Monday, January 24, 2011

Islam plans to take over America by the year 2020

Anis Shorrosh, author of ''Islam Revealed'' and ''The True Furqan,'' is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967.

''The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,'' Shorrosh says. ''Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?''

1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ''Abed.''

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ''foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran'' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

* Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).

* Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

* Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can't legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.

* Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ''sleeper cells'' have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America's high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ''Centers for Islamic studies'' with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America's justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. ''Islam Revealed'' is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ''Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.''

''The True Furqan'' is also available for viewing on Shorrosh's new website is

Friday, January 21, 2011

Judge slams gag order on N.J. custody case

Homeschooling Christian parents not allowed to talk to WND
Posted: January 21, 2011
12:50 am Eastern

By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Jackson family at Maj. John Jackson's promotion ceremony.

The N.J. Superior Court in Morris County has placed a gag order on the parties involved in the N.J. Division of Youth and Family Services case against Christian homeschooling parents John and Carolyn Jackson.

As reported yesterday by WND, DYFS took the five Jackson children away from their parents on April 16, 2010, citing an imminent danger to the children after the youngest, 2-year-old Chaya, was hospitalized. The parents have been fighting in court to regain custody.

According to a source who asked not to be named, the judge hearing the case, Michael Paul Wright, imposed the gag order Wednesday afternoon upon the request of DYFS. WND called DYFS to inquire about the case early Wednesday afternoon, and posted a news story on the WND website early Thursday morning.

Army Maj. John Jackson confirmed to WND today that he is under a gag order and is no longer allowed to talk to the media about the case.

"That's unbelievable," said N.J. attorney William Baer. "It's pretty common for a New Jersey judge to impose a gag order on a child custody case. As a general matter the judge would defer to the state. But the fact that they didn't impose this until there were rumblings about going to the media is interesting.

"The request for a gag order would have to come on a motion from one of the parties," Baer continued. "Because the Jacksons are talking to you, I doubt they are the party that is trying to stifle discussion of this case.

"It wouldn't matter whether it was DYFS, which is the state of New Jersey , or the court, which is also the state of New Jersey. It's the people v. the government," said Baer.

WND's calls to the Morristown County Courthouse went unreturned.

Another N.J. attorney, Leigh-Ann Bellew, observed that getting information about such cases is difficult if the parties aren't allowed to speak.

"The problem is that family court is not open to the public, for the protection of minors," Bellew told WND.

A DYFS spokesman again declined to comment, citing confidentiality rules. "We're not even allowed to say if we're involved in a case with a particular family."

The Jacksons also spoke about the case with another news website, the Tea Party Daily News, which posted a story about the case on January 10.

The unnamed source described the Jacksons as a "wonderful, loving, caring family. The children are normal, happy and, except for Chaya, healthy.

"To immediately withdraw the children from the home without any evidence of wrongdoing is devastating and frightening. If it could happen to this family, it could happen to anybody.

"There's been no justice here," the source added. "They've been deprived of their right to a speedy trial."

The Jacksons are scheduled to present their defense to the court next Monday and Tuesday, nine months after the custody battle began.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

The real cost of ethanol (Another Congressional nightmare)

“It costs money to store, transport and blend ethanol with gasoline. Since ethanol absorbs water, and water is corrosive to pipeline components, it must be transported by tanker to the distribution point where it is blended with gasoline for delivery to your gas station. That's expensive transportation. It costs more to make a gasoline that can be blended with ethanol. Ethanol is lost through vaporization and contamination during this process. Gasoline/ethanol fuel blends that have been contaminated with water degrade the efficiency of combustion. E-85 ethanol is corrosive to the seals and fuel systems of most of our existing engines (including boats, generators, lawn mowers, hand power tools, etc.), and can not be dispensed through existing gas station pumps. And finally, ethanol has about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline. That means the fuel economy of a vehicle running on E-85 will be about 25% less than a comparable vehicle running on gasoline.”

By James Quinn
Real Cost For A Gallon Of Corn Ethanol

Corn Ethanol Futures Market quote for January 2011 Delivery


Add cost of transporting, storing and blending corn ethanol


Added cost of making gasoline that can be blended with corn ethanol


Add cost of subsidies paid to blender


Total Direct Costs per Gallon


Added cost from waste


Added cost from damage to infrastructure and user's engine


Total Indirect Costs per Gallon


Added cost of lost energy


Added cost of food (American family of four)


Total Social Costs


Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend


Multiple studies by independent non-partisan organizations have concluded that mandating and subsidizing ethanol fuel production is a terrible policy for Americans:

* In May 2007, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University released a report saying the ethanol mandates have increased the food bill for every American by about $47 per year due to grain price increases for corn, soybeans, wheat, and others. The Iowa State researchers concluded that American consumers face a “total cost of ethanol of about $14 billion.” And that figure does not include the cost of federal subsidies to corn growers or the $0.51 per gallon tax credit to ethanol producers.
* In May 2008, the Congressional Research Service blamed recent increases in global food prices on two factors: increased grain demand for meat production, and the bio-fuels mandates. The agency said that the recent “rapid, ‘permanent’ increase in corn demand has directly sparked substantially higher corn prices to bid available supplies away from other uses – primarily livestock feed. Higher corn prices, in turn, have forced soybean, wheat, and other grain prices higher in a bidding war for available crop land.”
* Mark W. Rosegrant of the International Food Policy Research Institute, testified before the U.S. Senate on bio-fuels and grain prices. Rosegrant said that the ethanol scam has caused the price of corn to increase by 29 percent, rice to increase by 21 percent and wheat by 22 percent. Rosegrant estimated that if the global bio-fuels mandates were eliminated altogether, corn prices would drop by 20 percent, while sugar and wheat prices would drop by 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively, by 2010. Rosegrant said that “If the current bio-fuel expansion continues, calorie availability in developing countries is expected to grow more slowly; and the number of malnourished children is projected to increase.” He continued, saying “It is therefore important to find ways to keep bio-fuels from worsening the food-price crisis. In the short run, removal of ethanol blending mandates and subsidies and ethanol import tariffs, in the United States—together with removal of policies in Europe promoting bio-fuels—would contribute to lower food prices.”

The true cost of the ethanol boondoggle is hidden from the public. The mandates, subsidies and tariffs take place out of plain view. The reason blenders (and gas stations) will pay the same for ethanol is because they can sell it at the same price as gasoline to consumers. A consumer will pay the same for ten gallons of E10 as for ten gallons of gasoline even though the E10 contains a gallon of ethanol. Consumers pay the same for the gallon of ethanol for three reasons. (1) They don't know there's ethanol in their gasoline. (2) There is often ethanol in all the gasoline because of state requirements, so they have no choice. (3) They never know the ethanol has only 67% the energy of gasoline and gets them only 67% as far. The result is that drivers always pay much more for ethanol energy than for gasoline energy, simply because they pay the same amount per gallon. When gasoline prices are $3.00 per gallon, Joe Six-pack pays $4.50 for the same amount of ethanol energy.

Time for you to prepare!!!

January 13, 2011
European Union Times

A grim report prepared by France's General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) obtained by Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) states that president's Obama and Sarkozy have "agreed in principal" to create a joint US-European military force to deal exclusively with a Global uprising expected this spring as our World runs out of food.

According to this report, Sarkozy, as head of the G-20 group of developed Nations, called for and received an emergency meeting with Obama this past Monday at the White House wherein he warned his American counterpart that the shock rise in food prices occurring due to an unprecedented series of disasters was threatening the stability of the entire World and could lead to the outbreak of Total Global War.

Just last week French Prime Minister Francois Fillon underlined that one of France’s top G-20 priorities was to find a collective response to "excessive volatility" in food prices now occurring, a statement joined by Philippe Chalmin, a top economic adviser to the French government, who warned the World may face social unrest including food riots in April as grain prices increase to unprecedented highs.

The fears of the French government over growing Global instability was realized this past week after food riots erupted in Algeria and Tunisia and left over 50 dead. So dire has the situation become in Tunisia that their government this morning rushed in massive amounts of troops and tanks to their capital city Tunis and instituted a Nationwide curfew in an order to quell the growing violence.

The United Nations, also, warned this past Friday that millions of people are now at risk after food prices hit their highest level ever as Global wheat stocks fell to 175.2 million tons from 196.7 million tons a year ago; Global corn stocks are said may be 127.3 million tons at the end of this season, compared with last month's USDA outlook for 130 million tons; and Global soybean inventories will drop to 58.78 million tons at the end of this season, from 60.4 million tons a year earlier.

Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, further warned this past week that rising food prices are "a threat to global growth and social stability" as our World, for the first time in living memory, has been warned is just "one poor harvest away from chaos".

Important to note about how dire the Global food situation has become is to understand the disasters that have befallen our World's top wheat growing Nations this past year, and who in descending order are: China, India, United States, Russia, France, Canada, Germany, Ukraine, Australia and Pakistan.

From China's disaster: 2010 China drought and dust storms were a series of severe droughts during the spring of 2010 that affected Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangxi, Sichuan, Shanxi, Henan, Shaanxi, Chongqing, Hebei and Gansu in the People’s Republic of China as well as parts of Southeast Asia including Vietnam and Thailand, and dust storms in March and April that affected much of East Asia. The drought has been referred to as the worst in a century in southwestern China.

From India's disaster: A record heat wave and growing water crisis in India are forcing politicians to consider implementing user fees and other measures to conserve water. Sri Lanka's President Mahinda Rajapaksa yesterday instructed ministers and officials to prepare a strategic plan to face an impending food crisis as there were signs that the World is to confront a food shortage by next April.

From Russia's disaster: (10% of total World 's output, 20% for export) they were hit by the highest recorded temperatures Russia has seen in 130 years of recordkeeping; the most widespread drought in more than three decades; and massive wildfires that have stretched across seven regions, including Moscow.

From France's disaster: The French government lowered their wheat crop forecast by 2.7% over last year due to drought and cold weather.

From Canada's disaster: Record setting drought has affected their main grain producing provinces in the Western part of their Nation.

From Ukraine's disaster: (the World’s top producer of barley and sixth biggest of wheat) hit as hard as Russia by fire and drought to the point they have halted all their exports of grains in 2011.

From Australia's disaster: Fears of a Global wheat shortage have risen after the Queensland area of Australia was hit by calamitous flooding. Andrew Fraser, Queensland’s State Treasurer, described the floods as a "disaster of biblical proportions". Water is covering land the size of France and Germany. It is expected to reach over 30 feet deep in some areas in coming days.

From Pakistan's disaster: Floods have submerged 17 million acres of Pakistan’s most fertile crop land, have killed 200,000 herd of livestock and have washed away massive amounts of grain and left farmers unable to meet the fall deadline for planting new seeds, which implies a massive loss of food production in 2011, and potential long term food shortages.

Not only have the vast majority of our World's top wheat producers been affected, but also one of the main grain producing regions on the Planet, South America, has been hit by disasters too where an historic drought has crippled Argentina and Bolivia, and Brazil, that regions largest Nation, has been hit with catastrophic floods that have killed nearly 400 nearly 500 people in the past few days alone.

Even the United States has been hit as a catastrophic winter has seen 49 of their 50 States covered by snow causing unprecedented damage to their crops in Florida due to freezing weather, and record setting rains destroying massive numbers of crops in their most important growing region of California.

And if you think that things couldn't get any worse you couldn't be more mistaken as South Korea (one of the most important meat exporters in Asia) has just this past week had to destroy millions of farm animals after an outbreak of the dreaded foot-and-mouth disease was discovered.

To how horrific the Global food situation will become this year was made even more grim this past month when the United States reported that nearly all of their honey bee and bumblebee populations have died out, and when coupled with the "mysterious" die-off of the entire bat population in America means that the two main pollinators of fruit and vegetable plants will no longer be able to do their jobs leading to crop losses this report warns will be "biblical and catastrophic".

Chillingly to note is that after meeting with Sarkozy, Obama began implementing his Nation's strategy for keeping the truth of this dire events from reaching the American people by ordering all US citizens to have an Internet ID so that they can be tracked and jailed should they begin telling the truth.

And so today, as agricultural traders and analysts warn that the latest revision to US and Global stocks means there is no further room for weather problems, a new cyclone is preparing to hit Australia, brutal winter weather in India has killed nearly 130, and more snow is warned to hit America, and we're not even two full weeks into 2011… may God have mercy on us all.

The Great Depression II

By Kirk W. Kelsen
One basis for deciding whether we are in a "recession" or a "depression" is distinguishing how recessions become depressions. With the hindsight of history, we already know.

Parallels between America's current economic crisis and the 1930's Great Depression are instructive. Then, as now, hardship was preceded by a major banking upheaval. Then, as now, a regulatory blizzard followed. Then, as now, millions were displaced. And then, as now, the cause of the Great Depression was widely misunderstood. Many believe today that the 1929 stock market crash caused the Great Depression all by itself, that it was so severe it mysteriously destroyed wealth for another 13 years. To put that in perspective, the serious Carter-era recession should have, by this logic, precluded the Reagan recovery in 1982 and perhaps wreaked havoc until 1990. Not only is this argument absurd, it manifestly did not happen.

In Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1933 inaugural address he lectured that "[t]he only thing we have to fear is fear itself," suggesting Americans suffered irrational neuroses. This is not at all true. Americans made entirely rational and prudent business decisions amidst considerable uncertainty. Though FDR is invariably cast as heroically facing down near-insurmountable economic travails, the less-flattering diagnosis is much more obviously true: he caused them.

With the New Deal, the Second New Deal, TVA (rural electrification), FERA (emergency relief), CCC (youth work program), AAA (farming subsidies), NIRA (industrial regulation and public works), PWA (public works), WPA (public employment), FDIC (banking regulation), and Social Security all exercising unprecedented Federal power, investor uncertainty was justified and profound. Roosevelt's willy-nilly spending legitimized concern that personal fortunes would be entirely consumed. Capricious policies (often framed by class warfare) caused real fear, not "fear of fear itself," fanning a bad recession into the Great Depression. Without doubt, the Crash of 1929 was extremely serious -- almost as serious as the great unraveling that started in September 2008. The Great Depression from 1932 to 1942, however, was Roosevelt's fault.

FDR's maelstrom of tax and regulatory change notwithstanding, the Great Depression was not all bad news all the time. Unemployment, for instance, peaked early, hitting a Depression-era high of 25% in 1932 (though averaging more than 19% for FDR's pre-war tenure). So there were employment gains in the years following FDR's election. Similarly, stocks rebounded starting in 1933, doubling across 12 months (though plummeting again in FDR's second term). These early upticks augured recovery that was not to be: America's economy remained monumentally dysfunctional for another 10 years.

The Great Depression's harshest rebuke is not that it was relentlessly bad; it's that periodic good news always ended up turning worse again, like a false summit. The persistent reappearance of bad news in the 1930's directly correlates with investor uncertainty created by Roosevelt's incessant meddling. In short, it took a disastrous and transformative presidency to make a "depression" out of "recession" -- even if not all months, quarters, and years were uniformly bad.

Today, just as then, almost one in four working-age Americans (or non-citizens, who also must be counted since they are part of the available work force) are unemployed. This 25% estimate includes those who previously were not in the workforce but who are looking now, presumably out of hardship. Tending to confirm this, a recent household survey found 22% unemployed. Conversely, the latest United States Bureau of Labor Statics (BLS) report puts the number at 9.9%. The disparity arises because the BLS number counts individuals receiving unemployment checks. No check? Not counted.

From what I can tell, the total number of unemployed in America today is at least 37.5 million, rising to over 65 million if the underemployed are included. These numbers sound too big to be true but can be pieced together from a variety of sources, including the BLS.

37.5 million unemployed out of 150 million potential workers -- one in four. If this is correct, then where are the bread lines? First, Americans entered the current downturn far wealthier than ever before. Many survive today on fast-depleting retirement accounts and strained credit. Second, massive security nets -- welfare, extensive unemployment benefits, disability payments, and school loans -- have disguised or deferred the physical presence of otherwise visible hardship and deprivation. Government-backed programs, many themselves insolvent, are the "bread lines" of today.

Persistent high unemployment will not soon resolve: job creation currently lags population growth. About 145,000 jobs must be created every month to reach parity -- not growth. 400,000 jobs would need to be created to replace by 2013 the jobs lost since 2007. Even with a sustained recovery starting immediately, it would take at least eight years to recover jobs lost during the last two.

One reason the job picture is so grim is that investors are confounded by Federal monetary policy. Under Roosevelt, just as it is now and was during Carter, Fed policy was an explicitly Keynesian effort to correct unemployment -- not a stable-dollar course like Reagan pursued, or Thatcher for the British Pound. As Margaret Thatcher pointed out in her autobiography, The Downing Street Years, monetary policies must either "hitch their star" to a stable currency or pursue specific social outcomes, such as reducing unemployment. Never both, it must be one or the other.

With trillions outlaid in "stimulus," America is committed to the latter course today.

Predictably, Moody's announced this month that the United States AAA credit rating will be cut in 2012 for the first time in history unless current and projected Federal debt is reduced dramatically. It looks instead like debt will explode when anticipated State insolvencies are transferred to the Federal government, whether as loans to States or by some sovereign bankruptcy proceeding yet to be devised. A lower credit rating will force America to pay substantially more interest to entice buyers of its debt if, in fact, an adequate market for downgraded United States Treasuries even exists.

Worldwide, sovereign debt is being serially repudiated. Private institutional buyers are being told they are going to get a "haircut." Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain (the "PIIGS") are in process of defaulting. The Chinese government recently suggested it will bail out Spain (as part of its move to diversify from the U.S. Dollar), appearing to make China the funder of this century's Marshall Plan.

Meanwhile, to ward off deflation, the dollar is being intentionally devalued because it is the only thing the Fed has left to do, the last arrow in its quiver. And the Federal Reserve, which actively promoted the multiple asset bubbles of the last 20 years, will be unable to manage the inflation genie it is un-bottling.

There are two ways to default on a loan. One is to not pay it back, as millions of former homeowners are discovering. The other is to devalue the currency you pay it back with, and this is what America is doing. So China, one-time buyer of American dollars, will get a "haircut," too.

In reply, China is unloading dollars as fast as their economy will allow, but it won't be fast enough. China struggles today with both inflation (at an official rate of eight percent) and their own asset bubble in an all-cash real estate market. With uncertainty on the rise, China's ruling class is hedging its dollar exposure by snapping up commodities at a dizzying rate, and conducting some international trade in non-dollar currencies. The Chinese Yuan has become fashionable lately for world-trade because, as with any monetary system, its legitimacy is based on the issuer's sustained and perceived future productivity. Unsurprisingly, China's expected productivity is about to rival America's.

With the Yuan ascendant, the world is voting that Chinese long-term problems are less ominous than America's have recently become. The United States is ceding the dollar's default status as the international reserve currency and there is little in the short run that America can do about it. This is a grave threat to American prospects and worldwide financial surety.

The significance of the United States Dollar as global reserve currency is not generally appreciated by most Americans, perhaps because only other countries see the impact first-hand. If Germany, for instance, wants to buy oil it must first buy dollars because oil is a dollar-denominated commodity -- ie, it is only traded in dollars. Or rather, it was: Russia, itself a major oil producer, recently announced trades that will be transacted in non-dollar currencies, particularly the Yuan.

Until now, if America really needed to buy any major commodity -- including crude oil, gold, wheat, cattle, orange juice, coffee, sugar, etc., all priced and traded only in U.S. Dollars -- the Federal Reserve could always just print more dollars. True, printing money inflates commodity prices worldwide until they reach parity with the newly-devalued dollar -- but America would still be able to purchase them. In the future, if America must first buy the Yuan at whatever price the Chinese say and then buy commodities, significant control over purchasing power and domestic economic stability is lost.

Which brings us back to uncertainty. Predictions that recovery will soon grow the world out of this crisis are less valid than predictions it won't because nobody knows. No one is sufficiently certain. Rapid-fire federal and state regulations make would-be investors uncertain. Uncertain businessmen limit risk by remaining liquid, which means they don't invest (eg, Apple's $40 billion cash reserve). Investors that don't invest slow the exchange of money, which means money is not in motion. And money not in motion is like having no money at all, or nearly so. Perhaps we soon shall be regaled with another "nothing to fear but fear itself" Presidential bromide.

Atop her dynamic and productive people, America's County, State and Federal governments squat like rogue leviathans excreting tens-of-thousands of new laws and regulations every year. Choked by bureaucracy and debt, The United States of America is in no position to save the world from this crisis this time. Nor should anyone expect that the world will be inclined to save The United States.

In other words, there is uncertainty. Not mysterious, fear-of-fear-itself uncertainty; but rational uncertainty. Uncertainty with a clear and historically-informed basis and a known etiology. And with this odd certainty of uncertainty, The Great Depression II.

Perhaps respected investor Harry Shultz's comment in his final newsletter this month states it best:

"Roughly speaking, the mess we are in is the worst since the 17th century financial collapse. Comparisons with the 1930's are ludicrous. We've gone far beyond that."

Far beyond, indeed. The future does not look bright.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Obama’s Disgusting Disparity – Fort Hood -vs.- Tucson

13 killed and 30 wounded as a result of the Fort Hood Massacre. Six dead and 14 wounded in Tucson. President Obama reacts with detached attention to one tragedy, while showing deep concern for the other – but why?

A little more than a year ago, the nation dealt with a similar tragedy – at least in scope of lives lost and/or irreparably damaged, to that which took place the past week in Tucson Arizona. The Fort Hood massacre saw Nidal Mialik Hasan, an American-born Muslim serving in the U.S. military, open fire on his fellow soldiers – all the while shouting “Allahu Akbar”. (God is great – the very phrase utilized by the 9/11 terrorists)

Hours after the tragedy that left American servicemembers dead and wounded on U.S. soil, a nation waited for word from its president. When that word came, it left even members of President Obama’s supporters stunned and perplexed by both the tone and temperament of Obama’s passing mention of the Fort Hood tragedy. Obama’s own hometown Chicago newspaper described the president’s performance as “frightening insensitivity” and an “awful moment for Barack Obama”. The president’s first public statements following the Fort Hood Massacre said absolutely nothing of the event. Instead, he proceeded to give a joking “shout out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow – that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” Several minutes went by before Obama made mention of the Fort Hood tragedy, and even then the remarks were oddly subdued and detached.

President Obama, the nation’s Commander in Chief, did not make an appearance at Fort Hood until November 10th – almost a week after the shootings. In the intervening days between the shootings and the president’s visit to the military base, both his administration, Democrats, and the media urged caution in speculating what Hassan’s motivations were, even as evidence mounted that the attack was clearly politically motivated – Muslim leaders in Syria called Hassan a hero in the war against America. In an interview given to ABC the night prior to the Fort Hood memorial, President Obama refused to use the term terrorist – and even dismissed the attack with the following: In a country of 300 million people…There are going to instances, uh, in which, uh, an individual cracks. A week later it was being reported Obama was urging fellow Democrats in Congress to delay investigations into the Fort Hood shootings until preliminary investigations had been completed, further justifying the criticism that Republicans and some Democrats were stating regarding the president’s rather nonchalant attitude over the deadly attack by a Muslim extremist on an American military base.

Now fast-forward to the president’s almost immediate response to the more recent events in Tucson. Within an hour of the story breaking, President Obama made his first somber public statement regarding the events. FBI Director Robert Mueller was promptly dispatched to the scene. The following day the president led a national moment of silence for the victims of the tragedy. And as many in the media, Democratic Party, and figures such as Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, Republicans, etc. for helping to somehow instigate the shooting in Tucson, Obama voiced no urging of caution, or made any statement dismissing the shooter as simply one among 300 million who had “lost it.” In fact, Obama took time to personally thank the belligerent Sheriff Dupnik for his service – the same Sheriff Dupnik who almost immediately following the shootings took to the stage to turn the tragedy into a political platform for immigration and a full on denunciation of almost all things conservative.

Published by Ulsterman on January 11, 2011 in Opinions

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Who said the new GOP majority in Congress wouldn’t act to restrain the Obama Administration?

GOP House leadership acts fast on Black Panthers
by J. Christian Adams
Posted on January 8 2011 4:00 pm
J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer and former attorney in the Voting Section at the Department of Justice. He blogs about elections and the laws which affect them at

Less than 24 hours after the start of the 112th Congress, new Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has put Eric Holder on notice a new sheriff is in town. Jennifer Rubin blogging at the Washington Post obtained a copy of a five page letter from Smith to Eric Holder about lawless abuses by the voting section of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

This sudden development is a very uncomfortable turn for the wrongdoers inside the DOJ, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, whom Smith names in the letter, as well as Steven Rosenbaum, Loretta King and Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez.

Chairman Smith didn’t even wait 24 hours to act. The speed of the opening salvo is bad news for Eric Holder.

Julie Fernandes is the official who engaged in a variety of inappropriate abuse of her office by closing down enforcement of federal laws which require states to maintain the integrity of their voter rolls. Fernandes does not believe the Justice Department should enforce federal laws requiring states to remove dead voters and ineligible felons. DOJ Attorney Christopher Coates told the Civil Rights Commission in sworn testimony that Fernandes was responsible for this policy. Coates testified that this lawless policy caused DOJ officials to spike upwards of 8 investigations he recommended into states with corrupted voter rolls.

Smith wants answers about why Fernandes opposes enforcing Federal laws which preserve the integrity of American elections, and the Chairman deserves the thanks of the American people for acting so swiftly.

What can Smith do about it? Lots.

Smith’s letter is particularly powerful because Smith notes that the Obama administration wants to spent $17 million more dollars in the DOJ Civil Rights Division. This is over and above a $22 million dollar budget increase in 2010. Despite the explosion in spending, the voting section run by Fernandes has virtually shut down and brought hardly any litigation since the inaguration.

DOJ might not get a dime more unless Fernandes is offered up as a sacrifice to the likes of Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa), Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Trent Franks (R-AZ) in a Judiciary hearing.

Who wouldn’t toss Fernandes overboard for $17 million?

But the tales she’ll tell go far beyond dead voters she won’t purge from the rolls. The sordid story of race is part of the saga, and the Justice Department is now viewed as a minority voter turnout machine.

Fernandes is one of the officials who explicitly said the voting rights laws were not going to be used to protect anyone but national racial minorities. The Holder DOJ was all “about politically empowering minorities” she said in my presence and the presence of dozens of others. Minority turnout was the aim of the DOJ, not equal enforcement of federal law.

Laws that require dead voters be removed from the rolls? Those are undesirable laws “that restrict turnout rather than increase it” Fernandes said in my presence, and the presence of dozens of other DOJ attorneys.

Couldn’t Fernandes just commit perjury and say she never did such a thing if she is hauled before Congress? Not likely. Dozens of other people were present when she said lawless and racialist things – and I know for a fact a number of them have the character to testify that she committed perjury if she denied it.

Many of the shills for the government have been hoping that the GOP would either slow walk the Black Panther investigation, or go nuts. Lamar Smith has instead chosen a well balanced approach. He wants answers, he wants his Black Panther documents he has been requesting for 18 months, and he wants them now. It’s a chance for the DOJ to stop the stonewall.

Those now running the DOJ certainly remember the slow grind of Senator Leahy’s oversight hearings in 2006. They might recall that Chairman Conyers dragged career DOJ officials to the Hill in 2007 to testify.

If the Department wants $17 million dollars for the Civil Rights Division, it’s time for the stonewalling to stop. The piper wants to be paid.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

U.S. court says Christian Cross is unconstitutional


Ninth Circuit ignores Supreme precedent in Mojave case
Posted: January 04, 2011
8:16 pm Eastern

By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided a memorial cross on federal land on Mt. Soledad, Calif., violates the U.S. Constitution.

In a 3-0 ruling in the Jewish War Veterans v. City of San Diego case, the panel decided that the 29-foot concrete cross, which has stood for 57 years, constitutes a government endorsement of religion and therefore violates the First Amendment's establishment clause.

"The question, then, is whether the entirety of the Mount Soledad Memorial, when understood against the background of its particular history and setting, projects a government endorsement of Christianity. We conclude it does," wrote Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee.

"The decision represents a judicial slap in the face to the countless military veterans honored by this memorial," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of 25 members of Congress. "This flawed decision not only strikes at the heart of honoring our military veterans, it reaches a faulty conclusion that this iconic memorial – part of the historic landscape of San Diego – is unconstitutional. We believe the appeals court got this decision wrong and we look forward to the case going to the Supreme Court where we're confident this decision will be overturned."

Why are crosses being ruled unconstitutional? Read America’s War on Christianity: In God We Trust - autographed!

"Unfortunately, the decision does not surprise me based on the philosophical beliefs and records of the judges on the panel. The decision was more likely than not," said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Joe Infranco. ADF filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the American Legion.

"The panel has an extreme view of the establishment clause that amounts to hostility to religion," Infranco explained. "The Constitution requires that religious views and expressions be accommodated. There's a kind of disconnect in the way certain judges look at the establishment clause, and it becomes a vehicle for hostility to religious expression.

"If the case had come up in a different federal circuit, there likely would have been a different result," said Infranco. The Ninth Circuit, infamous for its activist decisions, is the most-reversed of America's circuit courts.

"The veterans are outraged over these cases. All the plaintiffs do is find a few individuals who claim to be offended by that cross at the site, and the premise of this lawsuit is the offense of a few individuals trumps the way veterans choose to honor fallen veterans. Veterans should be allowed to honor heroes, many of whom gave their lives for this nation, in the manner they choose," Infranco added.

"Certainly we're upset with the decision," confirmed Joe March, national director of public relations for the American Legion, the nation’s largest veterans organization. "We believe it will finally get corrected once and for all when it gets to the Supreme Court. We had filed an amicus curiae and we intend to do so once again. When the government appeals to the Supreme Court, the American Legion will be there again. It's the right thing to do."

The American Legion has already called officially on Attorney General Eric Holder to appeal the case, which was argued by Justice Department attorneys on behalf of the Department of Defense.

"I am asking Attorney General Holder to appeal this regrettable decision to the Supreme Court," said Jimmie L. Foster, national commander of the American Legion, in a news release. “The sanctity of this cross is about the right to honor our nation’s veterans in a manner which the overwhelming majority supports. The American Legion strongly believes the public has a right to protect its memorials.”

The ACLU, which brought the suit on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans, did not return a request for comment.

Infranco accused the Ninth Circuit judges of ignoring the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case involving a memorial cross erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the Mojave National Preserve.

"I think their decision was inconsistent with the Mojave decision. The Mojave decision [Salazar v. Buono] did not rule directly on the cross because there was another issue that resolved the case more easily, but Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision, left a hint the size of a barn door that crosses that memorialize the dead … do not violate the Constitution. In my view the court failed to take the very clear hint from the Supreme Court. We're hoping the Supreme Court will agree to hear this case and reverse this awful decision."

The first cross was erected on Mt. Soledad in 1913, and the large concrete cross was erected in 1954 to replace a cross blown down by heavy winds in 1952. According to the Ninth Circuit decision, the 1954 cross was dedicated, "as a reminder of God’s promise to man of everlasting life and of those persons who gave their lives for our freedom."

"Litigation over the cross began in 1989. Veterans responded in the 1990s by adding plaques, bollards and flags intended to honor veterans, and by holding regular memorial services at the site.

Read more: U.S. court says Christian cross is unconstitutional

The American Dream

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Obama ready to deploy executive powers against GOP Hill

By: Julie Mason 01/03/11 8:05 PM
White House correspondent

President Obama challenged congressional Republicans to embrace the "shared responsibility" of governance even as the White House appears ready to use unilateral executive powers to battle Capitol Hill. With Republicans taking over the House and increasing their number in the Senate, Obama faces the possibility of having his agenda stalled with limited room to maneuver -- making for tough sledding in the two years leading up to his 2012 re-election bid.

In response, Obama is expected to make more frequent use of executive orders, vetoes, signing statements and policy initiatives that originate within the federal agencies to maneuver around congressional Republicans who are threatening to derail initiatives he has already put in place, including health care reforms, and to launch serial investigations into his administration's spending.

"There is going to be an effort on the president's part to use [executive powers] to satisfy his base and institutionalize what he can," said John Kenneth White, professor of politics at the Catholic University of America.

This week, the Environmental Protection Agency begins regulating greenhouse gas emissions at some energy plants and factories -- a move Obama pushed for after his cap-and-trade environmental legislation stalled in Congress.

The move angered many Republicans, who are vowing to block the new regulations they say threatens the nation's fragile economic recovery and who objected to an end-run around the legislative process.

"It's unclear what recourse Republicans have, but I think you will see a lot of battles where Obama's nominees are held up over regulatory decisions that are not directly related," said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist and former Senate staffer. "The legislative branch really feels they should control the laws that affect people."

Obama said during his 2008 campaign that he wouldn't use signing statements, codicils presidents can attach to bills challenging or refusing to enforce parts of a law, the way his predecessor, President George W. Bush, did. But since taking office, Obama issued signing statements on budgetary matters, foreign aid, commission appointments and more -- along with a memorandum promising to use "restraint" whenever exercising that power.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: