone in the US government outside of the CIA.”
"She has participated in virtually every Deputies and Principals Committee meeting over the past two years and chairs the Lawyers' Group that reviews the agency's most sensitive programs," he added, in a statement reported by UPI.
But the former senior CIA official says Haines’s experience doesn’t add up to the job. “Sitting in National Security Committee meetings on covert action is nice, but being deputy CIA director involves much, much more that covert action, and she has no known experience in those things,” he says.
Forget about the women angle, or the lawyer piece, or, for that matter, Haines’s lack of agency experience, says Philip Mudd, former deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center. With Mr. Brennan and Haines in the top two jobs, the CIA has a direct pipeline to the White House.
“I think this underscores the relevance of the CIA in the post-9/11 era,” Mudd says. “You want people with firepower there – and that’s political firepower. Because the White House needs that agency in ways they’ve never needed it before.”
Mudd says the CIA is a flat organization – it’s not military-oriented and it’s not hierarchical.
“The key question people on the inside are going to ask is, ‘Is she going to listen?’ ” Mudd says. “It’s a proud organization. They’re going to sniff her. ‘Is she going to ask us what we think?’ ”
At the White House, Haines served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president for national security affairs. According to her White House bio, the Georgetown University Law Center graduate formerly worked for the State Department as assistant legal adviser for treaty affairs and in the office of the legal adviser. And she served as deputy chief counsel for the majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She holds a bachelor’s degree in physics from the University of Chicago.
Some are suggesting the Haines appointment is less about elevating her than ousting Mr. Morell for his role in extracting from official administration talking points references to the CIA’s warnings that terrorists could attack the Benghazi diplomatic compound.
The Benghazi controversy continues to dog the Obama administration politically.
Morell issued a statement pushing back on that speculation.
“Whenever someone involved in the rough and tumble of Washington decides to move on, there is speculation in various quarters about the ‘real reason,’” he said. “But when I say that it is time for my family, nothing could be more real than that.”
Morell’s last day is Aug. 9. Haines is not subject to Senate confirmation in the new post.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Governor Scott of Florida Suspends County Sheriff Over Gun Rights
From an article titled - "Florida Governor Suspends Sheriff For Standing Up For 2nd Amendment", posted on June 10, 2013 by Ben Bullard on PersonalLiberty.com, I have to throw the bullshit flag on Governor Scott as he apparently does not understand the concept of law enforcement officer discretion nor the second amendment. And all this in the shadow of Attorney General Eric Holder and all his misdeeds and mal-feasance.
Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott has suspended the Sheriff Nick Finch of the State’s least-populous county (Liberty County) after he allegedly set free a man who’d been arrested for possessing a weapon without a permit.
Nick Finch, sheriff of Liberty County near the State’s Alabama-Georgia border, faces a 3rd-degree felony charge for official misconduct after evidently destroying or altering the paper trail that began when one of his deputies brought in a motorist who had two handguns in his car.
The motorist, Floyd Parrish, didn’t have a concealed-carry permit and was subsequently charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Car carry is legal in Florida for those without a conceal-carry permit, but the law stipulates such firearms must be securely encased or not readily accessible for immediate use – two stipulations which Parrish allegedly didn’t meet when he was pulled over in Liberty County.
Parrish stayed in jail until Sheriff Finch arrived, accompanied by the suspect’s brother. Finch allegedly spoke to both men about the incident before ordering that the charges be dropped and Parrish be released.
According to the JCFloridian, Finch allegedly told the deputy who’d arrested Parrish that he “believed in 2nd Amendment rights” and instructed jail staff to return his confiscated firearms.
But the Florida Department of Law Enforcement learned of the incident, which occurred in March, and obtained an arrest warrant for Finch. He was arrested and booked into the Liberty County jail last week before being released on his own recognizance. Gov. Scott has since suspended Finch and temporarily installed a regional agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as acting sheriff.
Finch’s arrest for exercising his judgment in protecting another citizen’s Constitutional freedom has drawn anger from both locals and 2nd Amendment advocates throughout the U.S.
One Liberty County man said Finch may have been a sitting duck among longtime power brokers in a good old boy network,“[s]ince he’s considered what people consider an outsider and not from Liberty County, that they finally railroaded him out. In my personal opinion he was doing his job and people didn’t like it.”
Though Finch has not commented on his arrest, his attorney has said it’s ridiculous to construe the sheriff’s actions as anything but proper defense of his constituents’ Constitutional rights.
“The records at the jail show exactly what happened in this case and the records speak the truth. The sheriff looked at the facts and said ‘I believe in the second amendment and we’re not going to charge him.’ That is not misconduct at all. That is within the Sheriff’s prerogative whether to charge someone or not,” said attorney Jimmy Judkins.
Dean Garrison of DC Clothesline agrees:
With so many Sheriff’s offices making strong pro-2nd Amendment stands in 2013 this is a situation that was bound to happen. The Sheriff had every right not to charge this man. The 2nd Amendment of the constitution should supercede any Florida law. “Shall Not Be Infringed” still means something to men like Nick.
The whole case will surely become about the documents. If Nick Finch destroyed the documents they will make an example of him for all of us to see. They have been waiting for this opportunity. This case will not be prosecuted to the extent that Nick Finch did not understand the 2nd Amendment. They will try to get him on a technicality.
Pro-2nd Amendment law enforcement officials all over the country need to take note. They are looking for any backdoor they can to try to shut you down. This story should be national news soon. My hope is that Finch did not destroy the documents and this case can be heard on its real merits.
Nick Finch was elected sheriff of Liberty, a county of only 8,400 people, in November of last year.
Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott has suspended the Sheriff Nick Finch of the State’s least-populous county (Liberty County) after he allegedly set free a man who’d been arrested for possessing a weapon without a permit.
Nick Finch, sheriff of Liberty County near the State’s Alabama-Georgia border, faces a 3rd-degree felony charge for official misconduct after evidently destroying or altering the paper trail that began when one of his deputies brought in a motorist who had two handguns in his car.
The motorist, Floyd Parrish, didn’t have a concealed-carry permit and was subsequently charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Car carry is legal in Florida for those without a conceal-carry permit, but the law stipulates such firearms must be securely encased or not readily accessible for immediate use – two stipulations which Parrish allegedly didn’t meet when he was pulled over in Liberty County.
Parrish stayed in jail until Sheriff Finch arrived, accompanied by the suspect’s brother. Finch allegedly spoke to both men about the incident before ordering that the charges be dropped and Parrish be released.
According to the JCFloridian, Finch allegedly told the deputy who’d arrested Parrish that he “believed in 2nd Amendment rights” and instructed jail staff to return his confiscated firearms.
But the Florida Department of Law Enforcement learned of the incident, which occurred in March, and obtained an arrest warrant for Finch. He was arrested and booked into the Liberty County jail last week before being released on his own recognizance. Gov. Scott has since suspended Finch and temporarily installed a regional agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as acting sheriff.
Finch’s arrest for exercising his judgment in protecting another citizen’s Constitutional freedom has drawn anger from both locals and 2nd Amendment advocates throughout the U.S.
One Liberty County man said Finch may have been a sitting duck among longtime power brokers in a good old boy network,“[s]ince he’s considered what people consider an outsider and not from Liberty County, that they finally railroaded him out. In my personal opinion he was doing his job and people didn’t like it.”
Though Finch has not commented on his arrest, his attorney has said it’s ridiculous to construe the sheriff’s actions as anything but proper defense of his constituents’ Constitutional rights.
“The records at the jail show exactly what happened in this case and the records speak the truth. The sheriff looked at the facts and said ‘I believe in the second amendment and we’re not going to charge him.’ That is not misconduct at all. That is within the Sheriff’s prerogative whether to charge someone or not,” said attorney Jimmy Judkins.
Dean Garrison of DC Clothesline agrees:
With so many Sheriff’s offices making strong pro-2nd Amendment stands in 2013 this is a situation that was bound to happen. The Sheriff had every right not to charge this man. The 2nd Amendment of the constitution should supercede any Florida law. “Shall Not Be Infringed” still means something to men like Nick.
The whole case will surely become about the documents. If Nick Finch destroyed the documents they will make an example of him for all of us to see. They have been waiting for this opportunity. This case will not be prosecuted to the extent that Nick Finch did not understand the 2nd Amendment. They will try to get him on a technicality.
Pro-2nd Amendment law enforcement officials all over the country need to take note. They are looking for any backdoor they can to try to shut you down. This story should be national news soon. My hope is that Finch did not destroy the documents and this case can be heard on its real merits.
Nick Finch was elected sheriff of Liberty, a county of only 8,400 people, in November of last year.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Obama's Hypocritical Quotes
1. Domestic Spying
"We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." (2008)
2. Guantanamo Bay
"We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years." (2008)
3. Patriot Act
"We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years." (2008)
4. Executive Power
"We reject sweeping claims of 'inherent' presidential power." (2008)
5. Surveillance Oversight
"We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans." (2008)
6. Habeas Corpus
"[W]e don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, but it’s Barack the guy running for president. So the reason that you have this principle [habeas corpus] is not to be soft on terrorism, it’s because that’s who we are. That’s what we’re protecting." (2008)
7. Staying True to Values
President Obama on the war on terror: “This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands. In America, we’ve faced down dangers far greater than Al Qaeda by staying true to our values.” (2013)
8. FOIA Requests
"The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails... In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public." (2009)
9. Tracking Citizens
"We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war." (2008)
10. Extraordinary Rendition
"We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law." (2008)
11. Executive Actions
"We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law." (2008)
12. Warrantless Wiretapping
"We will review the current Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program." (2008)
13. Restoring Constitutional Traditions
"[W]e’ve seen an Administration put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. The Democratic Party rejects this dichotomy. We will restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation’s founding commitment to liberty under law." (2008)
14. Unreasonable Search and Seizure
President Obama on the Patriot Act: "This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary.” (2005)
15. Washington Secrecy
"For a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes it is well-grounded in the Constitution." (2009)
16. Whistleblowers
In a statement about protecting whistleblowers: "Often the best source about waste, fraud and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism . . . should be encouraged rather than stifled." (2009)
17. On Presidential War Powers (See Libya)
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” (2007)
18. Openness and Transparency
"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government." (2009)
19. Don't Mock the Constitution (see photo at top of post)
"Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the Founding Fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over two-hundred years." (2008)
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Liberal Joke
The conservative pulls out a GPS device and tells him exactly where he is. “You must be a conservative,” the balloon man says.
The man on the ground asks how he knows that.
The reply: “Everything you’ve told me is technically correct, I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is, I’m still lost. Frankly, you haven’t been very much help so far.”
The conservative replies that the balloon guy must be a liberal.
The liberal balloon guy asks, "How does he know?"
“You don’t know where you’re going or where you’ve been, you’ve risen to where you are on hot air, and you made a promise that you have no idea how to keep. Now you expect me to solve your problems. The fact is, you’re in the same place you were before we met and now it’s my fault!”
– from Roger Ailes, Fox News President and Chairman, who just won the Bradley Prize.
Friday, June 14, 2013
BARACK OBAMA: The Ghost of Columbia University – By Wayne Allyn Root
BARACK OBAMA: The Ghost of Columbia University, an article by Columbia classmate of Obama, Wayne Allyn Root, and posted by Matt Liponoga on Free Patriot.org
From Wayne Allyn Root:
I just returned from New York, where I attended my 30th Columbia University reunion. I celebrated with my esteemed classmates. Everyone except Barack Obama. As usual- he wasn’t there. Not even a video greeting. Not a personalized letter to his classmates. Nothing. But worse, no one at our 30th reunion ever met him. The President of the United States is the ghost of Columbia University.
I’m certainly no “Johnny come lately.” For five years now (since 2007 when it became clear Barack Obama was running for President), I’ve been quoted in the media as saying that no one I’ve ever met at Columbia can remember ever meeting, or even seeing, our college classmate Barack Obama. Don’t you think the media should be asking questions? Isn’t this a very strange story?
I am a graduate of Columbia University, Class of 1983. That’s the same class Barack Obama claims to have graduated from. We shared the same exact major- Political Science. We were both Pre Law. It was a small class- about 700 students. The Political Science department was even smaller and closer-knit (maybe 150 students). I thought I knew, or met at least once, (or certainly saw in classes) every fellow Poly Sci classmate in my four years at Columbia.
But not Obama. No one ever met him. Even worse, no one even remembers seeing that unique memorable face. Think about this for a minute. Our classmate is President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone remember him? Or at least claim to remember him?
One of the speakers at the 30th reunion should have reminisced about “my days with the future President.” But no one did. You’d think Obama might have sent a video to tell us all how much he enjoyed his time at Columbia. You’d think he’d have sent at least a letter to be read aloud from one of his former college buddies. Right? But he didn’t. Because Obama has no former college buddies. No one that ever met Obama, let alone befriended him, was in attendence at our 30th class reunion.
Now you might argue this is all strange, but it’s possible. Afterall Columbia says he graduated. And I take my college’s word for it. Would one of the world’s greatest Ivy League institutions participate in a coverup, thereby risking their billion dollar reputation? And there is one single article written for the Columbia newspaper with Obama’s name on it. A single photo also exists of Obama in his Manhattan apartment with the man he claims was his college roommate- a Pakistani foreign student. And one single radical leftist Columbia professor who hates Israel also claims he remembers Obama.
That’s the sum total of Obama’s existence at Columbia University, Class of ’83.
So I asked every classmate I met at our 30th reunion, many of them Political Science majors, if they ever met, or saw, or heard of Obama. The answer was a resounding NO from every one of them. I asked if they found this strange, or worried how this was possible? They all answered YES. I asked if they thought it was possible to be a Political Science major and never meet a fellow major in our small classes? They all gave me a very strange look and answered NO. So I asked, “How could this be possible? Can you explain this?” No one had an answer.
Keep in mind these people I spoke to are all- to a man and woman- dedicated liberal Democrats who voted for Obama. I’m guessing 90% are major Democrat contributors. My Columbia classmates are the crème of the crop of American society. Lawyers, doctors, billionaire hedge fund members, stars of the media. They adore Obama. But they all admit they never met him in their four years at Columbia. I am proud of my classmates for their honesty and integrity.
One classmate told me he was present when one of the most honored professors in Columbia University history gave a speech to alumni a couple of years ago. The speech was followed by Q&A. This beloved professor was asked about Obama at Columbia. He said, “I have my doubts about the story.” The crowd was stunned. He immediately went onto the next question and never elaborated. So obviously I’m not the only one with doubts.
So here’s my take on this great mystery. I’ve never said Obama was not registered at Columbia. I’m sure he was. I’ve never said he didn’t graduate. If Columbia says he did, then I’m sure he did. But I’ve always said there is something wrong with the story. It’s rancid. It’s unbelievable. It’s impossible. It’s the story of a Manchurian candidate.
The question isn’t was he ever registered, or did he graduate. And it’s interesting that one photo, one professor, and one newspaper article exists- just enough to provide a thin cover. But the serious question the media should be asking is…What did Obama do for two full years in-between registration and graduation? Did he ever attend a class? Did he ever have a single friend other than a Pakistani national? Why is the only professor to ever come forward and claim he remembers him a radical leftist who hates Israel? What exactly was he doing when no one met him, saw him, or heard of him? Why are his college records sealed? What has he got to hide?
But my educated guess is he can’t, or won’t ever release those records. Because what we’d find would be shocking.
Now I know somewhere in America is an Obama defender that will accuse me of lying. But are all those classmates at our 30th reunion lying too? And if I wanted to lie, wouldn’t I better off saying I knew the future President well? If I wanted to malign the President, shouldn’t I be saying he was my close buddy and I witnessed all kinds of terrible things? But I can’t say that. Because I never witnessed anything. Neither did any of my classmates. We didn’t know him. Never met him. Never saw him. My story is simply the truth- and it’s the same consistent story I’ve told since 2007.
There is something wrong with Obama’s story- that much I know. He is either the ghost of Columbia, or the perfect Manchurian candidate. But something smells rotten at Columbia.
Visit Wayne Allyn Root's website
From Wayne Allyn Root:
I just returned from New York, where I attended my 30th Columbia University reunion. I celebrated with my esteemed classmates. Everyone except Barack Obama. As usual- he wasn’t there. Not even a video greeting. Not a personalized letter to his classmates. Nothing. But worse, no one at our 30th reunion ever met him. The President of the United States is the ghost of Columbia University.
I’m certainly no “Johnny come lately.” For five years now (since 2007 when it became clear Barack Obama was running for President), I’ve been quoted in the media as saying that no one I’ve ever met at Columbia can remember ever meeting, or even seeing, our college classmate Barack Obama. Don’t you think the media should be asking questions? Isn’t this a very strange story?
I am a graduate of Columbia University, Class of 1983. That’s the same class Barack Obama claims to have graduated from. We shared the same exact major- Political Science. We were both Pre Law. It was a small class- about 700 students. The Political Science department was even smaller and closer-knit (maybe 150 students). I thought I knew, or met at least once, (or certainly saw in classes) every fellow Poly Sci classmate in my four years at Columbia.
But not Obama. No one ever met him. Even worse, no one even remembers seeing that unique memorable face. Think about this for a minute. Our classmate is President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone remember him? Or at least claim to remember him?
One of the speakers at the 30th reunion should have reminisced about “my days with the future President.” But no one did. You’d think Obama might have sent a video to tell us all how much he enjoyed his time at Columbia. You’d think he’d have sent at least a letter to be read aloud from one of his former college buddies. Right? But he didn’t. Because Obama has no former college buddies. No one that ever met Obama, let alone befriended him, was in attendence at our 30th class reunion.
Now you might argue this is all strange, but it’s possible. Afterall Columbia says he graduated. And I take my college’s word for it. Would one of the world’s greatest Ivy League institutions participate in a coverup, thereby risking their billion dollar reputation? And there is one single article written for the Columbia newspaper with Obama’s name on it. A single photo also exists of Obama in his Manhattan apartment with the man he claims was his college roommate- a Pakistani foreign student. And one single radical leftist Columbia professor who hates Israel also claims he remembers Obama.
That’s the sum total of Obama’s existence at Columbia University, Class of ’83.
So I asked every classmate I met at our 30th reunion, many of them Political Science majors, if they ever met, or saw, or heard of Obama. The answer was a resounding NO from every one of them. I asked if they found this strange, or worried how this was possible? They all answered YES. I asked if they thought it was possible to be a Political Science major and never meet a fellow major in our small classes? They all gave me a very strange look and answered NO. So I asked, “How could this be possible? Can you explain this?” No one had an answer.
Keep in mind these people I spoke to are all- to a man and woman- dedicated liberal Democrats who voted for Obama. I’m guessing 90% are major Democrat contributors. My Columbia classmates are the crème of the crop of American society. Lawyers, doctors, billionaire hedge fund members, stars of the media. They adore Obama. But they all admit they never met him in their four years at Columbia. I am proud of my classmates for their honesty and integrity.
One classmate told me he was present when one of the most honored professors in Columbia University history gave a speech to alumni a couple of years ago. The speech was followed by Q&A. This beloved professor was asked about Obama at Columbia. He said, “I have my doubts about the story.” The crowd was stunned. He immediately went onto the next question and never elaborated. So obviously I’m not the only one with doubts.
So here’s my take on this great mystery. I’ve never said Obama was not registered at Columbia. I’m sure he was. I’ve never said he didn’t graduate. If Columbia says he did, then I’m sure he did. But I’ve always said there is something wrong with the story. It’s rancid. It’s unbelievable. It’s impossible. It’s the story of a Manchurian candidate.
The question isn’t was he ever registered, or did he graduate. And it’s interesting that one photo, one professor, and one newspaper article exists- just enough to provide a thin cover. But the serious question the media should be asking is…What did Obama do for two full years in-between registration and graduation? Did he ever attend a class? Did he ever have a single friend other than a Pakistani national? Why is the only professor to ever come forward and claim he remembers him a radical leftist who hates Israel? What exactly was he doing when no one met him, saw him, or heard of him? Why are his college records sealed? What has he got to hide?
But my educated guess is he can’t, or won’t ever release those records. Because what we’d find would be shocking.
Now I know somewhere in America is an Obama defender that will accuse me of lying. But are all those classmates at our 30th reunion lying too? And if I wanted to lie, wouldn’t I better off saying I knew the future President well? If I wanted to malign the President, shouldn’t I be saying he was my close buddy and I witnessed all kinds of terrible things? But I can’t say that. Because I never witnessed anything. Neither did any of my classmates. We didn’t know him. Never met him. Never saw him. My story is simply the truth- and it’s the same consistent story I’ve told since 2007.
There is something wrong with Obama’s story- that much I know. He is either the ghost of Columbia, or the perfect Manchurian candidate. But something smells rotten at Columbia.
Visit Wayne Allyn Root's website
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Govermental Eavesdropping and Collecting Phone Records
I still haven't arranged all the facts and reports to come to a conclusion on the NSA phone and e-mail collections. From a plain liberty point of view I am troubled by it. But Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has an opinion.
From Rand Paul: "The National Security Agency's seizure and surveillance of virtually all of Verizon's phone customers is an astounding assault on the Constitution. After revelations that the IRS targeted political dissidents and the Department of Justice seized reporters' phone records, it would appear that this Administration has now sunk to a new low."
"When Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and I offered an amendment that would attach Fourth Amendment protections to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill last year, it was defeated."
"And FISA passed by an overwhelming majority of the Senate. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid remarked that FISA was "necessary to protect us from the evil in this world."
"The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from evil, too, particularly that which always correlates with concentrated government power, and particularly Executive power. If the President and Congress would obey the Fourth Amendment we all swore to uphold, this new shocking revelation that the government is now spying on citizens' phone data en masse would never have happened."
I (Rand Paul R-KY) put together a video last fall to explain that exact point.
From Rand Paul: "The National Security Agency's seizure and surveillance of virtually all of Verizon's phone customers is an astounding assault on the Constitution. After revelations that the IRS targeted political dissidents and the Department of Justice seized reporters' phone records, it would appear that this Administration has now sunk to a new low."
"When Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and I offered an amendment that would attach Fourth Amendment protections to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill last year, it was defeated."
"And FISA passed by an overwhelming majority of the Senate. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid remarked that FISA was "necessary to protect us from the evil in this world."
"The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from evil, too, particularly that which always correlates with concentrated government power, and particularly Executive power. If the President and Congress would obey the Fourth Amendment we all swore to uphold, this new shocking revelation that the government is now spying on citizens' phone data en masse would never have happened."
I (Rand Paul R-KY) put together a video last fall to explain that exact point.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
What Planet Is This Democrat Woman From?
You gotta give Mychal Massie credit for his extremely well written, and descriptive rants on idiots and liberals,...there I go again being redundant,....anyway, here's Mychal Massie on Daily Rant, Politics
I once said of Maureen Dowd, “Flatulence generally refers to gases generated in the intestines or stomach and expulsed through that end of the posterior that graces a saddle. Unless you are Maureen Dowd … then said gases are expulsed through the pen (or mouth – you choose) and are no less a poisonous, asphyxiating irritant to the atmosphere.” I said it because of the crude remarks she made in reference to Justice Clarence Thomas.
I find now that this observation is also applicable to another liberal, lunatic, hate-monger — State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans). Additionally, in the case of this woman I might suggest the name of a good proctologist to assist her with her lordotic posture. Because her head being buried where it is, must be the reason she walks hunched over. It’s either that or she is bent over under the weight of the contempt she has for whites.
Just when I thought that Frau Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Nancy Pelosi were as contemptible as it got for liberal Democrat women, Peterson slithers out of the Democrat
Jeff Crouere writing for the BayouBuzz.com said: “Last Tuesday, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) hurled a verbal stink bomb at her Senate colleagues. On the State Senate floor, she made the reckless claim that several of her Senate colleagues were voting against the expansion of Medicaid in Louisiana because of ‘the race of this African American president.’”
Specifically she said: “It isn’t about the administration, and it should not be about the administration of the state nor federal level when it comes to Obamacare. But in fact it is. And why is that? I have talked to so many members in the House and Senate and you know what it comes down to? Are you ready for this? It is not about how many federal dollars we can receive. You ready? You want to know what it’s about? It’s about race. Now nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president. … It comes down to the race of the president of the U.S. which causes people to disconnect and step away from the substance of the bill.”
It is difficult to imagine a person from this planet saying something any more ridiculous even if they are a Democrat. Perhaps she should have an Estradiol test done or consider asking her doctor for fluoxetine. Her comments were offensive, absolutely racist, and morally opprobrious, but obviously not out of character for her.
But there is a bright side to her attempt to use race to bully her colleagues into supporting Obamacare. Crouere further reported, “After Peterson’s incendiary remarks, a prominent Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory switched his party affiliation to the GOP. Guillory becomes the first African American Republican State Senator in Louisiana since Reconstruction. Guillory called Louisiana Democrats the ‘party of disappointment.’ According to Guillory, Carter Peterson’s comments ‘certainly helped push me over the edge….it just showed me just how far out of tune I was, I am, with the Democrat Party.’”
Guillory may become just another Republican In Name Only (RINO), but at least he had the decency and willingness to express his consternation with more than silence and/or support for Peterson’s hateful screed.
Regardless at this point of what his voting record becomes, I tip my hat for his doing the right thing. I have repeatedly said we must be willing to do the right thing regardless of the names we are called. Peterson is a cancer on the fabric of civility, and it is time that the adults in the room start to act like responsible
It is one thing to disagree with a person’s viewpoint, but it is beyond contempt to voice it by using racial demagoguery as a bludgeon. Guillory sends a message to black children who are tempted to buckle under the weight of peer pressure to use racial epithets.
I do not believe Guillory is the only black political figure who feels as he does. But he is one of a very small handful to take the steps he did in expressing it.
One final thought. Those inclined to support and/or agree with Peterson might ask themselves what it was when we defeated Hillary’s healthcare proposal. Was that racism? Then again, to Peterson it probably was. In the twisted world of her mind, she would probably agree that it was racist white people who caused Hillarycare to fail in order to prevent blacks from getting healthcare.
It’s disgusting but true — in the absence of any ability to engage in reasonable debate people like Peterson use race as a fall-back argument. Even more egregious is that I doubt Peterson feels any shame for her hateful and punitive screed, and once the fingers of other liberal Democrats dry from checking which way the political wind is blowing they will join her in denouncing Guillory as a sellout and Uncle Tom.
I once said of Maureen Dowd, “Flatulence generally refers to gases generated in the intestines or stomach and expulsed through that end of the posterior that graces a saddle. Unless you are Maureen Dowd … then said gases are expulsed through the pen (or mouth – you choose) and are no less a poisonous, asphyxiating irritant to the atmosphere.” I said it because of the crude remarks she made in reference to Justice Clarence Thomas.
I find now that this observation is also applicable to another liberal, lunatic, hate-monger — State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans). Additionally, in the case of this woman I might suggest the name of a good proctologist to assist her with her lordotic posture. Because her head being buried where it is, must be the reason she walks hunched over. It’s either that or she is bent over under the weight of the contempt she has for whites.
Just when I thought that Frau Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Nancy Pelosi were as contemptible as it got for liberal Democrat women, Peterson slithers out of the Democrat
Jeff Crouere writing for the BayouBuzz.com said: “Last Tuesday, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) hurled a verbal stink bomb at her Senate colleagues. On the State Senate floor, she made the reckless claim that several of her Senate colleagues were voting against the expansion of Medicaid in Louisiana because of ‘the race of this African American president.’”
Specifically she said: “It isn’t about the administration, and it should not be about the administration of the state nor federal level when it comes to Obamacare. But in fact it is. And why is that? I have talked to so many members in the House and Senate and you know what it comes down to? Are you ready for this? It is not about how many federal dollars we can receive. You ready? You want to know what it’s about? It’s about race. Now nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president. … It comes down to the race of the president of the U.S. which causes people to disconnect and step away from the substance of the bill.”
It is difficult to imagine a person from this planet saying something any more ridiculous even if they are a Democrat. Perhaps she should have an Estradiol test done or consider asking her doctor for fluoxetine. Her comments were offensive, absolutely racist, and morally opprobrious, but obviously not out of character for her.
But there is a bright side to her attempt to use race to bully her colleagues into supporting Obamacare. Crouere further reported, “After Peterson’s incendiary remarks, a prominent Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory switched his party affiliation to the GOP. Guillory becomes the first African American Republican State Senator in Louisiana since Reconstruction. Guillory called Louisiana Democrats the ‘party of disappointment.’ According to Guillory, Carter Peterson’s comments ‘certainly helped push me over the edge….it just showed me just how far out of tune I was, I am, with the Democrat Party.’”
Guillory may become just another Republican In Name Only (RINO), but at least he had the decency and willingness to express his consternation with more than silence and/or support for Peterson’s hateful screed.
Regardless at this point of what his voting record becomes, I tip my hat for his doing the right thing. I have repeatedly said we must be willing to do the right thing regardless of the names we are called. Peterson is a cancer on the fabric of civility, and it is time that the adults in the room start to act like responsible
It is one thing to disagree with a person’s viewpoint, but it is beyond contempt to voice it by using racial demagoguery as a bludgeon. Guillory sends a message to black children who are tempted to buckle under the weight of peer pressure to use racial epithets.
I do not believe Guillory is the only black political figure who feels as he does. But he is one of a very small handful to take the steps he did in expressing it.
One final thought. Those inclined to support and/or agree with Peterson might ask themselves what it was when we defeated Hillary’s healthcare proposal. Was that racism? Then again, to Peterson it probably was. In the twisted world of her mind, she would probably agree that it was racist white people who caused Hillarycare to fail in order to prevent blacks from getting healthcare.
It’s disgusting but true — in the absence of any ability to engage in reasonable debate people like Peterson use race as a fall-back argument. Even more egregious is that I doubt Peterson feels any shame for her hateful and punitive screed, and once the fingers of other liberal Democrats dry from checking which way the political wind is blowing they will join her in denouncing Guillory as a sellout and Uncle Tom.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Wish He Was Our POTUS
In this segment of his Virtual State of the Union, the Virtual President (Bill Whittle) talks about why politicians want to talk about gun control rather than crime control, and delivers the factual evidence and historical truths that make the case for the Second Amendment self-evident.
The common sense approach to issues by Bill Whittle often results in people exclaiming "Wish He was our President!"
The common sense approach to issues by Bill Whittle often results in people exclaiming "Wish He was our President!"
Sunday, June 9, 2013
E.W. Jackson, Republican Candidate for Lt Govenor in Virginia
Jackson is the founder and current president of S.T.A.N.D. (Staying True To America's National Destiny), a conservative non-profit organization that describes itself as "a national organization dedicated to preserving life, the traditional family and our Judeo-Christian history and values as the Foundation of our Constitution and culture." He is head pastor at Exodus Faith Ministries, located in Chesapeake, Virginia. Jackson has appeared as a commentator on national news networks such as C-SPAN, Fox News and MSNBC.
Jackson was born on January 13, 1952 in Chester, Pennsylvania, the great-grandson of slaves from Orange County, Virginia. His parents separated when he was a child, and he spent most of his childhood in a foster home.
He eventually joined the United States Marine Corps, serving for three years. Following the Marines, he entered the University of Massachusetts Boston and received his degree in three years. In 1978, he earned a law degree from Harvard Law School and practiced law in the Boston area for 15 years. Jackson studied theology at the Harvard Divinity School, and became a preacher with the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Boston.
Jackson taught administrative law at Northeastern University.[5] While in Boston, he appeared on several radio shows on WHDH, and hosted a nationally syndicated talk show, Earl Jackson Across America.
In 1996, he joined with the Christian Coalition to head "The Samaritan Project," an outreach program that distributed $500,000 to churches that were victims of arson. He served as a minister with the chapel of the Boston Red Sox for five years, and also served as the protestant chaplain for the Boston Fire Department.
In June 1998, Jackson was consecrated a bishop. Later that year, he and his family moved to Chesapeake, Virginia, and founded Exodus Faith Ministries. He taught commercial law at Strayer University's campuses in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.
On July 4, 2010, Jackson established Staying True to America's National Destiny (STAND) as a grassroots political organization with conservative stances on issues such as abortion, marriage, and government. In the same month, he made headlines for his views condemning the New Black Panther Party in regard to alleged voter intimidation.
Raised a Democrat, his Christianity led him to embrace conservatism. In 2012, he generated national attention with a recorded video appeal to blacks to leave the Democratic Party, saying it has abandoned the values of the black community and that blacks had developed a "slavish devotion" to the party. He has spoken in black churches across the country on the issues facing the country and says he has received overwhelmingly positive responses. In an October 2012 op-ed in The Washington Times, Jackson wrote that Democrats have "an agenda worthy of the Antichrist."
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: All you have to do is look at Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and you can envision the Anti-Christ reference.
Jackson announced his candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia on December 1, 2012 at the Republican Party of Virginia Advance in Virginia Beach, Virginia. On January 10, 2013, Jackson released his "Engage and Reform Agenda" which the campaign called "commonsense reforms [that] reassert the principles of our Constitution and Let Liberty Light the Way for Virginia."
On May 18, 2013, Jackson was nominated as the Republican Party candidate for the position, at the party convention in Richmond. The nomination process took four ballots and ten hours of voting. Jackson led in each round of balloting, reaching a majority on the final ballot. Jackson had raised the least money of the seven candidates for the Republican nomination. The Richmond Times-Dispatch called his victory a "stunning upset" over the other candidates. Jackson is the first non-white to be nominated to a statewide office by Virginia Republicans since 1988.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
California Senate Passes Seven Anti-Gun Bills
California is the latest state to violate the Constitution. This latest effort should increase the rate of Americans leaving California a great deal.
California Legislature Prepares To Track Ammo Buyers With Forced Background Checks is a story by Ben Bullard posted on PersonalLiberty.com
The California State Senate passed seven gun-control bills Wednesday, tightening the leash on gun owners in a State already entrenched in an ongoing, liberal-led subversion of its residents’ 2nd Amendment powers.
The bills aren’t yet law, since their Senate approval now moves them before the State Assembly. But if they do become law under Governor Jerry Brown, owning firearms in California will almost inevitably become a burden instead of a Constitutionally protected right.
Probably the most outrageous aspect of the new gun grab is SB 53, a bill that will require background checks (and, of course, a registry that tracks who passes and who fails) in order to issue permits to gun owners who plan to buy ammunition. Oh, and they’ll pay $50 to the State.
But the ammo-control bill is just the ugliest of the California gun grab’s many faces:
■ SB 567 will change the definition of certain types of shotgun so that they can be classified as “assault weapons.”
■ SB 374 will ban detachable rifle magazines.
■ SB 396 makes it a crime to own or sell magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
■ SB 755 will ban former alcoholics and drug addicts from owning a gun — for 10 years.
For a rundown of all the bills the California Senate passed Wednesday, visit the Sacramento Bee’s summary page. For context on how the various bills will affect California gun owners, read the breakdown on guns.com.
At first glance, about the only defensible piece of legislation that made it through the Senate is a bill requiring all first-time gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a certificate demonstrating they’ve passed the course. Then again, a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment’s provision that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” would seem to exclude it.
But nuances like that matter little in the face of such a multifaceted attack on gun owners. As far gone as the California gun grab is, no one’s preoccupied with the least offensive bill among a glut of stinkers.
California Legislature Prepares To Track Ammo Buyers With Forced Background Checks is a story by Ben Bullard posted on PersonalLiberty.com
The California State Senate passed seven gun-control bills Wednesday, tightening the leash on gun owners in a State already entrenched in an ongoing, liberal-led subversion of its residents’ 2nd Amendment powers.
The bills aren’t yet law, since their Senate approval now moves them before the State Assembly. But if they do become law under Governor Jerry Brown, owning firearms in California will almost inevitably become a burden instead of a Constitutionally protected right.
Probably the most outrageous aspect of the new gun grab is SB 53, a bill that will require background checks (and, of course, a registry that tracks who passes and who fails) in order to issue permits to gun owners who plan to buy ammunition. Oh, and they’ll pay $50 to the State.
But the ammo-control bill is just the ugliest of the California gun grab’s many faces:
■ SB 567 will change the definition of certain types of shotgun so that they can be classified as “assault weapons.”
■ SB 374 will ban detachable rifle magazines.
■ SB 396 makes it a crime to own or sell magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
■ SB 755 will ban former alcoholics and drug addicts from owning a gun — for 10 years.
For a rundown of all the bills the California Senate passed Wednesday, visit the Sacramento Bee’s summary page. For context on how the various bills will affect California gun owners, read the breakdown on guns.com.
At first glance, about the only defensible piece of legislation that made it through the Senate is a bill requiring all first-time gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a certificate demonstrating they’ve passed the course. Then again, a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment’s provision that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” would seem to exclude it.
But nuances like that matter little in the face of such a multifaceted attack on gun owners. As far gone as the California gun grab is, no one’s preoccupied with the least offensive bill among a glut of stinkers.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Major Ass Clowns
These recent quotes came out on Inspire - the publication of Islamic Terrorists:
Richard A. Falk (aka the Focker), UN Special Rapporteur (on Press TV): "There is a lot of anger at the way the United States uses its power in the world, and that those to whom evil is done do evil in return. And that is important for the people of United States to use this occasion to examine themselves, what I call self scrutiny, to look at what we are doing to others in order to find a way toward a more secured and humane world."
Abdurra Zaq Aljamal "Al Butt Clown", Yemeni journalist - Expert in AQAP Affairs (on twitter): "America violates sovereignty of nations. They carry out Extrajudicial killings. Above that, they exploit children in their lowly intelligence services. Then people talk about America as a state of law. America recruits children below the age of ten. They did this in the targeting of Sheikh Adnan Al-Qadhy."
Noam "Chumpsky" Chomsky, American historian and activist (on Alternet): "The Boston Bombings gave americans a taste of the terrorism the US inflicts abroad every day. . . It's rare for privileged Westerners to see, graphically, what many others experience daily."
James R. ("STD") Clapper, Did this guy just eat a lemon or what? Director of National Intelligence (on Worldwide Threat Assessment): "Attacks on US soil will remain part of AQAP’s transnational strategy; the group continues to adjust its tactics, techniques and procedures for targeting the West. Al-Qa’ida-inspired HVEs will be motivated to engage in violent action by global jihadist propaganda, including English-language material, such as AQAP’s Inspire magazine; events in the United States or abroad perceived as threatening to Muslims; the perceived success of other HVE plots, such as the November 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Texas, and the March 2012 attacks by an al-Qa’ida-inspired extremist in Toulouse, France."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)