Monday, May 31, 2010
It should come as no surprise. During the campaign, he told us he was a "citizen of the world." Last week, he told the cadets at West Point, and the rest of the world, just what his vision of a new world order is.
Obama wants a new international order that can "resolve the challenges of our times." That's what Woodrow Wilson wanted when he and his cronies created the League of Nations. That's what Franklin Roosevelt wanted when he and his cronies created the United Nations. Fortunately, conservative Senators prevented the United States from surrendering its sovereignty to Wilson's vision of a New World Order. Roosevelt steamrolled what few conservatives there were in 1945, and the United Nations was created to "resolve the challenges" of his time.
One of the fundamental flaws in the vision of these three globalists — and the New World Order crowd — is the idea that the United States must submit its sovereignty to an ultimate power greater than our own.
Absolutely not, and never!
In 1945, there was enough conservative influence to retain veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council, and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes. Both of these provisions have been targeted by the New World Order crowd ever since. The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance recommends that the veto be removed from all five permanent members, and that the U.N. be given extensive taxing powers.
These two barriers, and the absence of authority to raise its own army, are what prevent the current United Nations from becoming the unchallenged government of the world.
If Obama's "new international order" is to have the authority and resources it needs to "resolve the challenges of our time," then it will have to have taxing authority to fund the army that will be required to enforce its mandates, which can be enacted at will without fear of veto from the U.S. or the other permanent members.
The United States must never be subservient to any governmental power on earth, other than the government elected by the citizens of the United States. The United States must never depend upon any other government on earth for its defense, or its welfare. The United States must be responsible for "resolving the challenges of our time."
The United States should seek and welcome cooperation from all nations in all efforts to resolve challenges of mutual concern, but never in a structure where decisions that may control the behavior of U.S. citizens are made by people who are not elected by U.S. citizens. The United States could find itself in just this situation, should the new global financial regulatory scheme now under development become a reality.
The United States has shown that free people who are allowed to invest time, energy, resources, and ideas into a free market can lift the world to unimagined heights of prosperity and well being. This is the example that the United States should offer the world. Those nations who wish to follow this example and benefit from its rewards will be excellent trading partners, worthy of support, assistance and cultivation. Those who curse capitalism and seek socialism should be free to follow their own course — so long as their course respects our right to ignore them.
Al Sharpton inadvertently revealed another fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama New World Order Crowd. He said Martin Luther King's dream was not getting one black family into the white house; his dream was to "...make everything equal in everybody's house."
The United Nations reflects this dream in its Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11(1)) which claims that all people have a right to "...an adequate standard of living...adequate food, clothing, and housing"
Think about it: a government that can declare these rights must have the authority and resources to grant these rights. Neither the United States government, nor the United Nations has any resources that have not first been taken from some of the people. It is the direct, expressed objective of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama One World Government crowd to take resources away from the people who have earned them in order to redistribute the resources to those who have not earned them. Only in this way can government "...make everything equal in everybody's house."
Voters whose net worth will be improved by wealth redistribution far outnumber voters whose wealth will be taken. The Obama-led Democratic majority in Washington has the votes necessary to take the wealth from those who have earned it in order to "...make everything equal in everybody's house" and they are doing it as rapidly as possible.
Obama's "New International Order" goes beyond the United States, and seeks to take the wealth of the United States and redistribute it to the rest of the world. He seems perfectly willing to make everything equal in every nation — until your wealth is gone.
The United States should show the rest of the world how to earn prosperity through free-market capitalism, and thereby help the other nations of the world elevate their wealth to equal ours. Obama and his crowd choose instead, to equalize the wealth of nations by draining America's wealth, and reducing Americans' wealth to the lowest possible common denominator.
The Wilson-Roosevelt , and now Obama's vision of a New World Order must be rejected, along with all those politicians who share it.
© Henry Lamb
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Southern Border: “We found illegals from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and Yemen in custody.”
Well, first of all, they are more concerned with securing the rapidly increasing Mexican vote. With millions of illegals streaming into the country, they want to paint the conservatives as racists. It’s easy for them since it is an argument not based on fact but emotion and doesn’t take a lot of brain power to espouse. This meme, that conservatives are racist, breeds among the non-thinkers because they refuse to accept there might just be another reason.
Secondly, traditionally people south of the border, and I’m not just referring to Mexico, are more open to leftist thinking. Look at the history of socialism in Latin America. This makes them a very desirable group for liberals, since their platform is 90 percent socialist anyway. The more people open to socialism the better as far as they are concerned. They have a country to reinvent.
What do you think? Why do Democrats/liberals trumpet concern for border security as racism? What did I miss?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Just when you thought it was safe to start expressing your right to free speech, Democrats in Congress are gearing up for a vote on a new piece of legislation to blatantly undermine the First Amendment. Known as the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), this bill – written by the head of the Democrats’ congressional campaign committee – is their response to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In short, the Supreme Court found that the government could not restrict the free speech rights of individuals or other entities wishing to participate in the political dialogue.
It is hard to see how establishing a level playing field for free speech – as our Founding Fathers did by making it a right under the Constitution and which the Supreme Court upheld – is a threat to our democracy. Nevertheless, the White House and their allies on Capitol Hill see honest criticism as a threat to forcing their big government, liberal agenda through Congress. So, there is no time like the present – namely five months before an election – to start putting the muzzle on those individuals and organizations not sticking to the Democrats’ talking points.
Under the DISCLOSE Act, certain incorporated entities would be restricted in how they can exercise their free speech rights. There is an exemption for some in the media sphere like newspapers, TV news, and the like. However, there is one driving force in today’s public debate that is NOT exempt. Bloggers will not have the same exemption provided to other media sources. Never mind that the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Citizens United case stated, “Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment.”
For many bloggers to exercise their free speech rights, they would have to jump through the same onerous new hoops as many businesses, nonprofit groups, and even such threats to democracy as your local chamber of commerce. If this sounds like an absurd overreach by one party in power, I invite you to take a look at their government takeover of health care, taxpayer-funded bailouts, and general hostility to private sector economic growth.
The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have not racked up a stellar record of transparency and openness. For a White House that touted its willingness to engage critics openly in hopes of staving off greater partisan rancor, Obama’s team has endorsed backroom deal-making, special giveaways to garner support for their agenda, and a closed-door decision-making process that has the American people more fed up with Washington. Now, under their brand of leadership, they stand ready to stifle free speech via legislative fiat.
Democrats should not be allowed to give themselves carte blanche to shut down the ability of those in the blogosphere or elsewhere to participate in our nation’s collective dialogue. That flies in the face of our most sacred rights as American citizens.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
$1 billion, 30-week processing program revealed in leaked 14-page Homeland Security memo
Posted: May 14, 2010
4:48 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, already has drafted a plan for processing 13 million illegal alien applicants for amnesty in a 30-week period at an estimated cost of $1 billion, WND has learned.
The plan, a copy of which was obtained by WND, anticipates the approval of so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" legislation pending in Congress and assumes a nine-month ramp-up period for processing of applications.
The undated draft report anticipates the possibility of the legislation requiring public benefits to amnesty applicants.
"If the statute requires interim benefits while application pending, issue discrete variant of status document (shorter term duration that [sic] if issued after prospective immigrant status granted)," the 14-page memo states.
Under the plan, applicants 14 through 79 years old would be required to submit themselves for photographs, a full set of fingerprints and a signature. A photo and single print would be required for others.
Only one outside contractor is discussed in the memo – Northrop Grumman – and the plan suggests negotiating a contract now, even before the legislation is approved. It also calls for volunteer help at local service centers and field offices.
The last time Washington attempted a push for amnesty under the guise of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," under President George W. Bush in 2007, the project triggered an outcry from talk radio and the public. It failed as a result. However, the political makeup of the Congress has changed since then, becoming even more Democratic.
Democratic leaders recognize their control of both houses is in jeopardy in the November elections and are determined to pass the amnesty program – though they abhor that word.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has enlisted evangelical leaders to promote the plan. Democrats are determined to get at least some Republican support for the measure so the party is not held to account for amnesty like it is for another unpopular piece of legislation following the health-care debate that already threatens many Democrat seats.
Even Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., formerly vociferous proponents of the plan during the Bush administration, have distanced themselves from efforts in the Senate to revive it.
"You can play a vital role," Schumer told religious leaders including Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, saying Republicans have great respect for them. "So please, if you could, help us get some Republicans just to sit in a room and talk to us."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I just read Can Kagan Be Trusted to Defend the Constitution? in which Ross Kaminsky assembles the critical pieces of the nominee’s attitude toward the First Amendment’s free speech clause. I want you to follow that link to Human Events.
Kaminsky points out how Kagan’s arguments in important cases before the Supreme Court indicate an unacceptable lack of respect for the right of free expression. Crucial quotes from a paper she wrote amplify that concern. I am glad that Kaminsky posted a link to the paper, because I clicked it and saw its title. “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine” Since when do the ends justify the means? This quote was found on page 55 of the paper.
The realm of public expression may have too much of some kinds of speech, too little of others; some speakers may drown out or dominate their opposite numbers. Self-conscious redistribution of expressive opportunities seems the most direct way of correcting these defects and achieving the appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.
President Obama spoke to the graduates at Hampton University, giving us some clues.
And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.
Perhaps outlining some crucial points will make things clear for you.
- bombards us
- all kinds of content
- exposes us
- all kinds of arguments
- don’t always rank that high on the truth meter
- all kinds of arguments
- information becomes a distraction
- putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy
That is dictator speak for “I need new laws to squelch my critics who are hampering my efforts to enslave you and cement my party in power.” What is the relevance to Kagan’s screed? Another outline is in order.
- too much of some kinds of speech
- drown out or dominate
- redistribution of expressive opportunities
- correcting these defects
- correcting these defects
What do they have in common? Arrogance!! That single characteristic sticks out like a sore thumb. We are bombarded with all kinds of arguments, which may be untrue, and become a distraction, putting pressure on our democracy. There is too much of some speech, drowning out and dominating others. The remedy is redistribution of expressive opportunities assuring appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.
The President and his latest nominee to the Supreme Court are two nuts in a Socialist shell who seek legislation to criminalize criticism of their policies. That is exactly what the First Amendment is intended to prevent.
Those two nuts are not alone in that Socialist shell, they share it with Mark Lloyd, Obama’s appointee to the FCC. Three years ago, he co-authored
“The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio“. That screed asserts that there is too much Conservative speech on talk radio and suggests public policy changes to reduce Conservative speech, supplanting it with Socialist speech.
We are facing authoritarian demagogues who seek to overthrow our representative republic, replacing it with an autocracy. First, they must silence the guard dogs.
There are not enough Republicans in the Senate to block this nomination. Worse yet, they lack the resolve required, they are caving in. We have no recourse except to rise up and raise Hell. We must send a clear message to our Senators: Kagan is not fit to sit on the court: your vote for this nomination guarantees my vote against you in the next election cycle. Reverence for the rights enshrined in the Constitution is the most important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice; Kagan lacks it.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Some of the nation's largest banks have agreed to contribute enough money to save Chicago-based ShoreBank, the community lender with strong ties to the Obama administration, FOX Business has learned.
The banks have agreed to contribute $140 million to bail out the bank, while the federal government will donate tens of millions more, according to people close to the talks. In addition to major Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs (GS: 138.5899, 1.1799, 0.86%), which agreed to contribute $20 million to the bailout effort, as well as Citigroup (C: 3.805, 0.085, 2.28%) and JPMorgan (JPM: 39.32, 0.3, 0.77%), General Electric's (GE: 17.24, 0.01, 0.06%) GE Capital will also contribute $20 million to the rescue effort. All the firms have either received massive government assistance during the financial crisis or, in the case of Goldman Sachs, are facing multiple regulatory investigations into their business practices.
The bailout has been controversial. Senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett served on a Chicago civic organization with a director of the bank, and President Obama himself has singled out the bank for praise in lending to low-income communities.
But the bank has made its share of bad bets, and some of the Wall Street firms that have given money have said they've received political pressure to contribute to the bailout of a business that under normal circumstances would have been left to fail.
It's still unclear how much the federal government will contribute to save the bank because it's unclear exactly how much is needed to save the institution, which without the bailout would have been taken over by the FDIC.
An announcement on the bailout is expected Tuesday morning.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, notes that this situation provides more proof that "government schools are not godly schools."
"It's another sad example of why concerned parents need to do what's necessary to get their children out of government-run schools and into the safe havens of home-schooling and solid church schools," he comments.
Taryn Hathaway's drawing pictured the American flag with the statements "God Bless America," "One nation under God," and "In God We Trust" written across and around the flag. The middle-school Salinas student was told she could not draw the flag because it was "offensive," yet the instructor went on to praise another student's drawing of President Obama.
Tracy Hathaway, the mother of the 13-year-old student, is shocked over the teacher's reaction. She contends that her daughter did nothing wrong and believes she was merely exercising her rights.
"My daughter wasn’t trying to break any rules, and she wasn’t trying to create a scene," Hathaway shared with Fox Radio. "She was just expressing her view and saying, 'This is America, and I want God to bless it.'"
The Hathaway family met with the teacher, questioning why Taryn's drawing was insulting. But having received no reply, Tracy Hathaway told KSBW that a simple "heart-felt apology' from the teacher is all she wants.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
» Breaking: Obama Administration Removed Faisal Shahzad From Terror Surveillance List Before Attack - Big Government
More hope and change…
Faisal Shahzad was removed from the national terrorist surveillance list before the Times Square attack.
Confessed terrorist Faisal Shahzad was removed from the Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list sometime after Barack Obama came into office.
Sources tell CBS News that would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad appeared on a Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list – Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS) – between 1999 and 2008 because he brought approximately $80,000 cash or cash instruments into the United States.
The New York Times reported that the person who bought Faisal’s apartment back in 2004 was interviewed by federal investigators.
George LaMonica, a 35-year-old computer consultant, said he bought his two-bedroom condominium in Norwalk, Conn., from Mr. Shahzad for $261,000 in May 2004. A few weeks after he moved in, Mr. LaMonica said, investigators from the national Joint Terrorism Task Force [JTTF] interviewed him, asking for details of the transaction and for information about Mr. Shahzad. It struck Mr. LaMonica as unusual, but he said detectives told him they were simply “checking everything out.”
The Strata Sphere is all over this story.
Barack Obama began shutting down Bush-era terrorist investigations last year including the investigation of Faisal Shahzad.
We all know what happened next.
Last week Faisal almost blew a hole in the middle of Times Square.
The only thing that saved the people of New York was Faisal’s incompetence.
UPDATE: Faisal Shahzad had contacts with several other terrorist leaders including the radical American-born Muslim cleric Anwar Awlaki, the Taliban Chief, and the Mumbai Massacre mastermind.
Shahzad also had a web of jihadist contacts that included big names tied to terror attacks in the U.S. and abroad, including the figure who has emerged as a central figure in many recent domestic terror attempts – radical American-born Muslim cleric Anwar Awlaki.
Besides Awlaki, sources say Shahzad was also linked to a key figure in the Pakistani Taliban, its Emir Beitullah Mehsud, who was killed in a drone missile strike in 2009. The Mehsuds had been family friends of Shahzad, who is the son of a former high-ranking Pakistani military officer.
Monday, May 3, 2010
(See Part 1, 9/14/09)
Because of illegal immigration, eighty-two-year-old widow Theresa Murray was a prisoner in her own home in Douglas, Arizona — a town of about 18 thousand near the Mexican border. The great-grandmother was living in the Arizona desert where she had grown up.
When she was visited by Patrick Buchanan — then researching for what would become The Death of the West — the author found a house surrounded by a seven-foot chain link fence 'that was topped by coils of razor wire." All doors and windows at the house had bars on them and of course, Mrs. Murray's home was wired to an alarm. She could not leave the house without having someone there to watch it.
Mrs. Murray informed her interviewer that she sleeps every night with a .32-calibre pistol on her bed table. She had been burglarized thirty times. She lacked the protection of her guard dogs that had been killed after someone tossed meat containing chopped glass over the fence.
Within recent weeks, living under the threat 24/7 put Arizonans' famous hospitality to the ultimate test. Finally they said — That's it. We won't tolerate this anymore, and passed a law to enforce laws that the feds refuse to enforce.
Punishing the good deed
Robert Krentz, another rancher — also of Douglas — was killed on his property on March 27. Neighbors worried that his homicide was connected to the increasing border-related violence. The victim had been out checking the water line and fencing on the land his family had owned since 1907.
Robbery, vandalism, and drug smuggling have always been part of the illegal immigration problem in Cochise County. Though murder in those dangerous environs was not unheard of, it was something that cattle ranchers never expected to happen to Robert Krentz.
In 1999, Krentz and his wife told a news reporter that their ranch had been broken into and robbed of $700 worth of items. "And you know," he said, "if they [had] come in and asked for water, I'll give them water. You know, that's just my nature."
The 58-year old property-owner was known as a Good Samaritan who often brought water and helped injured illegal immigrants who tried to cross the desert in an area where summer temperatures often hit 120 degrees.
Traced to Mexico
Sheriff's deputies followed foot tracks approximately 20 miles south to the Mexican border. "We are assuming he escaped into Mexico," according to Sheriff Larry Dever.
This is no isolated incident. The people of Arizona are upset that the federal government is doing nothing to secure the nation's borders. President Obama sits in his secure quarters at the White House, peers down his nose at the people on the ground near the border, and presumes to sit in judgment that Arizonans would dare pass a bill to enforce a federal law that has been on the books for decades.
The idea that foreign nationals must carry some ID as to who they are and certifying their legal right to be here is hardly new. If the president does not like the law that Arizona has passed, then why doesn't he use federal power to enforce the very law the state is taking into its own hands? He is doing nothing about building a fence at the border — a project that President Bush started (with some reluctance). Who is he to tell Arizonans they cannot defend their community against violence, robbery, and murder? Who can blame Arizonans for protecting themselves when the feds refuse to do it?
The unmentioned factor in all this is that the president and the Democrats see illegal aliens as future voters. No other explanation for Obama's failure to act makes sense. And some Republicans — sorry to say — are not much better. Campaign donors see illegal aliens as cheap labor. And if this double play leaves you out of a job, or if a loved one is murdered on his or her own property — well, gee that's tough. Politics and slave labor must take precedence — let's get our priorities straight, after all. (And they wonder why Tea Party people are angry.)
The "Hitler" card
On Saturday — "May Day" (as honored by every Marxist/Leninist/Fabian of all socialist hues from the simply humorless to the plain evil) — was marked by anti-American demonstrations all over the country. The Arizona state capitol had already been the scene of marches wherein the Mexican flag was waved, along with placards comparing Governor Jan Brewer to Hitler.
Speaking of which: Mexican President Felipe Calderon has weighed in, labeling the Arizona statute an inducement to "intolerance, hate, discrimination, and abuse in law enforcement."
Oh horrors! Obviously such indictments must not be dismissed out of hand. Let us see if the Mexican president's concerns can be dealt with post-haste. So, Mr. President, what examples of "intolerance, hate, discrimination, and abuse in law enforcement" are we talking about here?
Mr. President, are you talking about provisions that forbid any tinkering with the so- called "equilibrium of the national demographics?" You're right — sounds discriminatory to me...can anyone say "profiling?" What about an injunction against those strangers whose presence would mess up the nation's "economic or national interests." Dear me, how beastly! And they even give the boot to those who have a criminal record? Be still, my heart! And did you know that one can get two years in the hoosegow for entering the country illegally? Try that a second time and you're likely to end up with a ten-year revisit. Oh, pass me the smelling salts!
And here's the part that's r-e-a-l-l-y over the top: You won't even be able to hire a trial lawyer to make a career (along with TV camera fame) by bringing you back to court over and over again in hopes of overturning your case and letting you stay. And if you show up and start sounding off about any violation of your free speech rights, be aware that is also forbidden. And any native-born citizen of the country can make a citizens' arrest of illegals, and turn them over the gendarmes.
So, Senior Presidente Calderone, you are so right about this law — this law that's....uh-oh! Oh, Mr. Presidente, I am sooooooo embarrassed. Er — uhh — you see, this is not the Arizona law I've been reading about. These are the laws of — I hesitate to say, so think hard now, Mr. President...No coaching from the audience, please!...These are the laws of Mexico!
Oh, Mr. Presidente, I am so sorry. I know you would eschew being compared to Hitler or being Nazi-like. So I am certain that tomorrow morning — first thing — you will be rushing to Mexico's parliament to demand that this "draconian" set of laws be abolished so that Mexico can — all together now — "show the world" its tolerant nature...Don't worry, Mr. President. We civil libertarians will all be rooting for you — supportive every step of the way...It won't be hard since we all know your heart is in the right place. OK, Mr. President?......Mr. President?....Senior Presidente?...Hello?...Anybody home? Hello?
As for the Arizona law, let's deal with the most egregious of the lies: 1 — "Carrying ID is new." Wrong: Since 1952, non-citizens have been required to carry an ID showing they are here legally. (BTW — When a grandson of mine was born in Belgium, he had to have his ID card in his diaper bag). 2 — "Racial profiling will be encouraged." Wrong: The act expressly forbids it. Police will undergo training on this. If my late, white Swedish-born grandfather were alive today, he'd be subject to the same laws as our darker-skinned brothers and sisters. 3 — "Police will stop people at random." Wrong yet again. The law only kicks in after the police have already arrested a suspect on another charge.
Just one week after Governor Brewer signed SB-1070 into law, five men suspected of smuggling drugs across the border ambushed and wounded a sheriff's deputy Friday in a remote area near Phoenix — the kidnapping capital of the world. So Arizona is on the front lines of a larger war.
Mexico's war on the United States is motivated by the failure of its socialist system to offer its own people a sustainable life. Therefore, the real war is one of perpetual invasion — not a shooting war (though as we have seen, that option is sometimes employed and can be expected more frequently as the population balance becomes more conducive to it). As we outlined in Part 1 (linked above), the goal of Mexican authorities is "to export to the United States the foot soldiers of potential revolution to preserve their society's culture of corruption and privilege" (Mark Levin — Liberty and Tyranny) — and to re-take a huge swath of the U.S. southwest "block by block."
Powerful forces in Mexico, aided and abetted by public and private sources in the United States, continue to encourage the invasion. This is a war against the rest of us.
© Wes Vernon