By Pat Boone Posted: October 31, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 In time, it seems to happen to all older houses, no matter how well tended they may be. All manner of parasites, vermin, roaches, rats, worms and termites find their way into the building. Long before they're detected, they infiltrate the walls, the floors, the roofs – and then chew their way into the structure, the supporting beams and the very foundation of the house itself. Silently, surreptitiously, whole communities of invaders make places for themselves, hidden but thriving, totally unknown by the homeowner. Then, in time, tell-tale signs are seen. Little droppings, discolored trails, proliferating piles of residue appear in corners, on tabletops, little hanging sacs from ceilings – alarming evidence that the grand old dwelling has been invaded. Decidedly unwelcome creatures have made this place their home, and by their very existence will eventually destroy the house and bring it to ruin. What can be done, when you learn that your house has already been invaded? Well, the tried and true remedy is tenting. Experts come in, actually envelope the whole dwelling in a giant tent – and send a very powerful fumigant, lethal to the varmints and unwelcome creatures, into every nook and cranny of the house. Done thoroughly, every last destructive insect or rodent is sent to varmint hell – and in a day or two, the grand house is habitable again. I believe – figuratively, but in a very real way – we need to tent the White House! For reasons only he can explain, the current occupant has purposely brought a whole flock of social and political voracious varmints with him into our House. He doesn't own it; he hasn't even rented it; we the people have simply given him the keys and invited him to live there for four years, making it convenient to serve us better, to carry out our expressed wishes for our country. To the dismay of millions of us, this occupant seems to think we need an emperor. Even though all polls show that the majority of Americans don't want a whole new government-run health-care system, detest the trillions of dollars in un-payable debt he has foisted on us, question the whole "global warming" scare and disagree with him on many other issues, he boldly announces: "We're going to fundamentally transform America!" And he makes it clear that he is going to cram things down our throats whether we want them or not. Even though he constantly uses the imperial-sounding "I," he knows he can't do it alone. So, he has assembled the most unbelievable coterie of cronies – who buy into his leftist philosophy – to implement and enforce his will on us. Like a very real infestation of termites and rodents, this crew has settled into powerful positions and is already chewing away at the constitutional structure of our government. Out of nowhere, he has created a whole super-layer of "czars" over many crucial functions of our society – with super authority but no accountability to anyone but the temporary occupant. Who gave him this right? Don't the people he's supposed to serve have a say in something this ominous? But it's worse. Far worse. So many of the people he's adding to the public payroll and giving unprecedented power to are socialists, extreme leftists and even proud, boastful Marxists. Communists! Their backgrounds and past allegiances are not hidden; they're easily found by anybody who really wants to know. So it's not possible that now-President Obama didn't realize what kind of people he was bringing into the White House. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Saturday, October 31, 2009
By Patrice Lewis Posted: October 31, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 As our freedoms and liberties have been chipped away in the last few years, how many times have you wanted to ask a politician why? Why are you doing this? Why are you destroying our country? How can you justify trashing the Constitution in order to advance your particular agenda? A reporter finally – finally! – asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a version of this simple and logical question.CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am." Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question." "You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question."Yes, Madam Speaker, it is a serious question. In fact, it is probably the most serious question anyone could ever ask. The reason you're flustered, Nancy dear, is because you know exactly what the answer is … namely, NONE. There is no authority in the Constitution to require people to buy health insurance. CNSNews asked Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy a similar question, and Mr. Leahy was similarly flummoxed. Both Pelosi and Leahy finally fell back upon the ol' Commerce Clause (designed to keep states from charging each other tariffs) to justify their agenda. I am frequently brought to task by (presumably liberal) readers who question my quaint theories that the federal government should adhere strictly to the constitutional limitations set by our Founding Fathers. I'll get scolded for my free-market (and therefore cruel and inhumane) stance on unconstitutional policies. For example, how could I be so heartless as to deny government-sponsored health care to poor people? Liberals, apparently, just plain don't agree with the Constitution. ("Liberal" in this case isn't restricted to Democrats; I know a whole lot of Republicans who think similarly.) Do they believe the Constitution is a "living document" whose restrictions can be tweaked or abandoned at whim? Or would they prefer to do away with the Constitution altogether? Who knows? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Henry Lamb Posted: October 31, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The United States is on the brink of signing a new climate-change treaty that many people believe will be the mechanism that ushers in global governance. Global governance has been under construction for many years. Every new treaty in which the United States participates requires the surrender of a little more sovereignty. International treaties have influenced domestic policy throughout the 20th century, forcing the federal government to impose restrictions on individual freedom – restrictions that are not authorized in the enumerated powers set forth in the U.S. Constitution. For example, nothing in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to restrict the use of private property. The Endangered Species Act, enacted to bring the United States into compliance with several international treaties, gives the federal government the power to dictate what a private land owner may and may not do on his own land. This is only one of the more obvious examples of how a treaty is used to extend the power of the federal government beyond the limitations set forth by the Constitution. When the Constitution was written, senators were chosen by the legislature of each state. The power of the states was substantially diminished by the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which called for senators to be elected by popular vote, rather than by the legislature. This loss of the state legislature's power to influence the central government is especially pertinent to the ratification of treaties. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the senators present to vote in the affirmative to ratify a treaty. The U.S. Constitution required ratification by three-fourths of the states. The Constitution, along with "… all treaties made, or which shall be made … shall be the supreme law of the land" (Article VI). It makes no sense at all to ratify a treaty that explicitly limits the power of government, and then ratify treaties that require the government to exercise power beyond those authorized by the Constitution. Patrick Henry cited the possibility that this situation could arise as a reason why he could not support the ratification of the Constitution. He said: "Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated." (A more detailed discussion of this situation is available online.) [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
From The Liberty Tree Lantern
By Capt. Karl October 20, 2009 Phil Kerpen, who this Capt. Karl was honored to meet with and discuss liberty and economic issues in the town of Howard, WI (near Green Bay) as part of an Americans for Prosperity town hall meeting last year, sent the following letter in grave concern of our freedom and liberty with regards to our usage of the Internet. This is just another in a long series of very serious concerns with the mounting oppression and despotism through Socialist and Communistic principles of control and manipulation of our society and even our communication, news and information sources. As so many things these behaviors by the U.S. Government are really getting serious and certainly approaching a line in the sand if not over it already. Please read Phil’s letter to me, which I am sharing with you below, and get active in stopping the additional loss of our rights and freedoms:Glenn Beck Clips 10-20-09 Seg5- Phil Kerpen; Obama Says He Is FOR Net NeutralityDear Karl, As important as all the fights are that we’re in right now, perhaps the biggest of all is the fight over whether the government will take over the Internet. That’s because as long as the Internet is free, we can use it to communicate, educate, and organize. Tea parties, townhalls, and AFP events would be very difficult to organize if government owned and controlled the Internet and chose to interfere with it. That’s what’s at stake this week as the Federal Communications Commission decides on Thursday whether to move forward with so-called “net neutrality” regulations. The net neutrality movement is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney who seek to destroy private control of the country’s communications systems. I discussed McChesney and the so-called media reform movement last night on the Glenn Beck show, and you can watch that clip here. I’ll be on with Glenn again tonight to discuss net neutrality specifically. ... (You can see the video of Phil Kerpen on Glenn Beck below)[CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Friday, October 30, 2009
By Hannah Giles Wednesday, October 28, 2009 The “Pimp and Pro” story, exposing ACORN’s willingness to advise a prostitute on tax evasion and child sex trafficking, hit America a few weeks ago. There were a myriad number of angles to report, yet the Mainstream Media's favorite approach seems to be the method in which James O’Keefe and I orchestrated and gathered the information. It’s like going fishing, but instead of taking a picture and raving about the 750lb Mako shark you caught, you blather on about the bait that was used. What happens when people get bored? They stop paying attention. What happens when people stop paying attention to an already suffering press industry? We’re seeing that happen now. Rather than simply complaining about the MSM’s negligence on the story, here are some loose ends the media ignored, from our footage alone, that warrant attention. With regard to the children:Hannah Giles' Biography Hannah Giles is a townhall.com contributor and aspiring journalist. She is the journalist behind the ACORN prostitution/tax evasion sting. She is the oldest daughter of Townhall.com columnist Doug Giles.
- Baltimore- Why no mention of the toddlers that were in the room while James and I were being counseled on how to manage our underage prostitution ring?
[CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
- San Bernardino- The content of this video was largely ignored except for the part where ACORN worker Tresa Kaelke mentions she shot her husband. What about when she told us not to educate our sex-slaves because they won’t want to work for us? Or when we talked about making money off of clients who would physically abuse the girls? What about the whole transport-the-girls-in-a-school-bus-to-avoid-suspicion discussion?
By Joseph Farah Posted: October 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 In another month or so, millions will be reading the Nativity story – the one so well-chronicled by gospel-writer Luke. It's amazing to me that the details of a birth that took place nearly 2,000 years ago are so precise – complete with genealogical records dating back eons. Yet, today, even the most basic birth information about the man occupying arguably the most powerful office in the world is murky – and ever-changing. Nevertheless, if you dare to ask questions about Barack Obama's birth, even questions about facts required to establish his constitutional eligibility for office, you will be pilloried, ridiculed, written off as a wacko, characterized as a "fringe" extremist, even labeled a "racist." What raises this issue for me, again, is the fact that even Barack and Michelle Obama are telling two entirely contradictory stories about his birth – and even this raises no questions in the minds of uniformly unquestioning media types. In case you missed it, Michelle Obama stated at a public event last year during the campaign that Barack Obama's mother was unmarried when she gave birth. Now, I don't really care, except for the fact that Barack Obama has told a different story – in his autobiography and elsewhere. Is it important in and of itself? No. But what's important to note is that there is no documentation to ascertain the facts. And that's what the so-called "birther" issue is all about. Yes, I am nearly alone among the press in demanding that Barack Obama actually produce some evidence that he is eligible to serve as president. I also insist on seeing documentation of other claims he has made about his life – school records, travel records, health records, selective service registration records and so on. Why? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Alan Keyes Posted: October 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 "Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate." With these words, Donald Lambro of the Washington Times reports the unprecedented destruction of liberty that is the real aim of the Obama faction's so-called health-care plan. Because most Americans have never thought much about the doctrine of unalienable rights that has until now been the presumed basis for America's form of government, the politicians and the controlled media may get away with treating the central goal of the health sector takeover as a secondary issue. Such ignorance-induced nonchalance won't change the devastating new reality that will emerge if the Obama faction's totalitarian philosophy of government is allowed to stand. To convince the public of the "urgent need" for a comprehensive reorganization of administration and finance in the health sector, the new totalitarians held up the plight of the 10 percent or so of Americans without health insurance. Though opponents of their totalitarian ideology frequently pointed out that as many as half of this 10 percent voluntarily forego health insurance, the Obama totalitarians went on acting as if such people didn't exist, or their existence didn't affect the urgent need for government action. It now becomes apparent that depriving these people of their liberty was all along the real aim of the exercise. They become the precedent for the transformation of government prerogative that represents the decisive imposition of totalitarian control. What begins with the pretense of government doing good for people ends in the reality of government forcing them to do what those who happen to wield government power decide is good for them. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Burt Prelutsky Posted: October 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Back when I was a kid, the two major fears in America revolved around polio and communism. Because the first disease was so prevalent and so often fatal prior to the miraculous cures wrought by Dr. Albert Sabin and Dr. Jonas Salk, neither of whom managed to garner a Nobel Prize for their heroic efforts, children were kept out of public swimming pools and were discouraged from having too much physical activity. It's a wonder that our entire generation didn't grow up to be hypochondriacs because if you were even slightly fatigued or had an aching back or a stiff neck, anguished parents started measuring you for an iron lung. The second disease, communism, created its own form of hysteria. During the late '40s and early '50s, we had A-bomb drills in public schools. We grammar-school kids were led to believe that in case the Russians hit L.A. with an atomic bomb, we would be safe so long as we dropped to the floor and huddled beneath our desks with our hands clasped tightly behind our necks. As everyone knows, there's nothing better than tiny hands to ward off the effects of atomic radiation. To this day, I wonder who came up with that particular brainstorm. On the off-chance that the Russkies elected not to vaporize us, a lot of people were convinced that the plan to prevent tooth decay by introducing fluoride into our reservoirs was a Commie plot. The fluoride, we were warned, would turn our brains to mush and make us easy prey for the Soviet Menace. It's taken about 60 years, but I am now convinced that the scaremongers were right. How else to explain American liberals except by accepting that the Commies contaminated our water supply? The fact that most Americans haven't turned into brain-dead zombies muttering "hope … change … hope … change" like those scary creatures in horror movies only goes to prove that people have different tolerances to tainted water, just as they do to alcohol, various viruses and Barack Obama's voice. I mean, seriously, when Obama, during the campaign, spoke about judging him by the people he surrounded himself with, he pointed to Richard Lugar, Joe Biden and Warren Buffett, while drawing the curtain on Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. These days, though, he surrounds himself with such visitors from a strange planet as Van Jones, Kevin Jennings and Cass Sunstein. I'm just wondering if it's still OK for us to judge him by his associates. The MSM likened Obama to Abe Lincoln. I guess their confusion was caused by both men being skinny and from Illinois. One major, rather obvious difference, though, is that Lincoln waged a war to preserve the Union. Obama, on the other hand, would go to war to preserve such unions as the SEIU and the UAW. Liberals get all in a tizzy when they're accused of hypocrisy, but it's hard to escape the fact that while arguing for the redistribution of wealth, you never see such kazillionaires as George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer or John Kerry redistributing any of theirs or even paying a penny more in taxes than is absolutely required. And, as we discovered when he was putting his administration together, Obama's friends and colleagues quite often try to avoid paying any taxes at all. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Barry Farber Posted: October 28, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Prof. Niall Ferguson of Harvard says America is in decline. More about that in a minute. Texas is where they say they take football most seriously. In North Carolina we took football so seriously we didn't even call timeout to smile at Texas' claim. The year before I entered the University of North Carolina, Texas beat UNC 35-0. That hurt! The next year UNC beat Texas 35-7. Afterwards, as we walked in the setting sun through the pine woods surrounding Kenan Stadium in Chapel Hill, the carillon in the Bell Tower playing our alma mater, I asked myself, "Can things possibly get any better? We beat Germany. We beat Japan. And we beat Texas." The next day I was walking down the corridor of one of the campus buildings and glanced into an empty classroom. On the front blackboard was what looked like a piece of modern art; different colored streaks like jagged lightning descending from upper left to lower right. I walked in and discovered it was a chart detailing the decline of every major civilization, the Roman, the Greek, the Persian, the Carthaginian, the Ottoman; even the Mayan and Aztec. Decline! "Could this ever happen to America?" I thought about that for about eight seconds before deciding, "No!" The world loved us too much. And they had a lot of reason to love us even more than they did. No. We're here for keeps. So, here comes professor Niall Ferguson with a convincing argument that America is waving a feeble goodbye while China is storming onto center stage. He may be right, particularly considering present management, but it may stall or even reverse America's decline if enough Americans put aside the Niagara of anti-Americanism – imported and domestic – and consider how far up America is declining from. Who, from professor to peasant, is able to name another country that ever amassed more power and abused it less than America? Or, amassed more wealth and distributed it more fairly? What other country was ever attacked, then rallied and destroyed the aggressors and, instead of the traditional rape and plunder, rewarded its attackers with rehabilitation and democracy? And what country ever won a war and wound up with less territory than when the war began? After spending much blood and treasure ejecting the Japanese from the Philippines, America gave the Philippines independence. The victorious Soviet forces subjugated Eastern Europe. Victorious American and British forces liberated Western Europe. All we asked from the nations we liberated was enough land to bury our dead. Continents don't forget things like that quickly. Every German mother in that war prayed that her son would be captured by the Americans or the British, not the Soviets. That kind of compliment is not achieved by propaganda. Far from least and far from last, America had the nuclear bomb exclusively for four solid years. After the war it was never used, not even to brandish, blackmail or bluff. Instead, America took the lead and founded the United Nations, fully allowing for America to be out-voted as that great "Parliament of Man" became a VIP lounge for dictators, aggressors, oppressors, thugs, thieves, sexual predators and other varieties of truly awful people. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Thursday, October 29, 2009
By Larry Elder Posted: October 29, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 We've now established that Rush Limbaugh cannot own an NFL team given his "unacceptable" (read: conservative) political comments. What about sports figures, executives and commentators who offer their left-leaning political thoughts? Many of us turn to the sports pages before the news section. For just a moment, we can put aside worries about the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Obamacare, the "peril" of "global warming," government bailouts and the feds' borrowing and spending. In sports, we want to read or hear about who ran the fastest, scored the most points, defeated the opponent. In sports, there is an oasis – until anti-GOP, anti-Bush, anti-conservative comments slap us. National Basketball Association Commissioner David Stern was asked whether Kobe Bryant should continue to play while being prosecuted for rape. Stern responded: "Absolutely. We don't have a Patriot Act in the NBA. That means that you're innocent until proven guilty." What does the Patriot Act –passed to fight terrorism – have to do with the presumption of innocence or guilt? New York Times sports writer George Vecsey wrote about how the French handled the allegation that cyclist Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs. Vecsey wrote, "Personally, I think the French have linked Armstrong with George W. Bush, surely a disservice to the cyclist." Nice. Stephen A. Smith – the usually insightful and entertaining ESPN analyst – in an appearance on Chris Matthews' MSNBC show, said, "(Republican former New York Mayor Rudolph) Giuliani is a dictator." Oh. New York Times sports writer Harvey Araton, in an article about friction between two U.S. Olympic speed skaters, wrote, "At the root of the conflict is (one skater's) belief that (the other skater) has been attempting to swift boat him." You see, "Swift boating," to many liberals, has now become a synonym for "lying." Never mind that the real "Swift boaters" were ex-military men raising legitimate points about the military record of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Bryant Gumbel, on his HBO "Real Sports" program, said that he wouldn't watch the Winter Olympics. Gumbel said, "Try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention." Gumbel, too, finds soccer boring because he knows "that in soccer they score about as often as Ann Coulter makes sense." [AND THERE'S MORE. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING]
By Erik Rush Posted: October 29, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Friday, Oct. 23, 2009, was a glorious day. On that day it was reported that the Obama administration had failed in a significant effort in the area of the autocratic tactics it has employed since Barack Obama took office, and far more increasingly in recent weeks. I am speaking of the administration's attempt to maneuver establishment news organizations into segregating the Fox News network from the press corps. On Thursday of last week, the administration planned to allow members of the White House press pool to conduct interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg. The pool is a group of five rotating network news organizations that is ostensibly representative of the press at large, and traditionally has shared the expense and function of covering the president. The White House's intention was that all members of the White House press pool would be allowed to participate in the interviews with Feinberg – all, that is, except for Fox News. As the reader may be aware, the Obama administration has been waging what can only be considered a one-sided (albeit vigorous) war of words against Fox. On Oct. 18, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said (on ABC News' "This Week" program) that Fox News is not a real news organization, and that other news networks ought not treat it as such. A broad hint, to be sure, if not a threat; on the same day, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel made similar remarks during his appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" news show. But, despite the establishment press' heretofore slavish devotion to Obama, the tactic backfired. The bureau chiefs of the pool networks asserted that none of their reporters would participate (in the interviews with Feinberg) unless Fox News was allowed to do so. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Trends on anniversary of 1929 collapse indicate markets on verge of 'crash' Posted: October 29, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily On this 80th anniversary of the "Black Tuesday" stock market collapse, some analysts are experiencing déjà vu, warning a major crash in the stock market is imminent. Graham Summers, senior market strategist at OmniSans Research, wrote in the firm's daily e-letter yesterday that the markets may finally be on the verge of the crash he has been predicting for more than two months. "Well, judging from the market's action today, I believe we may be within 48 hours of getting the "Official Sell" signal I've been waiting for," he wrote in "Gain, Pains, and Capital." The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 119 points yesterday, or 1.2 percent, while the NASDAQ lost 2.7 percent. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies dropped 3.5 percent. Summers explained in an online piece Tuesday that he has been watching an ominous pattern develop in which the trading range shrinks as stocks rise higher. In the past, that pattern has led to a sharp downturn, he said. "I've been forewarning of a potential crash for months now. And the market's current action is precisely what you would expect for a major top (increased volatility)," Summers wrote. Author and WND columnist Vox Day, asserts in book released last week, "The Return of the Great Depression," that the U.S. is entering the early stages of the Second Great Depression. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Joseph Farah Posted: October 28, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Environmentalist wackos are coming up with all kinds of weird plans to save the planet. Last week, one suggested we get rid of our pet dogs. Apparently, they leave a significant "carbon footprint." Not my dog. He leaves some droppings behind, but not that much carbon. Nothing that would endanger the planet. This week, some self-proclaimed "lord" in England who serves as the government's "climate chief" said it's time for people to give up meat to cut down on greenhouses gases. He didn't mention whether he was volunteering to go first or whether it was only non-lords who would be required to give up meat. I've got some news for these people getting ready for draconian power grabs in Copenhagen at the end of this year. They are getting to be a royal pain in the keister. First of all, the climate changes – and there's nothing man can do about it. It has always changed and it always will. It gets warmer and cooler. The proof is these people were telling us 30 years ago we were headed for a new ice age. It got warmer. Then 15 years ago they began telling us the planet was getting too warm, the polar ice caps were melting and catastrophe was around the corner. Since then, the planet has cooled virtually every year. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Thomas Sowell Posted: October 27, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the president, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent? Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers – that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish? Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get lifesaving medical treatments? Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones? Does any of this sound like America? How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough. How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries. We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American. How far the president will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin. Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Mychal Massie Posted: October 27, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Legend has it that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The fiddling in Nero's case may be euphemistic – but in the case of Obama's emporial dismissiveness of the critical straits our military personnel find themselves in, his lack of action is both feckless and lurdane. In March 2009, the Boston Globe reported that Obama "[planned] to unveil his long-awaited new strategy for Afghanistan." ("Obama plans more Afghanistan reinforcements"; March 26, 2009; Boston.com; Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender) And so it was that, on Sept. 21, Obama finally revealed his true plan, but I will get to that. In his highly vaunted Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) speech in March, he "announced a goal of 216,000 Afghan security force members by 2011 – which fell well short of assessments by the U.S. military that a security force of 400,000 is needed to secure Afghanistan." ("Yon: Obama plan for Afghanistan, Pakistan short of bold"; Michael Yon; April 2, 2009; Washington Times) So, was the speech-giver-in-chief disingenuous then, or is he now showing complete disregard for the peril our troops face in Afghanistan today? I say both – he was disingenuous then and he is showing a disregard for our troops now. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Joseph Farah Posted: October 29, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 You may have missed this. Unless you are an avid WND reader, you almost certainly have. As a result of a daring undercover operation lasting six months, a Muslim Brotherhood front group – one already identified by the U.S. Justice Department as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator – has been revealed as an active front for jihadist activity. This group, the Council on American Islamic Relations, still sports a 501(c)3 tax-exemption from the Internal Revenue Service. It still has broad access to the "mainstream" media. And it boasts about lobbying the Congress of the United States, though such activities are strictly limited by its tax-exempt status. Despite the following well-documented findings of this undercover investigation in which thousands of incriminating internal documents were collected, not one major news agency besides WND has picked up the voluminous stories revealed in "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America":
- CAIR is trying to spring from prison a former headquarters official who trained for jihad with the same Pakistani terrorist group that last year massacred more than 150 people in Mumbai, India.
- CAIR officials are secretly coaching terrorism suspects and witnesses to withhold information from FBI investigators and have successfully obstructed at least one investigation in Maryland.
- CAIR is donating thousands of dollars to the legal defense fund of a Muslim cop killer.
- CAIR's visitor logs show the father of an al-Qaida terrorist visited CAIR director Nihad Awad several months before he was convicted of plotting to assassinate President Bush.
- Curiously, the logs do not register any guests around Sept. 11, 2001 – in fact, the entire month of September is blank.
[CLICK HERE TO READ MUCH MORE]
- CAIR has cultivated Muslim moles inside a Washington-area law enforcement agency, including one who illegally accessed FBI records to tip off a terrorist under investigation and another with ties to Pakistani intelligence.
From WorldNetDaily Republicans 'as dangerous to this country as the Democrat Party is' Posted: October 27, 2009 ~ 7:42 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily Talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh says the Republican Party has a death wish – and is as dangerous to the United States as the Democrat Party and its czars. Limbaugh's comments came today as he was discussing the race for Congress in New York's 23rd district, where the GOP picked a liberal nominee to oppose a liberal Democrat, passing over a conservative candidate who wanted to represent the GOP, a candidate now pursuing the seat as a third-party candidate. "They have a death wish. The Republican Party has a death wish. Gallup: 40 percent of Americans now say they are conservative, 20 percent say they're liberal, 36 percent say they're moderates. And of those three groups, which one is being ignored – not just ignored – which one is being attacked by the Republican Party? The conservatives! " Limbaugh said today. "It's worse than I thought. I thought this was just based on elitism and northeast moderate liberalism, and embarrassment of the people that the social issues attract to the party. But now it's just plain stupidity," he continued. "The Republican Party, as constituted is as dangerous to this country as the Democrat Party is. 'But Rush, party loyalty is party loyalty, and the local Republican committee up there has endorsed Scozzafava.' So? I'm saying the two parties are the same. I guess I need to amend it a little bit, but, man, when I saw that they were running ads, as I say, ruined two hours of my day," he said. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Monday, October 26, 2009
Author who predicted current crisis shows why it's 'only the beginning' Posted: October 25, 2009 ~ 8:30 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily Drawing striking comparisons between the Japanese economy in 1988 and the American economy today, a new book by an author who predicted the current crisis warns it's going to get much worse before it gets better. Vox Day, a WND columnist, asserts in "The Return of the Great Depression," by WND Books, the U.S. is only now entering the early stages of the Second Great Depression. Day presents a fact-rich case, rooted in economic history and time-tested theory, in which he concludes that an economic contraction of very large proportions is presently developing. But he contends that "due to a reactive wave of positive social mood, statistical obfuscation, and understandable denial, it will take about a year for the consensus opinion to cycle through the various scenarios in descending order of optimism before the grim reality finally becomes apparent to even the casual observer." Though the message is stark, Day believes the book is a much-needed antidote to the self-interested optimism of the financial media. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Joseph Farah Posted: October 26, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 While Fox News seems to be reveling in the audacious attacks directed against it by the White House and Democrats, the evidence suggests those assaults are, in fact, accomplishing their objectives. Ratings for Fox may be higher, but its coverage suggests the intimidation is actually working. Those who read WND and watch Fox News know it is not unusual for the TV network to pick up investigative reports that first appear in WND – sometimes with credit, often without. But when WND published a shocking book earlier this month called "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," based in part on a daring six-month undercover operation inside the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Fox News blacked out coverage. No interviews with the authors. No interviews with the interns who penetrated the unindicted terrorist front group at great personal risk. No interest. Fox played it safe. When WND pointed out that a White House adviser, Dalia Mogahed, a supporter of Islamic Shariah law, was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at CAIR's annual fundraising dinner last weekend, again, Fox News took a powder. The cable network that had grabbed attention for recycling WND's original investigative reports on the extremism of Obama's czars – from Van Jones and Brian Jennings to John Holdren and Cass Sunstein – spiked any coverage of the Muslim Mafia exposés – including one linking support from a White House appointee. Mogahed is a senior analyst and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and serves on Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She drew attention when she defended Shariah on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist Muslim group, insisting the majority of women around the world associate Shariah with "gender justice." Even when Mogahed's name disappeared from the CAIR fundraising program following WND's exclusive reports – replaced by Jesse Jackson – Fox News didn't seem to notice. Why is Fox News AWOL? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Chuck Norris Posted: October 25, 2009 ~ 9:13 pm Eastern © 2009 Halloween just got scarier – much scarier. I'm not talking about a new Hollywood slasher film or a new line of grotesque costumes, but a possible political nightmare scenario in which the White House could be positioned to sell out U.S. sovereignty, shred the Constitution and leave you and yours to the whims of foreign powers. Flying deep under Washington's radar is an upcoming (December) global climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, under the guise of the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." Virtually nothing has been said about it from the White House. But then again, I'm sure they think, who could be against working together for climate change? It all sounds pretty politically benign, doesn't it? Not according to Lord Christopher Monckton, once science policy adviser to Lady Margaret Thatcher, who read the treaty and said the Copenhagen conference is a cover for the beginnings of a one-world government. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in St. Paul, Minn.:RELATED STORY: Coming in December: World government ~ By Henry Lamb RELATED VIDEO: Lord Christopher Monckton speaks on October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. PaulI have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think the word "election," or "democracy" or "vote," or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once.Monckton then warned, if Obama signs the treaty, he would be flushing U.S. sovereignty down the global toilet. He cautioned, "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever – and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again." Monckton further pointed out that, even though ratification of our president's signature on that treaty would take a 67 supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate, it could pass a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill. Politifact.com (as well as many Left-leaning blogs) quickly criticized Monckton's conclusions as conspiratorial and climate-skepticism rhetoric, based upon the notion that the treaty is a draft and not a finalized document. But the apologetic of Politifact.com leaves the impression that the current draft is the roughest of cuts, when in reality it is the result of seven sessions of deliberations and revisions from several subgroups, including representatives from developed and developing countries ("parties"), "with a view to modifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Sunday, October 25, 2009
By Henry Lamb Posted: October 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 It is impossible to overstate the importance of the climate-change treaty now being negotiated for adoption at the Copenhagen, Denmark, U.N. meeting in December. The Kyoto Protocol was bad enough. It required the United States to reduce its carbon emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. When fully implemented, the Kyoto target was supposed to reduce global carbon emissions by 5.2 percent. Thanks to George W. Bush, the U.S. did not participate in the Kyoto accord. According to the World Bank, global emissions have risen by 19 percent since 1990. U.S. emissions have risen 20 percent since 1990. India's and China's emissions have risen by 88 percent and 73 percent respectively. Neither of these countries was bound by the Kyoto Protocol. The new treaty now under negotiation seeks to impose an emissions reduction requirement on developed countries of as much as 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2017, and by as much as 95 percent by 2050. (Read paragraph 31 on page 16 of the 181-page negotiating text). These numbers are completely ridiculous; compliance would require a return to the Stone Age. The ongoing negotiations include whether developing nations will be required to reduce emissions, and if so, by how much. China, a so-called developing nation, has now surpassed the United States as the world's No. 1 carbon emitter. Regardless of the final numbers the negotiators decide upon, it will make no difference to the climate. It will, however, make an enormous difference to people, especially the people who live in the United States and the other developed nations. This treaty will create an international bureaucracy with the authority to regulate energy use. This entity would, in fact, be a political institution with the power to govern. In other words, the treaty will create a world government to administer global governance. Lord Christopher Monckton created a tidal wave across the Internet with excerpts from his Oct. 14 presentation to the Minnesota Free Market Institute. He, too, has read the negotiating text and says without hesitation that this treaty will create a world government. He goes further, much further, to explain that while this treaty will have no impact on global climate, it will have a great impact on the global economy. The purpose of the treaty is, and has been since the very beginning of negotiations in the early 1990s, to transfer the wealth from developed nations to the developing nations – under the supervision of the United Nations. Treaty negotiations justify this action because developed nations have spewed more carbon into the atmosphere than the developing nations. Therefore, according to U.N. reasoning, it is the developed nations that caused the global warming, so the developing nations are entitled to compensation. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]Lord Christopher Monckton speaks on October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul
From the Randy’s Right blog (via RandyRepublican on twitter)
October 26, 2009 by randyedye Letter created by North Carolina KTM committee Dear Representative or Senator, This is a letter from a group of people who meet twice a month to discuss our concerns about our nation and decide what action to take. You may remember receiving several letters from us in past months. You may also remember that our group ranges in age & life situation from young mothers to middle age to great-grandparents. We are united in our belief in Jesus as Savior. We are united in believing that we are required by God to speak out against that which is wrong. We are united by our concern for this nation and a belief that America was founded by the hand of God. Each of us has a sense of urgency in trying to stop the rapid descent into socialism/Marxism being perpetrated by Obama and his group of subversive, anti-American, ultra-liberal cronies (all of whom who despise the Constitution , God, and the American way of life). In short they are establishing TYRANNY over the American people. In our most recent meeting the usual question was posed, “What are your concerns since our last meeting?” The first person offered, “Where do I start?!!” The implication, which all in attendance understood, was that there are so many serious concerns, the same concerns we have had for months. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]Editor's Note: I have included this column in the blog today because I happen to be in lock-step agreement with everything that is written in this post. Please read the entire letter to the politicians!
By Patrice Lewis Posted: October 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 A few months ago, a homeschooling friend called in tears. The curriculum she'd purchased for her three children was patently unsuited to her 16-year-old daughter, Jane. Jane was rebelling for the first time. "She tells me she doesn't want to learn physics," my friend sobbed. "Does Jane know what she wants to do when she grows up?" I asked. "Yes. She wants to be a paralegal. She's wanted to do that for years." "What's wrong with being a paralegal? That's an excellent career choice." "Nothing. I'm proud of her. But she won't know any physics." "What does a paralegal need with physics?" I asked. My friend was silent a moment. "Nothing," she admitted. After a lengthy discussion, my friend decided her daughter was mature enough to choose her own studies, which she could tailor toward her career choice. End of rebellion. This conversation led me to give some serious thought about the purpose of education, especially for older teens. Is it to cram every subject down every adolescent's throat, despite his natural talent, interest, or future career plans? Or is it to prepare a teen to enter the adult world as a useful, productive member of society? Needless to say I'm inclined toward the latter, not the former. Obviously, there are things children must know. I happen to think it's useful if a 12th-grader knows where the United States is on a map and can multiply 12 x 12. I believe a working knowledge of history and science come in handy no matter what career they choose. I believe the ability to communicate in English, verbally and in writing, is critical. These are the foundations for education. But most children eventually reach an age – like Jane – when the foundations are achieved. What's left is higher learning in various subjects. Then what? If your daughter wants to be a paralegal, is it necessary – really necessary – for her to know physics? If your son wants to be a physicist, is it really necessary that he knows the imports and exports of Zimbabwe? I know a lot of you are sputtering right now, particularly the physicists. Doubtless some of you think I'm an unedjikated troglodyte, unappreciative of the finer points of a sound education. Let me assure you that my husband and I both have master's degrees in the sciences and a passion for history. Our admiration for academics is second to none. But I believe most kids, given sufficient time to think it through, have a pretty good idea what they want to be when they grow up. After the foundations are achieved, why not let them decide what areas they should study? Why make them miserable forcing them to "learn" subjects they may grow to hate because they're being, well, forced? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Pat Boone Posted: October 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Friend, I enjoy writing these weekly columns, and I especially enjoy the mounting response I've been getting, mostly positive. I even appreciate the negative ones and disagreements as well – as long as they're civil. As I was preparing this week's column, I read this from my own e-mails. And it's so good, I just want to share it with you. Naturally, I don't have all the e-mail addresses of my readers, and this is the best way to see that you get a look at this one. I certainly couldn't have written it better myself. So, with thanks to A.R. Hardy, the name to which the following has been attributed:Dear Mr. President: I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure you handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:[CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
- Free medical care for my entire family.
- English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
- Please print all Mexican government forms in English.