In terms of…we have a new poll out in NBC news and it shows some pretty bad numbers about 51 percent (bad numbers for the president) 51 percent would rather have the Republicans run Congress to act as a check on Obama’s policies. Why do you think a majority of the country would want the other Party to take over to be a check on Obama’s policies? –NBCNews Reporter, White house press corps
Leaving aside his smartass persona for a brief moment press secretary Robert Gibbs attempted to explain why a recent Washington Post poll indicates that a majority of Americans would trust Republicans in Congress to offset president Barry Hussein Soetoro’s policies. (see 6:07min video)
Gibbs somewhat disjointed in his response, used PowerPoint and charts to explain what he says is the American’s people frustration with the economy.
Ahh…No Mr. Gibbs you just don’t get it, do you? While the American people are frustrated with the Soetoro administration’s failed fiscal policies that is not what is stuck in our craw! (see article)
What the American people are most upset about is the president’s Radical Liberal Socialist Progressive agenda stupid!
You know Mr. Gibbs, the agenda that you, the president and Democrats call hope and change.
However what the American people discovered was, what president Soetoro was calling hope and change was really the president hoping that he could change the way we believe as Americans about the Constitution, Religion , Homosexuality, American prosperity, the rule of law, Immigration, entitlements, the founding fathers and a host of fundamental American beliefs.
But the resounding answer back to the Soetoro administration is, we’ve seen your hope and change and no thank you—you radical Liberal Socialists Progressive pigs!
Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy. —James Delingpole
President Barry Hussein Soetoro claims that America is going in the right direction when it comes to his vision of a new green economy.
So let me ask this simple question. If I could show you how to make $1,000 extra dollars a week, only one small thing, it would it cost you $2,200 dollars every time you made a $1,000. Would you consider that a good deal? No if you’re smart, you wouldn’t.
Yet this is the deal what the president of the United States of America is offering America with his Green jobs economy. The president Soetoro has claimed that Spain is the paradigm in creating good green jobs. It is in the direction of Spain that he plans to take America. But according to a recent Spanish report on green jobs and renewable energy their tax payer subsidized green jobs efforts are unsustainable (see report)
[A] Spanish study concluding that for every green job created in Spain resulted in the loss of 2.2 other jobs.— Doris de Guzman
It is common knowledge that the green economy is a bust. (see article)
Here is president Soetoro touting Spain as the model for good green job creation. (see 1:40mins video)
The study finds that only one in 10 renewable energy jobs created in Spain were of a permanent nature. Two-thirds consisted of temporary jobs in construction, fabrication and installation jobs; one quarter were positions in administration, marketing and projects engineering; and only one of ten was related to more permanent operations and maintenance of renewable power systems.-- Doris de Guzman
Furthermore, British reporter James Delingpole reports Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy.(see article)
The study calculated that, since 2000, Spain spent $774,000 to create each "green job", including subsidies of more than $1.3 million per wind industry job. It found that creating those jobs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every "green job" created. Jobs lost were mostly in the fields of metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco.
"The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices," Calzada said in an interview with Bloomberg News. –Doris de Guzman
Mr. Delingpole also alerts us to the fact that president Obama knows that his green jobs initiative is a fraud. When two reports came out, the Spanish one just mentioned and a Denmark report citing the inefficiency of wind farms, both totally repudiating Soetoro claims for green jobs--the Obama administration recruited left-wing lobbyists to attack both reports.
After two studies refuted President Barack Obama’s assertions regarding the success of Spain’s and Denmark’s wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.—James Delingpole
According to Delingpole, Via the Freedom of Information Act or the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy — specifically the office headed by Al Gore’s company’s former CEO, Cathy Zoi — turned to George Soros’ Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama’s wind energy proposals.
Yet Soetoro sells his go green initiative and good green jobs as beneficial to the American people and the American worker. Wrong! Good green jobs are meant to benefit Corporations like BP and big money interest like George Soros. In addition to that, Soetoro persists on selling good green jobs to an unwary but increasingly skeptical American public. (see 2:26mins video)
President Soetoro’s energy plan is a job killing fraud and he knows it. And it is becoming increasingly evident that he doesn’t care that we know that it’s fraudulent. Or does he think the American people that stupid?
November will show just how stupid the American people are mr. president! I’m hoping that we are smart enough to throw Democrats out of office for their gross incompetence from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to a green energy jobs creation initiative that will destroy 2.2 jobs for every 1 job created.
"I've got lots of things I want to do" [in a lame duck] --Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.)
“If I can’t have you then nobody can!”
Those are the words of a crazed obsessed murderous rejected lover with crimson knife in hand standing over the bludgeoned body of a wife who rejected him and was going to file for divorce. He’d been abusing her for years and she finally summoned the courage to protect her and her children from this psychopathic monster.
Likewise fearing that the American people have had enough and will abandon them in November 2010 Democrats are planning to get their last stabs in on the American people before the people can file for divorce.
What are the partisan legislative slabs that Democrats plan to bludgeon the American people? I’m glad you asked, they are: Cap and Trade, Card-check—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections, Federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, Deficit commission recommendations, New taxes, Ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, Budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending and of course more pork sending.
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again." He told Mr. Press "we're still trying to maneuver" a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.—John Fund
What I am talking about is Democrats plans to use the anticipated upcoming lame duck session to traumatize the American people with more unpopular partisan legislation. These plans are in the works as partisan Democrats begin to plan their fates. This tact is now made possible because the legislators who will be voting for these highly damaging bills have either retired or polls indicate that there is no way that they will be returned to Congress. Therefore, these rejected Democrats feel they have nothing to fear from the American electorate any longer. (see article)
The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That's why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.—John Fund
So in the most anti-American “in your face” one finger jester that Democrats can muster they are going to muscle through as much of their agenda as possible while they lock down the measures which they’ve already passed before America can send them packing.
These unconscionable acts fit only for saboteurs and traitors place ideology and partisanship above the welfare of country.
To which I say if Democrats really want a bloodbath this November now that the American people are warned, the people should grant them their wishes. Any Democrat running for office this November in local, State or National elections should bear the consequences of their psychopathic Congressional Democrat leadership.
If Democrats feel that they are going to go out while destroying democracy on their ways to the exit doors the American people should rid their government of as many of these psychopaths and possible.
Moreover, if Democrats proceed with their plans to muscle through more of their partisan agenda before they leave, then let the voters send so many Democrats out this November that no other party would think of lifting a contemptuous middle finger at the American people because the people had enough and voted the scoundrels out!
Kagan being welcomed to the “Old Boys” club by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), right, and his colleagues Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), second from right, and Sen. Jeff Session (R-Ala.), back left, as she enters the hearing room.
Senator Coburn, I -- I said in my opening statement that I was only going to make a single pledge, and that was the pledge that I made in my opening statement, but I'll meet you another. I'll re- read the Federalist Papers.—Elena Kagan
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)
Yeah re-read the Federalist papers because you clearly don’t understand the basis of U.S. jurisprudence Ms. Kagan. You may also consider some of our other fine Founding Documents Ms. Kagan.
It is the birth certificate of our Nation, The Declaration of Independence. In it are the reasons, beliefs and justifications, which guided the men who gave birth to the idea that became the United States of America.
By It’s principles the Founding Fathers wrote the United States Constitution. They wrote the constitution in hopes that Americans never be subjugated to Oligarchies, Depots or Tyrants ever again. That, I think, is a very important thing to know if you are vying to be a part of the leadership of this country.
One would think that someone who is interviewing for a position on the United States Supreme Court would know the tenants of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. One would also think that a Supreme court nominee would be knowledgeable about the body of work that made both the Declaration and Constitution possible.
Equally, one would think that a Dean of a Law school would have a better understanding of the fundamental principles that gave raise to both of these sentinels of American law. So it was surprising to see Elena Kagan demonstrate ignorance of the historical record of our country’s jurisprudence.
Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I --I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution, and my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and other laws of the United States.—Elena Kagan
If Ms. Kagan doesn’t have a view of what natural rights are and if she isn’t readily familiar with the Federalist papers she has closed herself off from the vision of what American jurisprudence is meant to be. That is what Sen. Tom Coburn was able to demonstrate with his line of questioning. (see 1:56mins video)
Ms. Kagan’s indicated to Sen. Coburn that her view of judging is an inbred insular approach from which she has no appreciation for original intent. Instead she seems comfortable relying on current decisions which could or could not be in keeping with the Founders view of constitutional law depending on whether judges believe that their own interpretations are more current and therefore superior to original intent. Here is an example of that in an exchange between Sen. Coburn and Ms. Kagan:
COBURN:
I -- I would want you to always act on the basis of a belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.
KAGAN:
I -- I think you should want me to act on the basis of law, and -- and that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be concerned -- to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of haw, which is the Constitutions and the statutes of the United States.
COBURN:
Going back to the Second Amendment, what we know with the two most recent cases is that they didn't necessarily take away the precedent in the Miller, does it?
KAGAN:
I'm sorry?
COBURN:
They don't necessarily take away the precedent of Miller.
KAGAN:
As -- as I've not read McDonald yet, because of these hearings, but if I understand Heller correctly, Heller -- Heller did not find it necessary to reverse Miller.
COBURN:
Right.
KAGAN:
Heller distinguished Miller, involving a different kind of weapon. (see source)
As you can see Ms. Kagan’s, “can’t see the forest for the trees” approach to judging would allow for changing the original intent of the constitution by basing her decisions on judicial decisions without an understanding of what the overall effect of her decisions would make on the country. We all know that there are activist judges.
And if law begins to change because a judge feels it’s time for a sea change in society and another judge, such as Kagan, cites that judgment as precedence to support a newer decision one can see how Ms. Kagan’s method of judging would begin taking law down a slippery slope away from the constitution. This approach is judging based on current popular opinion of the law rather than judging based upon what the intent of the law really is. That is why Kagan should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
For instance Massachusetts Federal Judge Joseph Tauro just legislated from the bench by striking down federal law, DOMA. Homosexuals are already calling for California Judge Vaughn Walker to use this ruling as a means to change the California Constitution in a case that is pending his ruling. California’s Constitution was amendment to defines marriage as it has always been define in California and throughout the annuals of human history and human law.
If the Judge rules against the people of California he wouldn’t be able to do it on precedence. He’ll have to use fiat rulings like to one in Massachusetts impose a similar oligarchical decision on the people of California.
That is why Sen. Coburn was questioning Ms. Kagan along these lines of natural law. If a person like Kagan is confirmed she would undoubtedly, as supported by her testimony before the judicial committee, be in favor of this type judicial legislating from the bench.
If Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is looking for a little more ammunition in order to shoot down Proposition 8, one of his Massachusetts colleagues just gave him some.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Thursday that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Equal Protection Clause. Congress passed DOMA in 1996, defining marriage as a heterosexual union for purposes of a host of federal benefits and classifications.--Dan Levine (see source)
Knowing this why would any Republican vote to confirm Kagan? Well we know that so far, nine republicans won’t vote to confirm her, and they are; Mike Johanns(Neb), Johnny Isakson (Ga), John McCain (Az), Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jim DeMint (S.C.), James M. Inhofe (Okla).
So what of the other 32 Republican Senators which of them will vote for Kagan? (see graph)
Whoever that Republican is we will know that that person has no understanding of the Progressive agenda. If that person understood the Progressive agenda but voted to confirm Kagan anyway that person hates the constitution as much as president Soetoro and Ms. Kagan does.
Below is 20 minutes plus of Sen. Coburn and Ms. Kagan exchange. (see 20:51min video)
Ms. Kagan made it evident that her knowledge of the foundations of American jurisprudence is quite limited which spurred the request from Sen. Coburn for Ms. Kagan to re-read the Federalist papers.
It's my appeal for you to go back and look at the Federalist Papers and what are -- I -- I thought they had tremendous wisdom.
They weren't -- they didn't get it all right, but they sure got a lot of it right, and the proof's in the pudding of where we are today.—Sen. Tom Coburn
Which lead to Ms. Kagan to break a self imposed pledge of only making a single pledge for the hearings. Ms. Kagan amended her pledge to included that she would re-read the Federalist papers. Good for her! I hope she includes the Declaration and the Constitution as well.
Senator Coburn, I -- I said in my opening statement that I was only going to make a single pledge, and that was the pledge that I made in my opening statement, but I'll meet you another. I'll re- read the Federalist Papers.—Elena Kagan
Republicans should let Democrats confirm their partisan nominee. And equally let’s hope Ms. Kagan learns something about the law and judging according to the Constitution.
King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson,The New Black Panthers
“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”
“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.” —King Samir Shabazz, The New Black Panthers
Should White People be concerned about the Obama administration?
If you never read Barry Hussein Soetoro’s book, Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance you wouldn’t know that president Soetoro harbors racial attitudes that were held by radical Blacks of the 1960’s. Attitudes of hate against “Whitey” that was prevalent in the most radical of Black power groups.
Following are excerpts of Soetoro’s book in addition to his views on race over the years. (see 9:53mins video)
If you were paying just a little attention you would have recognized that something was amiss a year ago this month when Soetoro said a White Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley who arrested a Black professor and friend of Soetoro, Louis Gates, Jr., acted stupidly. What was interesting was Soetoro not knowing the facts reacted in a knee jerk anti- White man manner after hearing of the arrest of his college professor friend.
In addition to the just mentioned, America was dressed down by Soetoro’s Attorney General Eric Holder who accused us all of being a nation of cowards regarding discussing race. (see 4:06mins video)
Eric Holder’s office has pulled that plug on the most egregious act of voter intimidation in recent memory. Black Panthers on election day November 2008 stood in front of voter polls and verbally intimidated and verbally assaulted white people while holding a nightstick. Staff attorneys in the AG office had already gotten a summary judgment against New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson.
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms. --Jerry Seper
Because of the DOJ dismissal of the case against the New Black Panthers, the attorney working the case, J. Christian Adams resigned from the AG’s office to protest the sheer racial politicizing of a case involving Black on White voter intimidation in 2008. (see article)
J. Christian Adams said he resigned last month because of the Justice Department's decision to not pursue its case. (see article) and (here)
Mr. Adams resigned because of the double standard of the Soetoro administration. There was evidence of hate speech from at least one of the defendants, King Samir Shabazz. But instead of allowing, the case to go forward the Eric Holder justice department quashed the case.
Shabazz was the defendant that wielded the nightstick in front of a Philadelphia polling place. First, look at Mr. Shabazz intimidating at the polls November 2008(see 1:21min. video)
And then more background on King Samir Shabazz. Mr. Shabazz is a self-proclaimed racist who hates White people and wants to kill White babies.
“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”
“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.” —King Samir Shabazz, The New Black Panthers (see 10:14min video)
Eric Holder and Barry Hussein Soetoro dropped the case against the New Black Panthers instead of prosecuting them for voter intimidation on election day November 2008. At the very least, the Panthers should have been tried for hate speech and the voter intimidation, for violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Why was the case against King Samir Shabazz and the New Black Panthers dropped, when DOJ had sufficient evidence to take him and the New Black panthers to trial? Does the president hate White people too? Is the president a closet Black Panther? Or is he just sympathetic to their cause?
Eric Holder and Barry Hussein Soetoro must answer these questions. Should White citizens of the United States fear the Barry Hussein administration?
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
The date, July 1, 2010 just three days prior to the nation’s 234 birthday, in 4,110 words and in 34 minutes 48 seconds president Barry Hussein Soetoro told the American people that it is his intention to give 40 million illegal Mexican Citizens in this country amnesty. That is his wish in spite of the continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy of illegally entering this country by the Country and people of Mexico.
Shockingly the president of the United States of America is willing to aid and abet this conspiracy as is United States Federal Government. President Soetoro’s complicitous act essentially, would make Mexicans dual citizens of both countries able to vote in both the United States’ and in Mexico’s elections.
The ramifications of such dual citizenship on the sovereignty of the United States are worst than the real and permanent ecological damage from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a spill that president Soetoro has been unable to stop. Moreover, the ramifications of creating such a special class of people is worst than any of the false cataclysmic scenarios that the debunked theory of carbon dioxide induced Global warming (which was supposed to unleash devastation upon the world) a debunked theory, which president Soetoro still promotes.
Soetoro began his pre anti-Independence Day speech by mixing both the concepts, of legally immigrating to this country, with illegally entering this country. These concepts are clearly not the same but there he stood weaving them together as if no one would notice and like he doesn’t care whether Americans did or didn’t notice.
Interestingly, by about three-fourths into his speech, the whole illusion imploded onto itself and the president did something that advocates for Mexican Amnesty never do, he told the truth. (see transcript) (see 34:48min video)
Usually advocates of Mexican Amnesty employ verbal dishonestly which amounts to calling a bank robber “a customer making a cash withdrawal,” Or calling a rapist “a ladies’ man” when they insist on referring to citizens of Mexico who violate United States immigration laws as “immigrants.” When advocates of illegal aliens use such Orwellian language, there can be no honest debate because of the dishonest terminology.
President Soetoro in this one moment acknowledged that Mexicans citizens are in the United States illegally and living in the shadows thus, they are breaking U.S. law. However, he did also state there is nothing that Americans can do about it. Instead, the president employed a deviated and twisted logic to sell a plan to the American people, a wrong plan to give American citizenship to the citizens of Mexico.
Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship—president Barry Hussein Soetoro
The president’s plan is simply to make illegals, legal. That would be tantamount to making robbery legal or to granting amnesty to a bank robber who stole millions of dollars. Under a president Soetoro’s “bank robber’s “Amnesty plan the United States would make the robber pay taxes on the money he robbed. Make him pay a fine, make him go to business school and then make him president of the bank that he robbed because there is nothing that we can do to change the fact that he robbed the bank. Besides, His children have become accustomed to living off the pilfered money. It wouldn’t be fair to deprive the children of their lifestyle.
The above scenario of “bank robber’s” amnesty is how the Soetoro deviant and twisted logic of granting amnesty to illegals sounds to normal Americans.
In president Soetoro’s speech, he vacillated between Orwellian language meant to obscure meaning and language with real intent. Below are highlights of the president’s speech (in italics) with Creating Orwellian Worldview explanation of what he really means in (bold):
And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.
This is to set up fraudulent argument that the “Immigration system” is broken. The “system” was not designed to take in millions of people in the fashion that illegals are entering this country. Furthermore, in order to be considered broken the system would have to be functioning in a manner different from the way it was designed to function. It is not.
The system is working the way it was designed to function. The forces behind Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) want something that the system is not designed to deliver. The argument that the system is broken is a false argument.
The argument that the system is broken is a ruse a con in order to get Comprehensive Immigration Reform and everyone knows it.
Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new
This statement is an attempt to defer responsibility for the tension that the president has intentionally caused with his calls for CIR.
Immigration also means we have a younger workforce -– and a faster-growing economy — than many of our competitors. And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition.
The president purposely confuses Immigrant with Illegal Alien entry here. But that’s not the half of it. The reality of it is, unemployment in this country is 9.5% , 14.5 million Americans are out of work and have been out of work for months. The economy is in the dumper. Our competitors China’s and India’s economies are red hot. There is China with low wageworkers and India with American jobs, which were outsourced by American corporations. These U.S. Corporations are exploiting low wage, highly educated, non-unionized populace in India usuriously increasing their profit margins.
Introducing 40 million plus additional workers into an already jobless and ailing economy is not only suicidal but also unwise. (see here and here)
being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.
Where in the annuals of American history have we ever heard such nonsense? Not a matter of blood? Tell that to the Americans throughout history that gave their blood in war and in duty to this country that died for this country. And not a matter of birth?
Tell that to the millions of illegals that sneak across the border to have their babies born in America or tell that to the Article II Section 1 of the Constitution which reads: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Or tell that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval.
Again purposely confusing immigration and illegal entry. The process that he is speaking of is granting Amnesty to illegal aliens not to people that immigrated by legal means.
Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions of those suspected of having foreign allegiances.
So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious. And that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.
While it is true that immigration has been contentious throughout America’s history, However, the conversation that America is presently having is not about immigration it is about illegal entry into this country as the president in this very speech acknowledges.
To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades. Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country. In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.
It is only a recent phenomenon for our government to ignore the willful breaking of U.S. immigration laws by official mandate of non-enforcement of law.
The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble.
11 million is what officials will admit to. The numbers are more like 40 million. The question goes begging, Why aren't we talking about the broken country of Mexico. A country which 40million or 11 million of its citizens would abandon it to “seek a better life” by exploiting another country economy?
billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.
This is a true statement. Billions of dollars that could pay American workers.
More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally.
This again a true statement
In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling
The Immigration system is not broken. The Federal government is broken. The country of Mexico is broken. Attempting to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform is a political stunt. The Soetoro administration is attempting to take advantage of a crisis.
Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable.
Arizona is the only state that is fighting for the American dream. Arizona is fighting to preserve America. Arizona’s law is the right thing to do when the Federal government is broken and refuses to do its job. There is no real debate here. Only those who would attempt to destroy America with false arguments while allowing lawbreakers to justify breaking the law.
These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.
This is a false argument. The Arizona law is written to prevent the violation of citizen’s rights. Not to mention, legal resident are subject to possible stops and questioning for how they look and sound all the time. Why should Mexican’s be any different?
Our task then is to make our national laws actually work
This is a suppose to be our task but it is not with regards to the issue of illegal entry. Democrats have tasked themselves to increase their voters rolls through granting 40 million Mexican citizens American citizenship and all the rights and privileges that go along with it.
Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally
Ahh so now the truth is told the so-called “immigrants” are actually illegal aliens who have worked the system to create an anomaly of illegality. They create a false legality of children who are deemed American citizens to anchor themselves in the United States. This is not what the 14th amendment was designed to do. Using it as such is a violation of the spirit of the 14th amendment. The reality is an illegal act should never be rewarded with legitimacy.
Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values. Such an approach demands accountability from everybody -– from government, from businesses and from individuals.
This is a false portrayal. We are not dealing with two equally relative opinions. There is no third way. Those who support illegal entry support lawlessness. Those who support stopping illegal entry support the American constitution and the law of the land. Those who support ending illegal entry are using common sense and they reflect America heritage and American values.
Government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders.
Not only a threshold responsibility but a total responsibility that includes enforcement of immigrant law even after the lawbreaker has entered the country.
So the bottom line is this: The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.
Simply not true. There is an recent urgency to cross the border that has been manufactured in the last 10 years which has created the un-safest conditions surrounding the borders in the last 20 years.
Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship
People who live here illegally knew the risk when they first chose to break our laws, just like any criminal they should not benefit from their illegal act. There is no way that someone who is here illegally can earn citizenship. Earning citizenship is a privilege reserved for those who abide by the laws of the United States of America.
Now, stopping illegal immigration must go hand in hand with reforming our creaky system of legal immigration.
There is no reason that stopping illegal immigration must be coupled with anything else.
So these are the essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform.
president Soetoro just outline a program to give 40 million Mexican citizens access to our electoral process, our welfare system, our over burdened health care system, our over worked school system and our sickly economy. He then called his outline comprehensive immigration reform.
who understand that fixing our broken immigration system is not only a political issue, not just an economic issue, but a moral imperative as well.
Our immigration system is not broken. Our Federal government is broken, i.e. can’t stop the oil spill in the gulf, can’t enforce our borders, and can’t fix our ailing economy. In addition to that, Mexico is broken. Mexico can’t create jobs for 40 million Mexican citizens now residing illegally in the United States and can’t stop the violence of Mexican Drug Cartels
I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward.
what you mean president Soetoro is that you and Democrats are ready to grant Mexican citizens American citizenship. But the last I checked the American people said no to Amnesty. Step away from the Amnesty Mr. president that would be a move forward!
But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality.
It's really a matter of timing and priorities Mr. president. If you hadn’t wasted your political capitol on the bailouts, pork spending, pushing through health care (over the protest of the American people) and stimulus 1, 2 and 3 all without Republican help. You would not need “bipartisan” help now.
Your policies are what placed a limit on your ability to ram your agenda down the throats of Americans without Republican support. The American people respond by sending Scott Brown to scale down your reckless spending and social engineering. We are quite aware of the political and mathematical reality. That is how we plan to stop you from doing another thing to harm America.
One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago. At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground.
Wrong! In 1881–1920, 2 million Eastern European Jews immigrate to the United States. You presently have 40 million Mexicans illegally entering the United States and no racial persecution either. Just a pathetic and broken country.
It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.
Mr. president the statue of Liberty was a gift from the French. You really should bone up on American history . By the way, America has 50 states not 59 as you suppose! Also you are wrong again the American people donated for the base on which the statue of Liberty stands not the statue itself which again was a gift to the United States from France.
Finally, the fact is the United States of America does not have a broken immigration system. The fact is Mexico is a broken country. Mexico is a country that is exporting its poverty, its crime, its problems of lack of economic infrastructure and insolvency to the United States . Mexico is broken.
If Mexico could support the 40 million Mexicans, who are presently illegally in the United States with jobs in their own country those illegals would leave the United States and go back home to Mexico. Mexico is broken not the United States immigration system.
Yet instead of arguing the brokenness of the country of Mexico which is the fundamental reason for this argument of CIR the President like every other Progressive has turned the argument on its head and is arguing that the United States’ system is broken because the U.S. system is not intended to accommodate the border run of 40 million Mexico people. It is a phenomenon that no country in the history of the world has had to accommodate and no other country would be able to withstand.
President Soetoro attempted fast sell of the America people on the idea that illegal entry into this country is comparable to the long history of legal immigration that is a part of American heritage, the Ellis Island experience. It is not Mr. Soetoro.
Mr. Soetoro don’t you understand that there is a difference between immigrating to the United States legally and illegally entering the United States by sneaking across the border? Apparently, you do not sir, but we do. We are not as foolish as you think we are Mr. president.
In a written statement, McConnell quoted Kagan as telling the Senate Judiciary Committee this week it is "difficult to take off the advocate's hat and put on the judge's hat."
The statement added, "That difficulty is particularly acute for someone like Ms. Kagan, who has spent so much of her adult life practicing the art of political advocacy rather than practicing law."--DAVID ESPO
59-41
That’s all you need to know regarding the Elena Kagan confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Those are the numbers by which she most likely will be confirmed, unless of course some Republican Senator doesn’t get it and decides to cast his or her vote with Democrats to confirm her. (see article)
By “doesn’t get it,” I’m referring to why Kagan was selected by president Soetoro. Kagan is the Progressive’s attempt to politicize the Supreme Court. If you haven’t noticed by now Barry Hussein Soetoro and Democrats have politicized everything—every aspect of government and every aspect of our lives since Democrats took complete control of government.
So more directly, Liberals know that they will remain slightly outnumbered on the court. Until they can remedy that little inconvenience, what they are hoping for is to neutralize the Conservative’s one-person advantage with Kagan.
Kagan is supposed to be a political consensus builder with the unique ability to argue the Progressive point of view so convincingly that she solidifies the liberal block of the court. In addition, she is there to woo Conservative Justices with Siren like Progressive arguments in hopes of luring the unsuspecting Conservative Justice(s) into join the Liberal bloc thus crashing the Conservative bloc on the court onto the jagged rocks of Progressivism until such a time that Progressives can dominate the court by the sheer strength of their numbers.
[A Supreme Court nominee needs] "both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy, regrettably [Elena Kagan] does not meet this standard."—Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
To carry out this plan Kagan will need the political acumen of a John Marshall , a William Howard Taft or an Earl Warren all politicians (rather than judges) who were appointed to the Supreme Court. Like the appointees of yesteryear Democrat Progressives were urging President Soetoro to go backward to appoint a politician rather than a judge as was done in the past since Democrats first got the notice of Justice John Paul Stevens’ retirement. The president complied to their wishes with Elena Kagan.(see here and here)
Therefore, a vote for Kagan isn’t because she is a well-qualified judge, she isn’t. Neither is it because she has the experience or the judicial temperament to be a Justice on the court. She doesn’t. No, a vote for Kagan is like everything else that we have seen by Democrats and Barry Hussein Soetoro; from bailouts to stimulus, to health care, to Illegal entry into this country, to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is all political to Democrats. All for some perceived political advantage. Democrats politicize everything at the expense of what is good for the country.
Now they are going to politicize the Supreme Court. Meaning that instead of nine justices attempting to adjudicate by the constitution and derive at what is best for the country there will be one Justice who is a mole and her purpose is to attempt to steer decisions down partisan lines for no other reason than for what’s best for Liberal Democrats Progressives’ ideology. This act will make the Supreme Court—a court that is supposed to be apolitical—as partisan as the Congress. Ergo, there is always some underlying supposition with a Liberal Democrat pushing the Progressive agenda.
Kagan is not the finest legal mind available. She has no judicial experience and there are at least hundreds of not thousands of lawyers with the same if not better legal expertise as Kagan. However, what Kagan does have that they don’t, is for most of her adult life Kagan has be practicing the art of partisan political advocacy for politically contacted Progressives rather than practicing law.
Kagan acknowledged people “can tell something about my views” based on her work for former President Bill Clinton and as solicitor general in the Obama administration, but vowed to separate her beliefs from any deliberations she would make from the high court’s bench.
“My politics would be — have to be — separate from my judging,” she said during a second day of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee.-- Susan Crabtree, The Hill
Kagan is an admitted partisan. I seem to remember that particular Judge in the past having been Borked for less partisanship than Kagan. A Republican Senator who cast a vote for the confirmation of Elena Kagan will be casting a vote for transforming the Supreme Court into a political instrument of the Left. That is why me thinks, the lady had to attest that she would set her politics aside and only apply the law as bound by the constitution.
That task me thinks will be harder for Kagan to accomplish than that of the Argonauts of Greek Mythology sailing pass the Siren songs of the flowery island of Anthemoessa.
Yet, even though Kagan’s confirmation will be detrimental to the Republic and to the Country, she will receive some Republican votes. The 59-41 party line split by which she will be confirm by inevitability will be bloated to 63- 37 by defecting self-serving Republicans who place political correctness over integrity, honor and country. Moreover, that will depend largely on whether Republican Leadership can hold their caucus together, like Democrats have done for the past 10 to 11 years.
When I became NASA administrator or before I became the NASA administrator he charged me with three things; one was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math. He wanted me to expand our international relationships. And third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominant Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science, math and engineering.—Charles Bolden, NASA
NASA has a new mission under president Barry Hussein Soetoro and it isn’t to boldly go [in space] where no man has gone before. Moreover, NASA’s primary mission isn’t to revisit the moon or to even land on an asteroid for now.
On Talk to Jazeera an English speaking Islamic television show the New Administrator of NASA, Charles Bolden a Black man, on the first anniversary of president Barry Hussein Soetoro Cairo speech is visiting in the Islamic world and interviewing in an effort to encourage Muslims according to Mr. Bolden.
Mr. Bolden said that the president charged him with three things. To re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, second to expand international relationships. Third and foremost, the president charged Mr. Bolden to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more the predominant Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science math and engineering. (see 21:54min video)
Third to redirecting NASA to track the fictitious phenomenon of Global Warming, and spending money to have astronauts land on an Asteroid this new president Soetoro initiative to have NASA expend human and material resources for Muslim relations is perhaps the most wasteful of American space resources that the United States government has ever ventured on.
Barry Hussein Soetoro is an anti-Constitutionalist President. He has so much as said so himself. So he needs an ally on the Supreme Court, someone who shares his views—views such as the Constitution is a flawed document and flawed individuals wrote the Constitution. As such, the Constitution’s relevance for a new progressive era is questionable at best and just hopelessly archaic at worst.
I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that is carried on until this day and the framers had that same blind spot.
And I don’t think that the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues until this day.—Barry Hussein Soetoro (hear 28sec. audio)
By education, training and association Elena Kagan holds the same philosophy about the constitution as the president does yet he has been able to mask it so well. Yet, that is why he selected her.
So in the most ironic sense the question is how to get someone who is devoted to changing the constitution (destroying the constitution is the more appropriate word) onto the court.
Following is a step-by-step plan how president Barry Hussein Soetoro plans to get Elena Kagan onto the highest court of the land while garnering support from those who claim that they support the Constitution.
First, select a nominee who shares your very ultra-progressive ideologies but has no judicial experience form which to trace it. In addition, the person selected must not have an extensive formal legal writing history.
This guarantees that your candidate’s views, like yours, are hard to discern. Opposition will have very little documented evidence of your nominee’s anti-Constitutional views.
Second, characterize all criticism of your nominee as smears. Such a mischaracterization automatically will put anyone who has legitimate criticism on the defensive and limit what could be pertinent discussion about your nominee’s anti-constitutionalism. (see article)
Third, make sure that your nominee’s radical ideas are presented in such a way that no matter how unconstitutional they are people will think that the ideas represent the progressiveness of moving forward. For instance, take the argument supporting a law, which gives the FEC the authority to ban books, which Kagan argued before the Supreme Court.
The way, which Kagan argued it was basically if there were a law to ban books the FEC, has never banned books before because people are too progressively enlightened to do such a thing. So subsequently, a law that would permit the banning of books by the FEC wouldn’t be a problem. Fortunate for Americans the Supreme Court didn't buy Kagan's argument.(hear 2:41min audio)
Of course, you could always use the direct truthful approach Ms Kagan. Which, goes something like this, Look I’m a progressive ideologue. I know it. You know it. Everybody knows it. So what are you going to do about it?
You Republicans are too feckless to Bork me. Half of you Conservatives are already ready to confirm me. In addition, Democrats don’t really know what I will do once I’m confirmed but they'll do anything to get a Soetoro win so they’re going to confirm me over their fears, that I might not be progressive enough.
Bottom line is this, Democrats have the power to confirm me so this whole process has been a far gone conclusion since day one when the president announced my nomination and nothing has changed.
Yep what we are witnessing is a progressive cakewalk onto the Supreme Court and Democrats and president Soetoro are making it appear to be as easy as pie. Some good does come out of it for Conservatives though, but not much. We can identify all of the Republicans who vote for Kagan.
We’ll need to know just who those Republicans were when Kagan starts undermining the Constitution right from the bench of the Supreme Court. We’ll want to make sure that Republicans, who lent their support, to president Soetoro nominee (and who should have known better) will receive their just rewards the next time they face the electorate.
But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional.
And I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless—Elena Kagan
Huh? It’s a dumb law so thinks Supreme Court hopeful Elena Kagan of the hypothetical law posed by Sen. Tom Coburn during the Judiciary confirmation hearings. The hypothetical law would allow Congress to mandate that Americans eat fruits and vegetables daily.
It’s a simple question really, Sen. Coburn asked Ms. Kagan should Congress tell Americans what they can or cannot eat? Simple if you aren’t attempting to become a Supreme Court Justice with a hidden agenda that is.
Sen. Coburn, posed the hypothetical question about Congress passing a law that would require all Americans to eat three fruits and three vegetables a day to Ms. Elena Kagan the most brilliant legal mind that president Barry Hussein Soetoro could think of to nominate for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Shockingly Ms. Kagan could not answer the question. (see 1:19min Video)
Any 5-year-old could have answered that question, but the Harvard trained former Solicitor General for the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration was miffed by it to the extent that she refuse to answer. (see article)
Because Kagan could not or would not answer the question concerning government force-feeding, that only confirms she places ideology and partisanship above unbiased judicial discretion. We have been warned.
Kagan thinks that it would be wrong for the court to strike down dumb or senseless laws. I think the Senate would be wrong to voting to confirm such a dumb and senseless partisan!
Kagan will be confirm by a Democrat controlled Senate because she is an ideologue partisan who will try to reinterpret the constitution from the bench. And that is exactly the kind of person that Barry Hussein Soetoro wants as a justice.
Next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country I hope these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up cause I’m calling their bluff. And we’ll see how much of the political arguments that they’re making right now are real and how much of it was just politics.—President Barry Hussein Soetoro
The question at the G8 and G20 summit put to President Barry Hussein Soetoro was, “Are there steps that your administration can take now to build confidence that the U.S. will in fact meet its deficit reduction targets( goals) for the medium and long term,” the President careened along on a 4min 18 second long rambling fantastical response (because it wasn’t an answer) that had no basis in fiscal reality. (see 4:19min video)
Yeah right, Mr. President why don’t we start by first having your Democrat controlled Congress do the fiscally responsible thing and pass a budget resolution as required by The 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act, which requires that Congress pass a budget resolution by May 15 of each year. That might help give so idea of just how much deficit spending that we are doing presently.
Democrats have not passed a budget resolution yet and word is they are not going to this year because they don’t what the American people to know about the out of control spending deficits that has occurred under 18 months of the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration that makes President Bush’s entire 8 years look like fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility. (see previous posts here and here)
Democrats are afraid that if the American people knew the truth about what the Soetoro policies are costing the American people Democrat political prospects in November, which already look bleak will sour even more.
"With the political season upon us, Democratic leaders believe it’s better to take a pass than to pass a budget," Ryan said in the weekly Republican address.-- Eric Zimmermann (see article)
Congressman Paul Ryan ranking Republican on the Congressional budget committee addresses the country in the Republican weekly address in which he alerts America about to fiscal irresponsibility of Democrats who are playing political games with our countries fiscal health. That includes the president. (see 3:20 min video)
Mr. President if you want to find some ass to kick. Or if you wish to call someone’s bluff why don’t you get your own party to pass a budget resolution as required by law. By my count, Democrats are 45 days out of compliance with the law. Seems to me that you don’t have to wait until next year, you can begin to have your party face some very difficult choices right now.
"This is a time to make tough choices, not run from them. To that end, Republicans on the Budget Committee have already identified $1.3 trillion in specific spending cuts we would implement right now to make Washington do more with less and help small businesses put people back to work."—Paul Ryan
Because Mr. president the answer to the question about what step you will take to build confidence in America’s ability to reduce deficit spending all rest on the fact that you can’t even get your own party to comply with the law and pass a budget resolution.
And if God sees fit to turn the Congress over to Republicans in November, anything that you say will be qualified by the fact that you don’t have a budget now and you couldn't get your own party to make the hard choices now because of your lack of leadership.
Mr. president your bluff has already been called! Thank you Mr. Ryan!
A federal jury Wednesday decided that Philadelphia violated the Boy Scouts' First Amendment rights by using the organization's[ policy to protect boys from homosexuals] as a reason to evict them from their city-owned offices near Logan Square.-- Nathan Gorenstein
A seven-year long assault on one of the finest and upright institutions in the United States has ended with a Federal ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts of America. Yet that doesn’t mean that the unjust persecution of the Boy Scouts has ended. (see story)
Since its founding in 1910 as part of the international Scout Movement, more than 110 million Americans have been members of the BSA.
The BSA goal is to train youth in responsible citizenship, character development, and self-reliance through participation in a wide range of outdoor activities, educational programs, and, at older age levels, career-oriented programs in partnership with community organizations. For younger members, the Scout method is part of the program to inculcate typical Scouting values such as trustworthiness, good citizenship, and outdoors skills, through a variety of activities such as camping, aquatics, and hiking.
The Boy Scouts of America celebrated its one-hundredth anniversary on February 8, 2010. (source)
Who is attempting to destroy the Boy Scouts this symbol of American service and purity? Homosexuals are. Homosexuals backed by their corporation sponsors have attacked the Boy Scouts of America across this nation under the cloak of false discrimination claims.
(305 major corporate sponsors of homosexuality)
A federal jury Wednesday decided that Philadelphia violated the Boy Scouts' First Amendment rights by using the organization's[ policy to protect boys from homosexuals] as a reason to evict them from their city-owned offices near Logan Square.
Because BSA enforces a very practical and sensible policy that homosexuals cannot be scouts or troop leaders. Homosexuals have taken to the raw tactic of attacking the scouts by bringing lawsuits against them. These are malicious and intimidating attempts to eviction Scout from buildings rented or leased from any city-owned or government owned offices because of Scout policy, a policy meant to protect young boys from the undue influence and pressures of homosexuality. In truth, these lawsuits, brought by homosexuals, are merely legal strong arm tactics mean to suppress differing opinion regarding their controversial sexuality.
Some of the traditional commitments between the boy scouts and cities where established well before homosexuals started their legal manipulations of society through the courts.
Undoubtedly, as is the practice with homosexual fanatics the unanimous verdict by a jury of six women and two men in Philadelphia will be challenged in the ongoing effort to changes social mores by judicial fiat in this country.
This ruling sets aside the city of Philadelphia order for the Boy Scouts to vacate their city-owned headquarters or pay $200,000 a year in rent unless the local Cradle of Liberty council renounced the national Scout policy. Such an order is in direct violation with the Scouts’ constitutional right of freedom of association under the first amendment.
Homosexuals have mis-characterized this argument for far too long. There is no right under the constitution for homosexuality. However, there are rights that protect us from tyrannous groups, like the rights found in the first amendment. In contrast, there are groups like homosexuals who would take away our freedoms of expression and association by whatever guise they cloak their tyrannous attempts.
The Philadelphia jury that found in favor of the Boy Scouts of America saw through the misrepresentations and false arguments of the homosexual agenda. May this be one in many victory for not only Boy Scouts of America but for the American people who disagree with the homosexualizing of our country and feel that their right to say it has been repressed by militant homosexuals using the courts against our own values of family, liberty and righteousness.
My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government."—President Barry Hussein Soetoro
President [Barry Hussein Soetoro] gave the White House press corps the slip last night.
He’s done it again. How many times is this president going to give the White house press corps the slip before the people of the United States realize that there is a problem? What other president in the history of the United States of America has ever had to disappear with whereabouts unknown? (see previous post)
If one remembers, and I do, this is supposed to be the most ethical, transparent, open presidential administration in the history of the United States of America. So why does Barry Hussein Soetoro repeatedly vanish without explanation? What is this president hiding? Where is he going? Moreover, why isn’t the mainstream media concerned that the president has broken his transparency pledge?
So why in the middle of the G-8 and G-20 summits with his global counterparts is our president the only G8 and G20 leader can’t be accounted for hours? (see story)
Last night, the White House sent the press corps — which by agreement stays close to the president in order to report on any incident — back to Toronto, leaving the president 150 miles behind. In the wee hours of this morning, the crew of a dozen or so reporters and photographers in the press corps got back on a bus and returned to Muskoka for the day’s events.
It is highly unusual for the president to shun his permanent media detail that way, particularly at a high-profile event in a remote location. --Elizabeth Williamson
The last time the president pulled this type of a stunt he had no explanation and didn’t bother to offer one. Just what is this incessant need for privacy that only this president seems to have.
This president’s behavior portents of something very ominous and foreboding for this country, while he is sneaking around, we are losing our heritage for some misguided socialist “hope and change” agenda.
The media must demand a full accounting of this president’s sneak off time. The first time the media gave the president a free pass on his AWOL. If the media is negligent on this matter, once again they lose the remaining semblance of journalist credibility.
Early Wednesday, June 23, 2010 shows oil continuing to gush from the broken wellhead, at the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.
[District Judge Martin]Feldman, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, including owning less than $15,000 of Transocean stock, according to financial disclosure reports for 2008, the most recent available. He did not return calls for comment on his investments.-- MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Just what was Michael Kunzelman’s story about, more oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico after a problem with the cap on the underwater gusher? Was it about the Tens of thousands of gallons of more oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday after more incompetence from BP and the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration? Or was it about the recent Court decision to overturn the Obama administration order to end all new off shore drilling?
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans overturned a moratorium [by the Government] on new drilling, saying the government simply assumed that because one rig exploded the others pose an imminent danger with no proof that such was the case.
Apparently, Mr. Kunzelman’s article is really about suggesting to our minds that Judge Feldman’s decision to overturn the Obama moratorium on new drilling has political implications bordering on judicial misconduct. (see article)
[District Judge Martin]Feldman, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, including owning less than $15,000 of Transocean stock, according to financial disclosure reports for 2008, the most recent available. He did not return calls for comment on his investments.-- MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Kunzelman feels that it is germane to his story to point out that a Republican president appointed the Judge. He pointed out that the judge, according of Kunzelman, has extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, including owning less than $15,000 of Transocean stock. And then Kunzelman suggested that the judge is hiding something because he did not return Kunzelman’s calls regarding his investments before Kunzelman’s story went to print.
Notwithstanding, this type of innuendo reporting is so interesting in a McCarthyism kind of way. However, where was this kind of "investigative reporting" in 2008 when laws suits were filed claiming that Barry Hussein Soetoro was not eligible to be president of the United States? Where was this kind of reporting when opponents of Health Care said that the president’s claims supporting health care reform were all lies. And where is this reporting now that the country of Mexico has joined a suit by Anarchists and conspirators who are attempting to undermine the United States of America.
Those co-conspirator America haters are frivolously claiming that Arizona’s law, which prevents foreign nationals of another country from invading a state of the United States of America, is somehow unconstitutional because it violates the rights of said foreign nationals who are invading this country illegally. Huh? (And our own Federal government is going to join these foreigners against itself? Huh?)
Yet there is no such investigative Pulitzer prize reporting when the country needs it? Instead, we get reporting which cast aspersions on a judge’s motives whose only concern could be the rule of law. Michael Kunzelman points out background information on judge Feldman in the likes that we haven’t seen since Dan Rather’s 60 minute hit pieces on president George W. Bush.
Frankly, I got the impression that investigative reporting was all but dead to the Liberal Progressive Media (LPM). I suppose the LPM will find occasion to resuscitate it when we must know that Republican appointees are inappropriately using judicial authority to discriminate against the first Black president.
Feldman? I wonder if the judge is Jewish?
Mr. Kunzelman you may have missed the most important fact about judge Feldman. I guess no Pulitzer for you.
