Sunday, August 29, 2010

The Last Refuge of the Liberal - HUMAN EVENTS

by Charles Krauthammer
08/27/2010


Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the tea party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a Ground Zero mosque.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that pre-empts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the tea party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and SB 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the Ground Zero mosque. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama overread his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Activist Post: Ten Reasons to Become Self-Sufficient and Ten Ways to Get There

Friday, August 20, 2010

Michael Edwards and Jeffrey Green
Activist Post

We are now three to five generations removed from the rural backbone that strengthened America. The world at large has undergone a similar transformation as the promise of easier work has created a migration to big cities. These mega-cities could be seen as an experiment gone awry, as general well-being has declined, with suicide rates increasing across the world. Crowded conditions and economic strife have led to rampant crime, pollution, corporate malfeasance, and a dog-eat-dog type of competition that can be described as a temporary insanity.

The economic crisis we are living through has been the final straw for many people, as promises of a better, easier, and more creative life seem to have been sold to us by carnival-style tricksters who are laughing all the way to (their) bank.

Here are the top reasons for becoming self-sufficient; these are based on fundamental, systemic concerns for why undertaking this life change will not be a fly-by-night fad, but rather a long-lasting means for personal independence.

10 Reasons to Become Self-Sufficient

1. Freedom from market manipulation - The traditional market-driven investment vehicles are more and more obviously controlled by traders and banking institutions. The debacle of the private Federal Reserve Bank is just the icing on the cake to a previous decade full of Ponzi-type schemes. Now, the institutionalized looting of retirement money is being planned.

2. Hedging against inflation - Have you noticed the price of goods lately? Even Wal-Mart is silently raising its prices. People might have a choice whether or not to buy stocks or gold, but people have to eat -- the current increases in basic goods portend hyperinflation, and will not ease anytime soon. Food shortages could make the problem exponentially worse.


3. Increasing health and wellness - It has now been revealed that some "organic" items have been falsely labeled. In addition, a host of "GMO-free" brands have been exposed as deceptive. GMO food lacks the nutritional value of what can be grown in the average backyard. GMO mega-corporation, Monsanto, has a sordid history and has continuously trampled on our trust. It is time that we do the work ourselves.


4. Building community strength - We constantly hear people say, "I don't even see my neighbors, let alone know anything about them." Of course not: 80-hour workweeks and grabbing meals-to-go doesn't exactly promote community interaction. With such little time to interact with our immediate community, it is no wonder why many people report feeling disconnected. In these trying times, it is a local community that can offer the best support.

5. Working for yourself - Working hours are increasing, pay is often decreasing, and corporate executives are taking bigger bonuses than ever. This is leading to a prevailing disgust, as people are being forced to admit that they are living lives of near-indentured servitude. Even for those not working in corporations, working for someone else is rarely as satisfying as creating and working for something where every minute you spend is yours alone.

6. Having more free time - We have been taught to believe that life on a farm is arduous sun-up to sun-down drudgery where you collapse at the end of the day. This is not so much the case anymore. Sure, the setup of any farm or self-sufficient endeavor is often time-consuming and laborious, but new technologies and new skills of manufacturing food via permaculture and aquaponics are offering low-cost start up and minimal maintenance, as these techniques serve to create symbiotic systems that are remarkably self-governing.

7. Generating food and energy security - The planet is running out of food and traditional energy. Climate volatility, market forces, GM foods, and rising costs of harvesting and transporting food are all conspiring to create food shortages even in the First World. This trend will not reverse. And our oil-soaked way of life is being threatened by mounting evidence that the oil lifeline could be disconnecting rather soon. We should be looking to the air, sun, geothermal, and wave power to wean us from the energy grid.

8. Acquiring an appreciation for life - As one gets closer to life-giving forces, there is a natural appreciation for how things come into being. When you have created your garden, toiled there, selected the best for harvest, and have prepared that food for your family and community, the significance of what you have taken part in can be transformative.

9. Restoring balance - Nearly everything in our society is at a peak, or is drastically out of balance. The systems and governments to which we have looked for balance restoration are missing in action. We must take it upon ourselves to restore our own financial and environmental balance sheet. The best way to do that is to reduce our overconsumption.

10. Becoming a producer, not a consumer - This is the best way to reduce your cost of living and increase your self-sufficiency. In the U.S. over 70% of the economy is based on people buying things. This is a clear sign of imbalance and, by extension, it is not sustainable. Furthermore, we also have seen corporations race to the bottom to find low-cost production on the backs of desperate people. The exploitation of the Third World to clothe, feed, and entertain the First World is something that most people do not want to think about, but it is abominable. Again, new technologies are making it easier than ever to produce your own food, and even your own clothes.

As the cliche goes: Freedom is never free. But it sure beats the alternative.


10 Ways to Get to Self-Sufficiency
The global economic collapse has become an eye-opening experience for many people. The ongoing crisis continues to create more joblessness at a time when the cost of essential items like food and energy continue to rise.

Inflation is only expected to continue due to excessive printing of money to compensate for the bursting economic bubbles, which were arguably created by printing too much money with artificially low interest rates in the first place.

The 2008 price shocks in oil followed by the financial collapse have led many people to begin taking measures to become more self-sufficient. And recently the ominous signs of food shortages, the weakening dollar, and the rising price of oil all point to a similar atmosphere as 2008. Some have taken steps to conserve electricity, reduce spending and consumption, while others are planting kitchen gardens and installing solar panels on their homes. Even living off the grid is becoming a mainstream concept for those seeking independence.

Indeed, becoming more self-sufficient is proving to make common sense whether one anticipates more hardship to come or not. Sure, many of us would love to live completely off the grid without giving up everyday comforts, but this is not practical for most of us. However, there are many steps that can be taken to move towards self-sufficiency which can be relatively painless and quite rewarding.

The following are 10 suggestions that can lead to independent living:

1. Reduce your debt: Especially get your credit card debt under control, since it is entirely corrupt. Call your credit card companies and ask for a work out plan similar to what they received from the taxpayer bailout. If they don't cooperate to your satisfaction, there are some reasons not to pay at all.

2. Reduce your consumption: Evaluate your current budget and determine absolute necessity. Push your comfort level to find areas where you can scale back, and then identify comforts that you’re willing to sacrifice.

3. Reduce energy use: Change light bulbs, have entertainment systems plugged into a splitter that can be shut off completely to reduce phantom charges, etc. Carefully plan shopping trips and other transportation needs.

4. Store energy: Always have back-up propane storage and a large wood pile for a rainy day. Investing in a generator of some kind (even a solar generator) will be money well spent.

5. Invest in food storage: With a falling dollar and rising food prices, why not create a food savings account? Get some good books, dehydrators and vacuum sealers for storage methods. Best storable food items are grains (rice, beans, flour), canned goods, seeds, and some prepackaged items.

6. Produce your own food: Replace your lawn with a garden, fruit trees, and keep chickens. Go on hunting and gathering adventures for nuts, fish, and wild game. Store extra garden seeds!

7. Learn new skills: Surf the Internet, read books, and take courses in practical skills like gardening, cooking with whole foods, composting, carpentry, alternative energy, natural health and wellness etc.

8. Start a side business: Turn your passion or hobby into a small side business to make some supplemental income. Who knows, it may become your path to full financial independence.

9. Install alternative energy: Start with small installations like a solar hot water system, a solar freezer, a solar attic fan, or a wood stove etc. If you have limited funds, tip-toe your way to independence.

10. Suggest solutions for your community: Start or join a local cooperative for food, products, and services. Engage your local community in discussions to take steps for self-sufficiency. Share your story and build support.

These steps will save money as we move closer to the ultimate prize of independence. Each action we take to live more simply frees us from the control systems put in place to make our lives more complicated, more toxic, and less independent

Thursday, August 26, 2010

The Social Security Scam - Mark Brandly - Mises Daily

The Social Security Scam

Mises Daily: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 by Mark Brandly

The release of the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report indicates that the current economic crisis has negatively impacted the Social Security budget. It's now projected that by 2016 Social Security spending will exceed revenues. According to the report, the financial condition of the Social Security program "remains challenging" and "need(s) to be addressed soon." A look at the numbers shows us the severity of the Social Security budget problem.

Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. This means that when you work, the government takes your money and gives it to Social Security recipients. In order to get workers to accept this system, the government promises to take other people's money and give it to you when you retire. Think of it as an exponentially larger version of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

As long as a lot of people die before collecting any benefits, or die without collecting many benefits, the system is financially sound. In 1950, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16.5-to-1. With people living longer, the worker to beneficiary ratio has fallen to 3.1-to-1 and within 20 years it's expected to drop to 2.1-to-1. Due to this falling ratio, over the years the feds have raised tax rates and now must consider further adjustments.

Let's look at the revenue side of things. Each worker's income below about $106,800 is taxed at a 12.4 percent rate. There are no deductions for this tax. All income is taxable income. Even those in the lowest income brackets have roughly one-eighth of their income taken from them to fund the Social Security system.

Few workers, however, understand the tax burden of the Social Security system. On their paychecks, they see that 6.2 percent of their gross pay goes to pay for Social Security. What they don't see is that employers match this tax payment with an equal 6.2 percent payment. It may seem that employers are paying half of the Social Security taxes, but that's not the case. Even though the employers are legally liable for one-half of the tax, they shift the tax onto workers in the form of lower gross wages. Therefore, the Social Security tax burden, 12.4 percent of each worker's gross pay, falls on workers. Half of this burden is hidden from the workers.

Currently, the Social Security Administration is running a budget surplus. For 2008, Social Security revenues totaled $805 billion and benefit payments and administrative costs were $625 billion, resulting in a surplus of $180 billion. Over the years, the system has run up an overall surplus totaling $2.4 trillion.

What has happened to this surplus? The SSA took in $180 billion more than it spent in 2008. However, the federal government spent this $180 billion on other programs. Since the funds were spent on something other than Social Security, the government declares that it loaned itself the $180 billion, calling such "lending" intragovernmental debt. For all Social Security revenues that are spent on non-Social Security programs, the Treasury department issues bonds to the SSA and those bonds are held in the Trust Fund. Surely we can have confidence in anything called a Trust Fund.

Think of this type of lending for a moment. The federal government is in debt to itself. Compare this to debt in the private sector. No business declares that it's deep in debt because it loaned itself money. It's the same with families. Parents don't lay awake at night trying to figure out how to repay the money they loaned themselves. The government, however, thinks that it makes perfect sense to collect $100 of tax revenue, spend the $100, and then declare that it now owes itself $100. This scheme is not limited to Social Security. Currently, federal intragovernmental debt for all programs totals $4.3 trillion.

How should we think about this intragovernmental debt? The Treasury department collects $100 in Social Security taxes, the SSA spends $70 on Social Security benefits, and the other $30 goes to, let's say, military spending. Since $30 was collected for Social Security, but spent on the military, the Trust Fund now has $30 of bonds. The bonds are simply promises of future taxes. The feds collected the money for Social Security and now they are going to collect taxes again for Social Security spending. The $2.4 trillion of bonds in the Trust fund represent Social Security revenues that need to be collected a second time, since the tax revenues did not go towards Social Security spending when they were initially collected. In fact, all of the intragovernmental debt represents future higher taxes.

The interest on the bonds in the Trust Fund is another issue. In 2008, the SSA racked up $116 billion of interest payments on its $2.4 trillion of bonds, interest payments that were made in the form of more Treasury bonds for the Trust Fund. The government loans itself money and then issues bonds (read, higher taxes) to pay itself interest on that lending. This is not an insignificant amount. In the last ten years, the SSA has collected $754 billion of interest on its share of the intragovernmental debt.

Though the SSA is currently running a budget surplus, its financial position is rapidly deteriorating. With the glut of upcoming retirements, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is falling and Social Security spending is rising much fast than its revenue source. A year ago, the SSA estimated that the system would be solvent until 2017. Falling revenues due to the recession have resulted in a new estimate of 2016. At that point, the system will need additional tax revenues to be able to pay the promised benefits.

The Trustees Report declares that, starting in 2016, the "deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037." This is sleight of hand. The actual day of reckoning is 2016, not 2037. By 2037, the Trust Fund will be depleted. But the Trust Fund is irrelevant. Regardless of the status of the Trust Fund, if the current estimates are correct, beginning in 2016, the system will need significant additional tax revenues.

The shortfall starts in 2016, but increases rapidly. According to the report, Social Security–tax income will only be able to finance 76 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2037.

The report calls for "an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two" to bring the system into actuarial balance.

Making the system sustainable will require higher taxes or benefits reductions. These reductions could be achieved by either reducing the benefits per recipient or reducing the number of beneficiaries — say, by raising the minimum age requirements. The solution is to give workers a negative rate of return on the money that is taken from them. It would also help if some workers collected no benefits at all. Workers who are taxed and then die before collecting any benefits are a boon to the system. Maybe the federal government should rethink its war on tobacco.

This system is a massive income-redistribution scheme, taking one-eighth of most workers' incomes. The total tax burden is hidden from the workers. The tax revenues have been used to cover the deficits in the rest of the government's budgets, and the only way to make the system sustainable is to give the participants a negative rate of return on their money.

The Social Security system has run its course. It's unfair and it's economically destructive. It's time for the program to be abolished.

Mark Brandly is a professor of economics at Ferris State University and an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

OBAMA REPORTS ARIZONA'S IMMIGRATION LAW TO THE UNITED NATIONS' HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

OBAMA REPORTS ARIZONA'S IMMIGRATION LAW TO THE UNITED NATIONS' HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
08-25-2010 10:50 pm - Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
Apparently Barack Obama is not content to make a federal case out of his immigration feud with Arizona; he just made it an international one.

The president’s first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bash Arizona’s immigration law — and possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN. Throughout the report, which sounds like an Obama campaign speech, the president discusses “the original flaw” of the U.S. Constitution,

America’s tolerance for slavery, and his version of our long and despicable history of discriminating against and oppressing minorities, women, homosexuals, and the handicapped. After each complaint, he addresses how he is delivering us from ourselves, patting himself on the back for such initiatives as ending “torture,” promoting Affirmative Action, and passing health care legislation.

In his section on “Values and Immigration,” he praised the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to provide better medical care for detainees and increase “Alternatives To Detention” (e.g., letting them go). Then he turned to the one state that has had the temerity to stand in his way of fundamentally transforming the American electorate:

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

On Obama’s command, Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and which merely upholds federal law. (He gave sanctuary cities a pass.) He now threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio for “racial profiling” when arresting illegal immigrants near the Mexican border.

Obama’s turns his skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause. It also places Arizona’s law in the hands of the United Nations.

The national report is but the first step of the international government’s review process. On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference). This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from NGOs with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law.

Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement.

Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance. However, its website asserts, “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the” World Body.

When the Left cannot win at the ballot box (virtually every time), it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans who support its law before the United Nations.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE REPORT!

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Police say it's 'very possible' attacks near fairgrounds had racial overtones | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

By TOM ALEX

Des Moines police are trying to determine what led to a series of attacks outside the Iowa State Fairgrounds over the weekend that included the assault of two police officers.

At least three people were arrested Friday through early Monday morning. Other arrests may occur as officers investigate the incidents, officials said.

There are indications that some of the fights - which appear to involve mostly teenagers and young adults - were racially motivated, police said.

"We don't know if this was juveniles fighting or a group of kids singling out white citizens leaving the fairgrounds," Sgt. Lori Lavorato said. "It's all under investigation, but it's very possible it has racial overtones."

Officials announced last week that they were stepping up security outside the fairgrounds after a series of attacks Aug. 14 that included a pair of stabbings. Investigators are still investigating those assaults and victims intend to pursue charges.

audio AUDIO: Des Moines Police Sgt. Richard Schuett describes a situation near the Iowa State Fairgrounds Sunday night in which he and other officers were attacked.

Sgt. David Murillo stated in a report on Friday night, "On-duty officers at the fairgrounds advise there was a group of 30 to 40 individuals roaming the fairgrounds openly calling it 'beat whitey night.' "

Jammie Carroll, 36, of Polk City, was seriously injured in the 3000 block of East Grand Avenue Friday night after a group of people beat him up, causing severe injuries to his eyes, cheekbones and nose, Murillo wrote. Carroll is white, and many of the suspects are black, police said.

State Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad, D-Des Moines, who has worked to fight gang-related violence, said he doesn't have enough information to decide if the fights were racially motivated. He said police comments that race was involved could miss other factors, such as nonracial taunting.

"Unfortunately, like any other city, you have certain parts of town that individuals congregate in," Abdul-Samad said. "You have those that go into that area with no problem, and those who cannot."

He added, "We of course need to work on race relations. If anyone says we don't, they are playing games with themselves."

State Fair spokeswoman Lori Chappell said she had few details about the incidents. Police had increased security near the western edge of the fairgrounds specifically, she said.

The fair, which drew more than 960,000 visitors over 11 days, ended when the gates closed at 1 a.m. Monday.

About 10:30 p.m. Sunday, two police officers were attacked as they waded into a combative crowd outside the fairgrounds' main gates at East 30th Street and Grand Avenue.

Sgt. Richard Schuett and reserve Officer Lynn Hubbs both complained of head, neck and back pain after being punched from behind while trying to make arrests.

"There were pockets of people fighting," Schuett said. "People were leaving the fair and they were walking into the middle of them. We were trying to move people along but some of them wouldn't move."

A police report says Schuett "was on the ground fighting with his suspect, and several other females began to attack him." Another officer grabbed one of the attackers and tried to make an arrest, but she spun away.

Officers sprayed chemical deterrent and deployed a stun gun while trying to gain control. Two teenage girls were taken into custody for questioning following that incident.

Also Sunday night and early Monday:

- Beth Longen, 25, of Des Moines was at the gas pumps at the QuikTrip store, East 30th Street and University Avenue, taking video of the crowd when she was assaulted about 11:20 p.m., police said. A 17-year-old girl allegedly slapped Longen and threatened her in front of police officers. The teen was one of several taken to police headquarters and later released to parents.

- Earl Tice, 17, of Des Moines was attacked near East 30th Street and Grand Avenue about 9:45 p.m. Sunday. He told officers he was jumped while leaving the fair. Tice was having X-rays taken at a hospital when police took a report from his mother. Officials said he had been kicked and punched.

- Officers arrested Daveion Trell Smith, 18, of Des Moines on a charge of disorderly conduct. Police said they observed him with a large group of people, yelling and gesturing and trying to start a fight with another group of people. He was warned and told to leave the area, police said.

- Kiera Agee, 18, of Des Moines was charged with disorderly conduct. Police said they told her several times to leave the area. She allegedly responded by swearing at police. She was arrested and was taken to jail.

- Ashley Robinson, 18, of Des Moines was charged with interference with official acts. Police said they were doing paperwork in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant near the fairgrounds when Robinson walked up demanding answers to questions. Police were holding several suspects there at the time. She was ordered to leave the area. When she refused, she was taken into custody.

Laurie Christensen, a resident of Walker Street near the fairgrounds, said she's never seen such hostility around the fairgrounds.

Groups "have been openly taunting the police - in the street right to their faces," she said. "We found some of them that ran from the police hiding in our backyard."

Register staff writer Perry Beeman contributed to this article.

State Department funding Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s trip to the Middle East

By Caroline May - The Daily Caller | Published: 2:52 AM 08/24/2010 | Updated: 6:25 PM 08/24/2010

Caroline May is a political reporter at the Daily Caller. She previously worked as a policy analyst the National Center for Public Policy Research. May graduated from Rice University where she majored in history and religious studies.


While much attention has been focused on questions surrounding the Ground Zero mosque and the appropriateness of the State Department funding Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s trip to the Middle East, little attention has been given to the fact that U.S. taxpayer money is funding mosque development around the world.

Just a cursory search of the term “mosque” on the State Department’s list of “projects” reveals 26 examples of federal funds going to fund construction, renovation, and rehabilitation of various mosques abroad. The benefiting countries include Bulgaria, Pakistan, Mali, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Egypt, Tunisia, the Maldives, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Serbia and Montenegro.

The U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP) — which is putting millions toward “heritage preservation” projects in the developing world — financed mosque-related projects in all the aforementioned countries.

In Montenegro, for example, the State Department has funded an effort to restore and conserve the Shadrvan (Fountain) of the Old Mosque in Pljevlja. According to the State Department’s website, without needed repairs there would not be a sufficient place for ritual washing before prayer.

“To support the restoration of a fountain at a 16th-century mosque concurrent with the restoration of the mosque itself. Used for ritual ablutions before prayer, the fountain has deteriorated over time and needs a new wooden octagonal roof, pipes, water-taps, and pavement,” the description of the project reads.

Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman, told The Daily Caller that the U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation is a type of diplomatic effort and outreach, what she says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “soft power.”

“It is helping to preserve our cultural heritage. It is not just to preserve religious structures,” Thompson said. “It is not to preserve a religion. It is to help us as global inhabitants preserve cultures.”

In a document provided on Monday to Indiana Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the State Department explained that the practice of funding such projects became acceptable in 2003 when the Justice Department declared that the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause did not preclude federal funds from going to preserve religious structures if they had cultural importance.

The DOJ wrote: “That advice is provided in the following paragraph that appears in every AFCP request for grant proposals… ‘The establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution permits the government to include religious objects and sites within an aid program under certain conditions. For example, an item with a religious connection (including a place of worship) may be the subject of a cultural preservation grant if the item derives its primary significance and is nominated solely on the basis of architectural, artistic, historical or other cultural (not religious) criteria.’”

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has also spent millions reconstructing and financing multiple mosques in Cairo and Cyprus, as well as providing computers for imams in Tajikistan and Mali.

Interestingly, however, according to the Code of Federal Regulations, “USAID funds may not be used for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for inherently religious activities.”

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The document that should stop the Islamic “Victory Mosque”

Trial of the United States vs. The Holy Land Foundation et al

By Doug Hagmann Monday, August 23, 2010

Northeast Intelligence Network

Racists, Xenophobes and bigots. Those are just a few terms used to describe the opponents of the Islamic center planned near Ground Zero. These characterizations could possibly be avoided, however, by more fact-based protest.

To date, defenders of the center seemed undeterred, despite all that is know about the project front man. Look just a bit deeper.

Among the golden nuggets of evidence produced during the trial of the United States vs. The Holy Land Foundation et al is a document that should end any ambiguity concerning the true intent of Feisal ABDUL-RAUF in his quest to construct an Islamic center at Park Place. In fact, it should be cause to reexamine all Islamic centers and mosques that fall within a certain criteria. Cataloged as “Exhibit 003-0085” by the U.S. federal government, a document translated from Arabic to English titled An Explanatory Memorandum, On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America details the objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

Feisal ABDUL RAUF is indeed an adherent and promoter of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals and objectives. Any doubt to his Muslim Brotherhood connections are addressed by the excellent and timely report by Alyssa A. Lappen, which is required reading for factual insight into ABDUL RAUF’s link to the Muslim brotherhood.

Clearly, according to this document, the objective of the Muslim Brotherhood is to convert the U.S. into an Islamic nation through sabotage and subterfuge. It is a handbook to achieve that end. The author painstakingly describes the process of “settlement,” among others, and further described its meaning and the methods to be employed:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan* must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. [Emphasis added].

The succinct analysis by Ms. Lappen of point 17 of the document clearly illustrates that “building Islamic centers equals building military “battalions,” points from which to later stage the planned destruction of the West.”

And what better place inside our front lines is there but within the perimeter of destruction at Ground Zero?

* Ikhwan (Arabic for brothers) was the Islamic religious militia which formed the main military force of the Arabian ruler Ibn Saud.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The New Media Journal | Iranian Flights Transporting Iranian Agents, Possibly Uranium?

Source: WTOP-FM (Washington DC)
Iran Air 744 is a bimonthly flight that originates in Tehran and flies directly to Caracas with periodic stops in Beirut and Damascus. The maiden flight was Feb. 2, 2007. The mere existence of the flight was a significant concern for US intelligence officials, but now a broader concern is who and what are aboard the flights.

Offer Baruch, a former Israeli Shin Bet agent, now vice president of operations for International Shield, a security firm in Texas, says the plane is reserved for Iranian agents, including "Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guard and other intelligence personnel."

Current and former US intelligence officials fear the flight is a shadowy way to move people and weapons to locations in Latin America that can be used as staging points for retaliatory attacks against the US or its interests in the event Iranian nuclear sites are struck by US or Israeli military forces.

"My understanding is that this flight not only goes from Caracas to Damascus to Tehran perhaps twice a month, but it also occasionally makes stops in Lebanon as well, and the passengers on that flight are not processed through normal Venezuelan immigrations or customs. They are processed separately when they come into the country," says Peter Brookes, senior fellow for National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.

The flight typically leaves Tehran and stops at Damascus International Airport and after a 90-minute layover, the flight continues to Venezuela's Caracas. Upon arrival, the plane is met by special Venezuelan forces and sequestered from other arrivals.

"It says that something secretive or clandestine is going on that they don't want the international community to know about," says Brookes, a former deputy assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs and CIA employee.

In addition to speculation about who is aboard, there are significant concerns that the Boeing 747SP airplane might be transporting uranium to Tehran on the return flight...

Additionally, Brookes and others worry that Iranian special advisers are schooling the Venezuelan military and may be involved in plans to move Iranian agents inside the US

"It's certainly a possibility. Would the agents that come into Venezuela be able to find their way to the United States? That's certainly possible. You see the drug smugglers today using submersibles to move drugs to the US and other parts of the Caribbean which is a real challenge. So why wouldn't they be able to do the same with persons?"

Michelle Malkin » Open-borders DOJ vs. America

The Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona, officially unveiled on Tuesday, is an affront to all law-abiding Americans. It is a threatening salvo aimed at all local, county, or state governments that dare to take care control of the immigration chaos in their own backyards. And it is being driven by open-borders extremists who have dedicated their political careers to subverting homeland security policies in the name of compassion and diversity.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, headed by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, took the lead in prepping the legal brief against Arizona. The son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Perez is a far Left lawyer and activist who worked for the late mass illegal alien amnesty champion Teddy Kennedy and served in the Clinton administration DOJ. While holding down a key government position there in which he was entrusted to abide by the rule of law, Perez volunteered for Casa de Maryland – a notorious illegal alien advocacy group funded through a combination of taxpayer-subsidized grants and radical liberal philanthropy, including billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Institute (not to mention more than $1 million showered on the group by Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez’s regime-owned oil company, CITGO).

Perez rose from Casa de Maryland volunteer to president of the group’s board of directors. Under the guise of enhancing the “multicultural” experience, he crusaded for an ever-expanding set of illegal alien
benefits from in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students to driver’s licenses. Casa de Maryland opposes enforcement of deportation orders, has protested post-9/11 coordination of local, state, and
national criminal databases, and produced a “know your rights” propaganda pamphlet for illegal alien depicting federal immigration agents as armed bullies making babies cry.

In 2006, Casa de Maryland threatened to protest at the schools of children whose parents belonged to the pro-immigration enforcement group, the Minutemen – and then headed into the Montgomery County,
Md., public schools to recruit junior amnesty protesters who were offered school credits for traveling with Casa de Maryland to march on Washington.

As a former Maryland resident, I got to see Perez’s militant friends and colleagues in action. I watched Casa de Maryland president Gustavo Torres (who met with President Obama last week) complain that motor
vehicle administration officials have “absolutely no right to ask for people’s Social Security number or immigration status to get a driver’s license.” I stood among Casa de Maryland grievance-mongers
who shouted “No license, no justice! No justice, no peace!” while playing the race card against naturalized Americans and legal immigrants who opposed the illegal alien welfare state.

Perez himself derided secure-borders citizen activists as “xenophobes,” but denied painting the grass-roots immigration enforcement movement as racist. Questioned by GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions during his Obama DOJ confirmation hearing last year about the illegal alien rights guide produced by Casa de Maryland, Perez grudgingly stated that “the Civil Rights Division must not act in contravention to valid enforcement actions of our federal immigration laws.”

But “act[ing] in contravention” is exactly, of course, what the Civil Rights Division is doing in spearheading the challenge to Arizona’s valid enforcement actions of our federal immigration law.

Perez, Attorney General Eric Holder, and the rest of the open-borders DOJ team have invoked “preemption” doctrine based on the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause to attack Arizona’s anti-illegal
immigration measure and oppose local and state enforcement of federal immigration laws. Never mind that the Arizona law was drafted scrupulously to comply with all federal statutes and the Constitution.

You gotta love Obama’s fair-weather friends of the Constitution. When a state acts to do the job the feds won’t do, Obama’s legal eagles run to the Founding Fathers for protection. When, on the other hand,
left-wing cities across the country pass illegal alien sanctuary policies that flagrantly defy national immigration laws and hamper cross-jurisdiction enforcement, the newfound federal preemption advocates are nowhere in sight.

The Obama DOJ’s lawsuit against Arizona is sabotage of the people’s will and the government’s fundamental responsibility to provide for the common defense.

No border enforcement, no security. No security,
no peace.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

70 avowed socialists in U.S. Congress

Their goals are not America's future. They all need to be replaced by loyal American sons and daughters.


© 2010 WorldNetDaily

In October 2009, the Democratic Socialists of America released in its newsletter a list of 70 members of the U.S. Congress who are members of the organization:

Co-Chairs

Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs

Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

(Story continues below)



House Members

Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Between Barack and a Hard Place

By Dr. Robert R. Owens Saturday, August 14, 2010

People learn by moving from the known to the unknown. An analogy inherently proposes the idea that if things agree in some respect they probably agree in others. Secular prophecy uses knowledge of the past and the present to predict the future. The past is the womb of the present and the present is the history of the future. As the past may be interpreted and the present may be misunderstood the future is never certain. Platitudes may outline the shape of something, but they can never define anything.

If Michelle is like Marie Antoinette to whom shall we compare Barack? The thought that he’s Louis XVI is unthinkable. George III is too easy. All of the megalomaniacs or despots of the twentieth century would be politically incorrect in the extreme. Some would be considered too far left and some too far right though in reality the extreme on both sides meet at the intersection of totalitarianism and brutality. Since he rode a wave of secular messianic fever into power perhaps an appropriate paraphrase would be, “Who do men say that he is?”

Recently a woman who fled Venezuela to escape Hugo Chavez and his democratic revolution was heard crying, “Obama is doing the same things as Chavez! He’s following the same path, going to the same place, but now we have nowhere to run.” Someone who escaped the USSR told me, “I’ve seen all this before. He’s like Nikita Khrushchev. He says he brings hope and change but really he’s just blaming the past because he hopes to rule the present while destroying the hope of the future.” According to an escapee of East Germany, “He’s like Leonid Brezhnev. He promises security, pensions and benefits but all he will do is bring taxes, regulations and more bureaucrats, always more bureaucrats.”

Not a Hitler, not a Stalin, not a Mao, not even a Mussolini to whom shall we compare this man who has brought the crest of the long building Progressive wave crashing against the American experiment? Perhaps we should see who he compares himself to?

President Obama announced his run for the presidency in Springfield, Illinois on the steps of the old state capitol building. Choosing a setting in Springfield where Abraham Lincoln once gave a speech condemning slavery and calling for the United States to unite inspired even the Progressives at ABC News to observe, “Springfield allowed Obama to immodestly and continuously compare himself to Lincoln.”

Immediately after his victory the cover of Time magazine depicted the President-elect as FDR riding in an open car with his trademark cigarette holder clamped tightly in his smile. So we know his promoters in the press want us to compare him to the four term president-for-life who until now has been the epitome of a Progressive president. But does President Obama make the comparison himself? According to Politico, “President Barack Obama compared himself to FDR.” Major portions of FDR’s new Deal were declared unconstitutional, .many economists believe his policies prolonged the Great Depression, Alger Hiss really was a communist spy, and at Yalta Roosevelt gave Poland, whose freedom World War II was fought to preserve, to Stalin. If we forget all that comparing yourself to FDR is a good thing.

In the words of the Washington Post when running for the presidency Mr. Obama, “Sells Himself as the New JFK.” While at the time other news outlets noted, that even fellow Progressives disputed the comparison using the headline, “Hillary to Obama: You’re No JFK.” President Obama continued to cast himself as the successor to Camelot. While he may be the rightful heir to such military adventures as the Bay of Pigs or such questionable victories as the Cuban Missile Crisis he has parsed the meaning of “ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” In newspeak this becomes, “If you’re a non-tax payer let me tell you what I’m going to do for you ‚and if you’re a tax payer let me tell you what your country is going to do to you.”

President Obama also compares himself to the icon of the anti-Progressives Ronald Reagan. According to Politico in an interview with a print journalist the President, “made the case that his movement is as much about a national moment as about him as a ‚a singular’ individual” also noting “he drew a rather odd analogy for a Democrat: Ronald Reagan.” President Reagan told us, “government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” President Obama told us, “Only Government Can Fix the Economy.” President Ragan told us, “We are today, the last best hope of man on earth.” President Obama told us, “America is no longer what it could be, what it once was.”

All the people mentioned above who escaped socialism, who left homes, families, countries seeking freedom remind me of something else Ronald Reagan said, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

Friday, August 13, 2010

Obama closes curtain on transparency | Washington Examiner

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
August 12, 2010

President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians.

Obama transferred "ethics czar" Norm Eisen to the Czech Republic to serve as U.S. ambassador. Some of Eisen's duties will be handed to Domestic Policy Council member Steven Croley, but most of them, it appears, will shift over to the already-full docket of White House Counsel Bob Bauer.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It: Laurence Kotlikoff - Bloomberg

Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund released its annual review of U.S. economic policy. Its summary contained these bland words about U.S. fiscal policy: “Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP.”

But delve deeper, and you will find that the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”

The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years.

Double Our Taxes

To put 14 percent of gross domestic product in perspective, current federal revenue totals 14.9 percent of GDP. So the IMF is saying that closing the U.S. fiscal gap, from the revenue side, requires, roughly speaking, an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy set down in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

Such a tax hike would leave the U.S. running a surplus equal to 5 percent of GDP this year, rather than a 9 percent deficit. So the IMF is really saying the U.S. needs to run a huge surplus now and for many years to come to pay for the spending that is scheduled. It’s also saying the longer the country waits to make tough fiscal adjustments, the more painful they will be.

Is the IMF bonkers?

No. It has done its homework. So has the Congressional Budget Office whose Long-Term Budget Outlook, released in June, shows an even larger problem.

‘Unofficial’ Liabilities

Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.

For example, our Social Security FICA contributions are called taxes and our future Social Security benefits are called transfer payments. The government could equally well have labeled our contributions “loans” and called our future benefits “repayment of these loans less an old age tax,” with the old age tax making up for any difference between the benefits promised and principal plus interest on the contributions.

The fiscal gap isn’t affected by fiscal labeling. It’s the only theoretically correct measure of our long-run fiscal condition because it considers all spending, no matter how labeled, and incorporates long-term and short-term policy.

$4 Trillion Bill

How can the fiscal gap be so enormous?

Simple. We have 78 million baby boomers who, when fully retired, will collect benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that, on average, exceed per-capita GDP. The annual costs of these entitlements will total about $4 trillion in today’s dollars. Yes, our economy will be bigger in 20 years, but not big enough to handle this size load year after year.

This is what happens when you run a massive Ponzi scheme for six decades straight, taking ever larger resources from the young and giving them to the old while promising the young their eventual turn at passing the generational buck.

Herb Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under U.S. President Richard Nixon, coined an oft-repeated phrase: “Something that can’t go on, will stop.” True enough. Uncle Sam’s Ponzi scheme will stop. But it will stop too late.

And it will stop in a very nasty manner. The first possibility is massive benefit cuts visited on the baby boomers in retirement. The second is astronomical tax increases that leave the young with little incentive to work and save. And the third is the government simply printing vast quantities of money to cover its bills.

Worse Than Greece

Most likely we will see a combination of all three responses with dramatic increases in poverty, tax, interest rates and consumer prices. This is an awful, downhill road to follow, but it’s the one we are on. And bond traders will kick us miles down our road once they wake up and realize the U.S. is in worse fiscal shape than Greece.

Some doctrinaire Keynesian economists would say any stimulus over the next few years won’t affect our ability to deal with deficits in the long run.

This is wrong as a simple matter of arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the government’s credit-card bill and each year’s 14 percent of GDP is the interest on that bill. If it doesn’t pay this year’s interest, it will be added to the balance.

Demand-siders say forgoing this year’s 14 percent fiscal tightening, and spending even more, will pay for itself, in present value, by expanding the economy and tax revenue.

My reaction? Get real, or go hang out with equally deluded supply-siders. Our country is broke and can no longer afford no- pain, all-gain “solutions.”

(Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University and author of “Jimmy Stewart Is Dead: Ending the World’s Ongoing Financial Plague with Limited Purpose Banking.”

Monday, August 9, 2010

Disregarding the will of the people

By James Lambert

I can't think of any other time in our 200+ year history that a single judge (in two separate states) has overturned the votes of millions of people. Several weeks prior to the judicial decision against Proposition 8 in California, another judge (this time in Arizona) threw out a very popular state law (AB 1070) that was slated to protect that state's borders from illegal immigration chaos.

It is unfathomable for one single unelected judge to completely disregard two different pluralities of millions of California voters. In 2000 the voters in CA. (by a majority of 62%) affirmed traditional marriage. It was again legally challenged and in 2008 California voters, confirmed traditional marriage, for the second time. The second go round the margin was narrower, but marriage between one man and one woman won the plurality of 53% of the vote. Now a single judge has made his decision to effectively void the will (and the vote) of the people.

Another popular legislative initiative (AB 1070), introduced and passed in Arizona, was also recently thrown out in the courts — again by one judge. What is so incredibly ironic about this decision from Judge Sharon Butler is that the AZ law already mirrors federal immigration policy which, for the most part, is not being enforced by the feds in that state.

Despite the fact that the Arizona law simply mirrors federal law, bureaucrats and representatives from President Obama's Justice Department continue to target Arizona, rejecting the will of the vast majority of people from the state. The people of Arizona (70+% in recent polls) want their borders secured and protected. They are terribly concerned about the flood of illegal immigrants who are taxing their state financially as well as taking away much needed jobs.

Unfortunately, the issue of illegal immigration will continue to be an ongoing problem in not only Arizona but other states as well.

In California, the San Diego Minutemen (www.sandiegominutemen.com ) have continued to be strong advocates for border enforcement. In an exclusive interview for the cable television show, Night Lights, SDMM President Jeff Schwilk addresses some of the concerns his organization has in the coming years.

SDMM Interview: (click below to watch)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpT-YvBdtQ4&feature=channel_page

Judges are not elected officials and are not accountable to the people. The role of the judge is to interpret law, not act as an advocate for a particular law or viewpoint he personally happens to have. By disenfranchising the public with these rulings, the American people are brought under the rule of tyranny

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

HOW ADL WANTS TO OUTLAW CHRISTIANS By Rev. Ted Pike

Few familiar with the 97 year history of the Anti-Defamation League would deny its ambition to destroy the Christian/conservative right. ADL’s first great step was passing its federal hate crimes law last fall. The next stage was indicated last week by national director Abe Foxman. He said 80 million Americans are “anti-Semitic”—40 million “seriously infected” and 40 million “mildly” so.

What is Foxman’s reason for ensnaring so many in such a preposterously wide net? He is spinning a mythology that anti-Semitism in America is a “serious national problem”—one, like the “epidemic” of hate crimes, to be met with federal legislation.

Foxman is moving us toward a federal “anti-Semitism” law – probably under the expanded jurisdiction of ADL’s Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. If Foxman has his way, it could become a federal hate crime to engage in speech he considers anti-Semitic: alleging Jews have too much power in government, finance, or media, as well as voicing “strong” criticism of Israel. It would also include the New Testament claim that Jews killed Christ.

To understand the future, know the past. Over the last 25 years, ADL has persuaded liberals that hate crimes had indeed escalated to the point of crisis—a crisis that only a federal hate law could cope with. ADL thinks big—the bigger the lie, the bolder ADL states it as fact.

But ADL does more than distort facts. It turns upside down the most fundamental terms and values that govern civilization.

In 1988, ADL sponsored a national competition to create a model anti-hate law for America. At the time, few outside Canada and Sweden had ever heard of a “hate crime.” From the beginning, ADL lassoed its conceptual hate crimes noose around the largest number of people. It redefined a characteristic we all possess for good or bad: “bias.” ADL blackened the reputation of all bias (except bias against Christian/conservative values). ADL made bias equivalent to “hate.” It then relentlessly conditioned police, educators, the media, etc., that prejudice and intolerance (i.e., hate) were so evil, especially when motivating a crime, that a biased criminal act should be punished with at least triple penalties.

Quantifying “Hate”

But did hate crimes of the magnitude ADL claims really exist? No. ADL had to create its own hate crime reality. In 1990, it persuaded Congress to enact its Hate Crimes Statistic Act, empowering the federal government to require annual reporting of hate crimes from the states. ADL also instructed police in America on its twisted definitions, permitting them to report to the FBI as a “hate crime” any altercation, name-calling, or accusation which police believed was motivated by bias. As a result, ADL was able to “document” about 7500 hate crimes annually. At least 95 percent were never determined to be an actual crime in a court of law. Even when so ludicrously inflated, such “crimes” constitute 1/15 th of 1 percent of actual, documented annual crime in America.

Yet the sleight of hand worked. After sensitizing America to the threat of “hate,” and stacking up an annual 7500 “hate crimes,” ADL was able to dramatize the “epidemic” of hate enough to put President Obama’s signature on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2010.

The federal hate law now exalts homosexuals, Jews, blacks, Muslims and women with preferential rights to federal hate crimes protection. The only reason the hate law has not been implemented with the kind of persecutive force felt in Canada, Sweden, and Australia is that the Christian/conservative right (very largely educated by the National Prayer Network over the past 20 years) has at last made hate laws an extremely volatile issue. Indeed, this issue could unseat Democrats in November. Nevertheless, ADL’s federal law pulsates in its potential to persecute Christians and conservatives as soon as the time is favorable.

ADL doesn’t want to wait. Ever proactive, ADL now wants the public to believe that the potential hate crime of anti-Semitism pervades America especially among Christians and conservatives. To this end, Foxman began his latest video with the biggest lie he could muster: that 45 years ago, one of three Americans was “seriously infected” with anti-Semitism. That’s nearly 65 million people! This incredibly audacious lie is to confirm ADL’s constant assertion that America has a long and stubborn history of Jew hatred residing in the “extremist” right – bigotry which ADL and its 45 state hate laws helped subdue. Foxman implies that with 80 million anti-Semites in America today, we must more than ever depend on ADL.

In 1965, when a third of Americans were supposedly anti-Semitic, I was a freshman in college. In my entire life to that time, outside of our family, I cannot remember hearing Israel or Jews criticized. Forty-five years ago, Israel was riding a titanic wave of popularity—practically the whole western world unconditionally cheered its “miraculous” rebirth. Israel was not criticized for its terrorist expropriation of 800,000 Palestinians in 1948 or any of its actions in the 1967 or 1973 wars against the Arabs. Except for its participation in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon, there was almost no worldwide criticism of Israel’s saturation bombing of 19,500 innocent refugees in southern Lebanon. Not until Sharon’s brutal invasion of the West Bank in 2002 did world opinion significantly rise against Israel. It has especially escalated since the 2009 siege of Gaza, and recently, its terrorist raid on the “Free Gaza” flotilla, killing nine activists.

In 1965, there did exist a small minority of opinion critical of Jewish supremacism, largely subsisting off earlier information provided by voices such as Winston Churchill, Charles Lindberg, Father Coughlin, Gerald L. K. Smith, and Elizabeth Dilling. The largest emerging anti-Zionist voice came from Liberty Lobby out of Washington, DC. Yet such relatively underground dissent did not translate into any appreciable degree of popular criticism of Jews or Israel. Where does Foxman, then, get his figure of 1 in 3 Americans at that time being “seriously infected” with anti-Semitism? It comes from the same place he gets his assertion that 80 million Americans are Jew haters—his creativity as a liar. Such incredible prevarication springs from his desire to condition the American public that anti-Semitism, like hate crimes, is now a much greater national epidemic than anyone imagined. Foxman, a primary architect of the federal hate bill knows exactly what he is doing—what works.

With great forethought, he thus defines in his latest video that anti-Semitism is belief in the New Testament account that the Jews had Christ killed —implicating as anti-Semites all Bible-believing Christians worldwide. Foxman claims that, from the time of the church fathers, the charge that Jews were “Christ-killers” has been a homicidally destructive feature of Christianity. It, more than anything else, has provided fuel for the ovens of Dachau and Auschwitz. In his book, Never Again: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, Foxman says of European Christians what he largely still believes about many Bible-believing Christians today: “…the political and social atmosphere in which the persecution and killing of millions of Jews could be seen as broadly acceptable could not have existed without the tacit acceptance of the Christian churches, as well as the ingrained anti-Semitism of 20 centuries of dogma, doctrine and preaching that demonized Jews.” He quotes Eli Wiesel, “…the killings could not have happened without the sins of millions of Christians, sins of commission as well as sins of omission.” (pg. 94)

Foxman contends that Christianity’s anti-Semitism is so intrinsic that belief in a literal interpretation of the New Testament remains a potent threat to the Jewish people. Thus, Christianity’s capacity to create more Holocausts won’t end until laws in every nation proscribe public proclamation of New Testament teaching, especially concerning the Jews. Such “anti-Semitism” includes Christian evangelism of Jews, which Foxman in his book says, “is inherently anti-Semitic in that it implicitly denigrates the value of Jewish belief.” (pg. 138)

ADL: Anti-Semitism is a “Disease”

In Foxman’s latest video, he also insinuates that the 80 million Americans “infected” with anti-Semitism are victims of a disease. This suggests that criticism of matters Jewish is a psychiatric disorder. Foxman’s Bolshevik forbearers confined critics of Jewish communists, not just to prisons, but psychiatric hospitals. Reputable Swedish evangelists testify that under Sweden’s ADL-inspired hate law, just criticizing Jews or Israel can land you in a psychiatric hospital for up to a year of drug rehabilitation—even before trial!

I had hoped the power of the evangelical right could thwart the momentum of ADL’s federal hate law. It couldn’t—very largely because leaders of the New Right knew ADL was behind hate laws and feared being called “anti-Semitic” by criticizing a venerable Jewish “civil liberties” organization. Their fear of ADL still exceeds their fear of a Christian-persecuting Gestapo – and, I believe, their fear of a God who commands they speak the whole, undiminished truth.

ADL is now in stage two, encircling the religious right with its “noose” of accusation, negatively stereotyping Bible-believers as those who portray Jews as “Christ-killers.” Will Christian/conservative leaders still refuse to publicly acknowledge ADL’s threat to the survival of Christianity? Probably. As ADL pushes for punishment of anti-Semitism under the present federal hate law, it knows Evangelical leaders will never want to seem to be in favor of anti-Semitism by opposing such inclusion. Far from exposing and resisting ADL such leaders will doubtless continue to respond to ADL in a way that delights it and is crucial to its ultimate success.

They give ADL what it wants most from them: silence.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution? - IBD - Investors.com

Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?

By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS Posted 07/30/2010 06:30 PM ET

The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most "consequential" president ever.

The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House."

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him "anti-business." Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced "redistribution of income" in history.

Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America's financial future is "unusually uncertain."

A Wall Street "fear gauge" based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington's wise farewell admonition: "cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not ... inconvenient and unpleasant ... ."

Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.

In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.

Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.

Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.

He and the EPA may try to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.

And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industrywide "boot on the neck" policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.

By the trick of letting current-law tax rates "expire," he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America's borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.

A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.

• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.

• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Documents Uncovered by JW Detail Meeting between DHS Secretary Napolitano and Controversial Islamic “Community Leaders” | Judicial Watch

Washington, DC -- July 29, 2010

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that detail a two-day meeting on January 27 and 28, 2010, between DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian “community leaders.” The documents include a list of participating individuals and organizations, some with controversial radical ties, including:

* Imad Hamad, Midwest Regional Director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. According to investigative reporter Debbie Schlussel, Hamad is connected to the Marxist-Leninist terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and has financially supported the Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah. In a television interview in 2002 on Fox’s Detroit affiliate, Hamad supported a Palestine Authority TV program that urged children to become suicide bombers, calling the program “patriotic.”
* Salam Al-Marayati, Founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC): According to press reports, Al-Mayarati has long been criticized for his extremist views and statements. In 1999 former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) withdrew his nomination of Al-Mayarati to the National Commission on Terrorism because of Al-Mayarati’s extremist politics. Al-Marayati once said, "When Patrick Henry said, 'Give me liberty or give me death,' that statement epitomized jihad [Islamic holy war].”

One of the organizations that attended the meeting, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the federal government in a plot by the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation to fund the terrorist group Hamas.

In addition to the attendee list and biographies, the documents also included internal DHS email correspondence, talking points for Secretary Napolitano and a meeting agenda. Among the highlights:

* A Thursday, February 4, 2010, email from David O’Leary, DHS Office of Legislative Affairs, to David Gersten, Acting Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: “Gordon Lederman of Sen. Lieberman’s Staff called me asking about the 2-day HSAC meeting last week with American Muslim and Arab groups. He was called by a reporter who told him MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and Muslim American Society “rejected the ideas” of soliciting their help with countering violent extremism and were “angry and indignant.”
* A Friday, January 29, 2010, email from Muslim Advocates Executive Director Khera Farhana to Arif Alikhan, DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Development: “The commitments Secretary Napolitano made to these community leaders include…Regular quarterly meetings with the Secretary…An honest and full discussion of legitimate grievances from members of these communities about DHS policies that are ineffective and have a deleterious, humiliating impact on Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian American communities.”
* An internal DHS “talking points” document entitled “Community Stakeholder Meeting” that states: “Communicate that DHS understands the need for enhanced partnership with the Muslim, Sikh, South Asian and Arab groups, including those present at the meeting…You should note the importance of sharing information from a policy perspective and on threats to specific Muslim, Arab, South Asian, and Sikh communities.”

“I fail to see how consorting with radicals helps the DHS protect the United States,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration is bending over backward to cater to radical Muslim organizations in the name of political correctness. This is a dangerous political game that could put American citizens at risk. Some of these meeting participants have no business helping Janet Napolitano establish our homeland security policies.”

Obama's selected Czars through10/09

rense.com

List Of Obama's Czars
10-24-9

OBAMA’S CZARS
CZAR Czar Position Summary
Richard Holbrooke Afghanistan Czar Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use.
Ed Montgomery

Auto recovery Czar Black radical anti business activist.Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks.Univ of Maryland Business School Dean teaches US business has caused world poverty.ACORN board member.Communist DuBois Club member.
Jeffrey Crowley

AIDS Czar Homosexual. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and Special Status, including free health care for gays.
Alan Bersin

Border Czar former failed superintendent of San Diego .Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton.Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno "" to keep borders open to illegals
David J. Hayes California Water Czar Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, "Progress Policy"?.No training or experience in water management.
Ron Bloom Car Czar Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear.Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business.Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto Union owned.How did this happen?
Dennis Ross Central Region Czar Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars.Obama apologist to the world.Anti gun and pro abortion.
Lynn Rosenthal Domestic Violence Czar Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence.Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration.
Gil Kerlikowske Drug Czar devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal,Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle.Believes no American should own a firearm.Supports legalization of drugs

Carol Brower Energy and Environment Czar Political Radical Former head of EPA – known for anti-business activism.Strong anti-gun ownership. SOCIALIST on Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Joshua DuBois Faith Based Czar Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism""seek a separate black nation..Anti gun ownership lobbyist.
Cameron Davis Great Lakes Czar Chicago radical anti business environmentalist.Blames GeorgeBush for "Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink."?No experience or training in w ater management.Former ACORN Board member
Van Jones Green Jobs Czar (since resigned).Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Partywho said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes.MARXIST, said whites are poisoning blacks, said transformation from "suicidal gray capitalism to econ-capitalism to the complete redistribution of wealth."?Black activist with strong anti-white views.
Daniel Fried Guantanamo Closure Czar Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists.Believes America has caused the war on terrorism.
Nancy-Ann DeParle. Health Czar Former head of Medicare / Medicaid.Strong Health Care Rationing proponent.She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Vivek Kundra Information Czar born in New Delhi, India.Controls all public information, including labels and news releases.Monitors all private Internet emails.
Todd Stern International Climate Czar Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord.Pushing hard for Cap and Trade.Blames US business for Global warming.
Dennis Blair Intelligence Czar Ret Navy. Stopped US guided missile program as "provocative"?.Chair of ultra liberal "Council on Foreign Relations"? which blames American organizations for regional wars.
George Mitchell Mideast Peace Czar Fmr. Sen from Maine Left wing radical.Has said Israel should be split up into "2 or 3 " mediumer more manageable plots"?.Anti-nuclear anti-gun & pro homosexual
Kenneth Feinberg Pay Czar Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY.Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs.
Cass Sunstein Regulatory Czar Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the "common good"?.Rules against personal freedoms many times ""like private gun ownership. Says animals should be able to sue people. Anti-hunting..
John Holdren Science Czar Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist.Claims US business has caused world poverty.No Science training.OK to abort a child until the age of two.Thinks TREES should be able to sue humans.
Earl Devaney Stimulus Accountability Czar spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens.Believes in Open Borders to Mexico .Author ofstatement blaming US gun stores for drug war in Mexico .
J. Scott Gration Sudan Czar Native of Democratic Republic of Congo.Believes US does little to help Third World countries.Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations
Herb Allison TARP Czar Fannie May CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions ofpeople to lose their life savings.
John Brennan Terrorism Czar Anti CIA activist.No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs.Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military
Aneesh Chopra Technology Czar No Technology training.Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist.Supports Obama Health care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan
Adolfo Carrion Jr. Urban Affairs Czar Puerto Rican.Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America .Millionaire "slum lord"? of the Bronx , NY.Owns many lavish homes and condos which he got from "sweetheart"? deals with labor unions.Wants higher taxes to pay for minority housing and health care
Ashton Carter Weapons Czar Leftist.Wants all private weapons in US destroyed.Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America .No Other "policy"?
Gary Samore WMD Policy Czar Former US Communist.Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith.Has no other "policy"?.

Kevin Jennings SAFE SCHOOL CZARS As a teacher when a 15 year year said he was having sex with an older man, instead of turning in the man "the law for a teacher, he asked how it was going and suggested they use condoms.Held a conference with the MAXIMUM age of 18 to teach homosexual issues like fisting.?Wrote the intro to the book, "Queering Elementary Education."? Has repeatedly praised and claims to be inspired by Harry Hay, early supporter of NAMBLA, (Noth American Man Boy Love Association).