Marxist theory: Hate Your Neighbor

Posted by Joseph Whitworth Smith on June 29, 2011 at 6:47am

Glenn Beck laments the hate being exhibited. One would think he would have known what to expect at a public gathering in New York City. He was asking for it. Glenn is very good at keeping us informed, but short on answers. While I’m on the subject, Tea Party.Org is aware of America’s extremely hazardous course, but it now comes to my attention that the posters here are lacking in the necessary correction.

I’ve stated my philosophy on almost a daily basis for some time here and the comments are few, but the same can be said for everyone posting here. There is no consensus of opinion. Generally speaking, we all have our own ideas. Marxists speak more with one voice.

It is incomprehensible how humans created with reason and logic could become angry mobs, tolerate excessive government, unsustainable debt, collectivism, age-old religious dogmas and doctrines, all put together to tell the story of a world out of touch with reality, fearful of change, self-delusional. It is even more incomprehensible when you find what is taking place at http://www.mymiraclemessage.com/?p=75 Take a peak. My Miracle Message tells you how the future world thinks. Glen doesn’t get it. It’s all about control—your enslavement. While Glenn is doing something nice and going to church, raving wolves are devouring every right we have. If we don’t do more than what Glenn tell us to do, you won’t have any rights at all.

While the world is beating itself to death, I’m receiving hundreds of highly favorable comments daily on the same philosophy I’m posting on Tea Party.Org. The comments are coming from people who have something to sell on the Web. Innovation is fundamental to the law. The one-worlders don’t know it, but one-on-one communication on the Web proves to do away with boundaries. My message is selling like hotcakes. With the economy sick, the world’s network economy is doing fine. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. They don’t do something nice and go to church. The next thing you know we are in a war.

In a victory for President Barack Obama, a Senate panel voted Tuesday to approve U.S. participation in the military campaign against Libya and Moammar Gadhafi's forces. The 14-5 vote in the Senate Fo

Posted by james c. cochran on June 29, 2011 at 4:03am

In a victory for President Barack Obama, a Senate panel voted Tuesday to approve U.S. participation in the military campaign against Libya and Moammar Gadhafi's forces.The 14-5 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stood in sharp contrast to the House's overwhelmingly rejection of a similar step last week, muddling the message about congressional support for the commander in chief's actions and the NATO-led operation."When Moammar Gadhafi is bunkered down in Tripoli, when yesterday the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him on charges of crimes against humanity, at a moment where our armed forces are supporting a NATO mission aimed at preventing more such atrocities, do we want to stop the operation?" the committee's chairman, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., asked his colleagues.The resolution would limit U.S. involvement to one year while prohibiting American ground forces in Libya except for search and rescue operations or to protect government officials. Obama had indicated he would welcome the bipartisan measure.The full Senate is expected to consider the resolution the week of July 11.The committee's action came after a morning of sometimes testy exchanges between Harold Koh, the State Department's legal adviser, and panel members over Obama's decision not to seek congressional authorization for the Libya operation, now entering its fourth month.Koh said Obama had acted legally because the limited U.S. role is neither a war nor the kind of full-blown hostilities that would trigger an American withdrawal within 60 days, as established in the 1973 War Powers Resolution."Our position is carefully limited to the facts of the present operation, supported by history, and respectful of both the letter of the resolution and the spirit of consultation and collaboration that underlies it," said Koh, who acknowledged that the administration could have done a better job in dealing with Congress.Prior to backing the resolution, the committee adopted a series of amendments, including one that specified that the operation was "hostilities" that fall under the War Powers Resolution and require congressional authorization. The panel rejected an amendment, 14-5, limiting the military role to intelligence sharing, refueling, surveillance, reconnaissance and operational planning.The panel's top Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, opposed the resolution, arguing that with the U.S. at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation's debt in the trillions of dollars and no vital interests in Libya, "I do not believe that we should be intervening in a civil war there."In his testimony, Koh warned that abandoning the mission now would undermine U.S. relationships with allies and "permit an emboldened and vengeful Moammar Gafhafi to return to attacking" Libyan civilians.Koh faced Republicans and Democrats who challenged his assertion that air strikes and drone attacks on Gadhafi's forces do not constitute hostile action.Lawyers from the Pentagon and Justice Department declined the panel's invitation to testify."The fact that we are leaving most of the shooting to other countries does not mean that the United States is not involved in acts of war," Lugar said. "If the United States encountered persons performing similar activities in support of al-Qaida or Taliban operations, we certainly would deem them to be participating in hostilities against us."Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a decorated Vietnam War veteran, questioned the administration's "narrow and contorted definition of hostilities," adding that an operation that lasts for months, costs millions of dollars and involves combat pay for troops offshore amounts to hostilities.Obama angered lawmakers by ordering air attacks on March 19 and then failed to seek congressional approval for the action within 60 days, as established by the 1973 War Powers Resolution, or end the operation. In a report to Congress earlier this month, the administration said Libya does not amount to full-blown hostilities and congressional consent is unnecessary, further incensing members of Congress.Koh said four factors led Obama to conclude that the Libya operation did not fall within the War Powers law. The lawyer said the military's role is limited _ in mission, exposure of U.S. troops to hostilities, risk of escalation and military attacks.Koh said the War Powers Resolution does not define hostilities, and neither the courts nor Congress have spelled it out.Kerry pointed out that the resolution was passed in response to Vietnam, then the nation's longest conflict in which more than 58,000 Americans died yet Congress never declared war. Nearly 40 years later, the U.S. operation in Libya involves unmanned Predator drones, a weapon the military could only imagine in the 1970s.Since NATO took command of the Libya operation in early April, the U.S. role has largely been limited to support efforts such as intelligence, surveillance and electronic warfare. The U.S. has launched airstrikes and drone attacks, flying more than 3,400 sorties. The effort has included some 42 drone attacks and 80 strikes with jet fighters."In Libya today, no American troop is begin shot at," Kerry said in backing the administration argument.Koh, who served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor in the Clinton administration and then became dean of Yale Law School before returning to government service under Obama, has been criticized and praised by conservatives. He was highly critical of the Bush administration's use of enhanced interrogation techniques of terror suspects and their imprisonment at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.However, he earned plaudits from some conservative opponents when he argued forcefully for the legality of the Obama administration's targeted airstrikes, using both drones and piloted aircraft, against terrorists.___Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

Need Additional Revenues? Why Ignore Those Who Pay No Taxes!

Posted by john lillpop on June 28, 2011 at 10:09am

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Astounding fact: The majority of Americans pay NO income taxes whatsoever.

Nada, zero, not one damn penny!

This is the result of Democrat-sponsored exemptions, deductions, and other gimmicks which allow seniors, people in the middle class, the poor, large families, disabled and other “constituents” of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi to avoid paying their “fair share.”

Sorry, moon bats, but ZERO is not a fair share for anyone living in America!

On the other hand, left-wing crazies want to pillage and plunder the rich, that upstanding one-percent of patriotic citizens who already pay the lion’s share of taxes.

Think about it: Here America stands on the brink of financial meltdown and Democrats want to invade the pocketbooks of those overburdened, under appreciated, and abused folks referred to as the rich.

Just what sort of sense does it make to ignore the majority of people who pay no taxes, while attacking the one-percent of the population that is already paying exorbitant taxes?

The answer is, of course, no sense at all.

Except to power-mad liberals who do not give a damn about fairness or equality, but who are addicted to power.

In all comes down to votes and power. Unfortunately, there one hell of a lot more scalawags who pay no taxes than there are millionaires and billionaires!

In short, the successful and prosperous are easy targets for people like Joe Biden who believe that paying higher taxes is the “patriotic” thing to do—except when it comes to constituents of the Democrat Party!

The solution to all of America’s financial woes is to go after those folks who are not paying their “fair share,” that being the middle class, poor, and others who manage to avoid taxes altogether.

Significantly, those who pay no taxes are the same folks who knock the federal piggy bank out of whack with excessive demands on entitlement and discretionary spending.

That would be the tens of millions of people placed on the public dole by Democrats in order to purchase votes for their party.

So, you see, it is not the rich who are ruining America!

Rather it is the poor and middle class who need to clean up their acts.

America needs to rewrite the tax code so as to punish those who take but give little, or nothing, in return. A “Poverty Surcharge” would do the trick.

Here’s how it would work: Any family that earns less than $30,000 in any tax year would be assessed a Poverty Surcharge, nominally 2 % of gross income.

Another example: An unmarried woman with four children who is on welfare should be penalized for having more kids!

For each additional child she brings into the world, her monthly welfare check should be cut by 20 percent. All welfare income should be taxable, with no deductions allowed.

This would help bring down the deficit AND motivate the poor, down trodden, and irresponsible to get off their “Pity Pots.”

The new American model should be “Contribute your fair share, or perish!” and it should apply to all.

The notion that the rich should subsidize millions of slothful folk who do nothing but sit on their bottoms while watching Oprah reruns is “Old school,” immoral, and must stop!

Our Sharia-Compliant Afghan War!

Posted by Jake Martinez on June 28, 2011 at 9:52am

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on National Review Online-By ANDREW C. McCARTHY-On June 25, 2011:

“In a better time, when the burdens of war were shared by an engaged nation and not shouldered exclusively by military families making up less than 1 percent of the population, the high farce that is the Afghanistan mission would have been obvious before President Obama uttered one word on Wednesday night. All you’d need to know is the story that came to light the day before.

Turns out that the U.S. government has embraced a core tenet of sharia — that archaic corpus of Islamic law that Mitt Romney recently assured us would never gain traction in America.

Patrick Poole reported at Pajamas Media on Tuesday that the secretary of the army has just granted “conscientious objector” status to Pfc. Nasser Abdo, a Muslim American soldier who refused to deploy to Afghanistan. Heeding the admonitions of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood operatives, the Pentagon accepts the claim that sharia forbids Muslims from assisting infidels in a war against Muslim forces in an Islamic land.

News Flash One: The war in Afghanistan, an Islamic land, is a war waged by infidels (that would be us) against Muslim forces — the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, etc.

News Flash Two: The operating theory of the American counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan is that the hearts and minds of the population of this tribal sharia society will side with us non-Muslims in a war against their fellow Muslims, most of whom are also their fellow Afghans.

Which is to say, our strategy is insane.

That does not mean our troops cannot kill a goodly number of jihadists. They have done that, and they will no doubt continue to do that as long as U.S. and allied forces remain in Afghanistan. Naturally, the number of terrorists we manage to get will dwindle as we draw down, while our diminishing numbers will make our own troops increasingly vulnerable to attack. But, sure, we can stick around forever, killing pockets of jihadists and overtaking their strongholds, however temporarily.

That, however, is not victory. It is an ever-worsening stalemate. Victory, under our chosen strategy, can never be achieved. That is why Obama, Gen. David Petreaeus, and COIN enthusiasts everywhere resist mention of the V-word.

“Victory” has been downgraded to “success,” but even success is not much discussed — and that is because, as conceived, success is a pipedream too. The idea is that we stay and hold the Taliban et al. at bay until we have finally trained enough Afghan soldiers and police officers to fight the Taliban for us. Because once we win over their hearts and minds, the theory goes, these Afghans will believe they are actually fighting the Taliban for themselves — fighting “their war,” not ours, as the heady plan was explained by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former theater commander and Kennedy School fellow who now teaches international relations at Yale. It’s all very cerebral, psychological, and sophisticated, the kind of war professors could love.

There’s just one problem with it. Okay, there’s a ton of problems, but let’s get to the big one: If we acknowledge that sharia is a valid reason not to send an American Muslim to fight against his fellow Muslims in Afghanistan, what on earth makes us think the Afghan Muslims are going to fight their fellow Afghan Muslims in furtherance of American national-security interests?

The sharia objection Private Abdo successfully posed to his deployment is not frivolous. To the contrary, from the perspective of a devout Muslim, it is ironclad. The animating theme of Islamic law is the supremacy of Islam and the imperative that it reign over the earth, that Muslims overcome non-Muslims. Consequently, infidel forces are generally regarded with hostility in Islamic countries (particularly if they are pursuing their own, rather than Islamic, interests). This is why politicians in the new Afghan and Iraqi “democracies” get such mileage out of America-bashing. Their populations, which are nearly 100 percent Islamic, despise America. In these places, the very thought of Muslims helping non-Muslims make war against Muslims is anathema.

Reliance of the Traveller, the classic manual of Islamic law accepted throughout the ummah, instructs believers that there is nothing “more heinous in Allah’s sight” than “the killing of a believer.” How, you may ask, are we to convince Afghans that when we kill Taliban operatives we’re not killing believers, and that when they kill them for us, they won’t be killing believers either?

Here, our Beltway solons get downright Jesuitical, maintaining that these Taliban characters are not really Muslims but, yes, “violent extremists” who have perverted Islam. But behold: Even in the West Wing faculty lounge, they don’t really buy this fairy tale. That’s why such pains were taken to give Osama bin Laden a fastidiously Muslim funeral, during which American naval personnel actually prayed for Allah to pardon him and grant him every blessing of paradise before feeding him to the sharks.

Like the army secretary, the administration was just following sharia, under which bin Laden was a Muslim, through and through.

As the Prophet Mohammed decreed, any man “who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah” is a Muslim. Mass-murder is not disqualifying.

Under sharia, believers may not join non-Muslims in killing Muslims, even if those Muslims, like the Taliban, are not particularly popular. According to Reliance of the Traveller, it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim “unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community.”

Wait a second, you say: If sharia permits retaliatory killing, can’t Muslims help us against these assassins from al-Qaeda and Taliban? No, with exceptions that are not relevant to this discussion, only when the murder victims are Muslims is retaliatory killing permitted. Muslims who kill non-Muslims are expressly protected.

Moreover, non-Muslim forces in Islamic countries are deemed “occupiers,” the term the detestable Afghan president Hamid Karzai has taken to calling American troops. Occupiers (like any non-Muslims who fight and kill Muslims) are seen as oppressors and enemies of Allah. The Koran sternly warns Muslims not to take such non-Muslims as friends or protectors (e.g., Suras 4:139, 60:01), and most certainly not to take up their cause against fellow Muslims. As Sura 4:144 puts it, “O, ye who believe, take not for friends Unbelievers rather than Believers: do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?”

Private Abdo may not approve of al-Qaeda. He may not want to see the Taliban retake control of Afghanistan. But that is not the point.

They are Muslims. He, like the Muslims of Afghanistan, sees himself as a Muslim first. He is not going to side with us over them. It doesn’t matter that he may privately believe they are reprehensible. Since they are Muslims, he sees it as Allah’s place, not his, to condemn them. In this life, in the sharia schema of Muslims versus non-Muslims, he is with his fellow Muslims — and would risk grave peril, both here and in the afterlife, were he to cross over to the other side.

On the Corner this week, Iraq vet David French complained that counterinsurgency had developed an undeserved reputation for being “touchy-feely” because of its close association with nation-building. His point is well taken. COIN, as he attests, involves “intense fighting” under conditions that are exceedingly dangerous — made intolerably dangerous, I would add, by the stringent rules of engagement imposed on our warriors, given the impossible task of wooing the Islamic population with one hand while they battle the Islamic enemy with the other. That our forces make such progress in the constraints under which they operate is an astonishing testament to their bravery and competence.

The problem is that COIN and nation-building, if they are to have a prayer, cannot succeed until after the enemy has been defeated. What wins hearts and minds is not showing how virtuous and decent we are — especially in a confrontation between civilizations with very different ideas about virtue and decency. Hearts and minds are won when the enemy’s will is broken. COIN and nation-building worked in postwar Germany and Japan because complete victory was achieved first. As Jed Babbin recounts, it did not work in Vietnam, where, as in the War on Terror, the enemy was never conquered and its state sponsors were permitted to fuel the fighting with impunity.

Victory is not a step that can be skipped. Its stark absence cannot be disguised by miniaturizing the enemy, by pretending it is an aberrant fringe of violent extremists. The Taliban enjoys broad popular support — or, at least, sympathy — because the Afghan public is more aligned with its beliefs than with ours. That makes the population the enemy.

There is a reason why so many U.S. and allied troops are being attacked and killed in sneak attacks by the Afghan recruits they are trying to train.

There is a reason why the Obama administration is negotiating with the Taliban — conceding that the Taliban won’t be defeated and must be accommodated — even as Americans are told that battling the Taliban is the reason our young men and women must remain in harm’s way.

It is madness.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.”

Source:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270484/our-sharia-compliant-afghan-war-andrew-c-mccarthy

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Shock: Dept. of Defense Vindicates Fort Hood Killer!-Posted on Pajamas Media-By Patrick Poole-On June 21, 2011:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/shock-dept-of-defense-vindicates-fort-hood-killer/

II. President Obama Plays Politics in Afghanistan!-Posted on The Heritage Foundation-On June 27, 2011:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/27/morning-bell-president-obama-plays-politics-in-afghanistan/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

III. Suspect in Custody for 'Suspicious' Backpack Is Marine Corps Reservist!-Posted on FoxNews.com-ByMike Levine, Jennifer Griffin, Justin Fishel and The Associated Press-On June 17, 2011:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/17/suspicious-vehicle-shuts-down-several-major-roads-near-pentagon/

IV. Don’t expect much from Taliban!-Posted on The Hill-By Peter W. Galbraith-On June 27, 2011:

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/168685-dont-expect-much-from-taliban

V. US Negotiating with the Taliban: Bargaining with the Devil?-Posted on Justice In Conflict-By Mark Kersten-On June 21, 2011:

http://justiceinconflict.org/2011/06/21/us-negotiating-with-the-taliban-bargaining-with-the-devil/

VI. US is negotiating with the Taliban, Afghan president Hamid Karzai confirms!-Posted on The Telegraph-On June 18, 2011:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8583730/US-is-negotiating-with-the-Taliban-Afghan-president-Hamid-Karzai-confirms.html

VII. Video: Can U.S. Negotiate With Taliban?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BZ14jPOmuE

VIII. Obama is Secretly Talking with the Taliban, Says It’s What Reagan Would Do!-Posted on Floyd Reports-By Ben Johnson-On February 22, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/obama-is-secretly-talking-with-the-taliban-says-its-what-reagan-would-do/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=ec8058d0fd-EO_02_22_20112_22_2011&utm_medium=email

IX. Obama Administration Supports Afghan-Taliban Reconciliation Under Certain Conditions, But Will Those Conditions Be Met?-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Patrick Goodenough-On October 7, 2010:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-supports-afghan-tal

X. Negotiations and Reconciliation With The Taliban: “The Key Policy Issues and Dilemmas!”-Posted On The Brookings-By Vanda Felbab-Brown, Fellow, 21st Century Defense Initiative, Foreign Policy, the Brookings Institution and Author of Shooting Up: Counterinsurgency and the War on Drugs (Brookings 2009)-On January 28, 2010:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2010/0128_taliban_felbabbrown/0128_taliban_felbabbrown.pdf

XI. 60% of U.S. Military Deaths in Afghanistan Have Occurred Since Obama Was Inaugurated in 2009!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Edwin Mora-On April 4, 2011:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60-us-military-deaths-afghanistan-have-o

XII. Video: Afghan Rules of Engagement killing troops?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOlcuCBE2_A

XIII. Obama’s Secret Link to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and More!-Posted on Human Events-By Buzz Patterson-On September 8, 2010:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38893

Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Should Americans Fear Islam?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/should-americans-fear-islam/

What do American Citizens Know About “Sharia Law” and is It Something That We Should Know More About?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/what-do-american-citizens-know-about-“sharia-law”-and-is-it-something-that-we-should-know-more-about/

Is U.S. Negotiating with the Taliban?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/is-u-s-negotiating-with-the-taliban/

The Military Pays the Price for Obama’s Agenda!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/the-military-pays-the-price-for-obama’s-agenda/

Veterans and members of our Armed Forces under attack!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/veterans-and-members-of-our-armed-forces-under-attack/

Rules of Engagement Killing Marines and U.S. Soldiers!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/rules-of-engagement-killing-marines-and-u-s-soldiers/

Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

Legal Drug dealers

Posted by Steven Iovinelli on June 28, 2011 at 9:32am

Why is it that these primary care practitioners are all sold out by the Corporate drug dealers that always end up causing more harm than good?

After the Fact

Posted by Joseph Whitworth Smith on June 28, 2011 at 7:21am

After the fact that we are turned into slaves of the powerful, what then? Thirty-six years ago my business enterprise was on the rocks and my wife was divorcing me. I was a failure and I blamed government. That isn’t the point. What I could do about it is the point. We know only too well the problem, folks. I have not heard what we can do about it. We can put the right people in office. The problem is still there. Putting the right people in office is not the right answer.

At age 49, I was a failure. After that fact, all my dreams came true. Presently, America’s establishment has failed. We are given the establishment answers—address the symptoms and ignore the cause. That is not what the Constitution says. There is a double standard, one for government, another for the individual. This is what divides us. A house divided does not long stand.

It is futile to look to government for answers. I go on what is good for me. I’m a winner. For the good of all, a loser for you and me, a winner for government. The Constitution is not what government says it is but what I say it is; that is, if I hope to win. You can find in the written record that I beat government. I beat the politicians you elected. I was right; you were wrong. The government was forced to eat crow. You said nothing, I guess, because it was a mystery to you, and perhaps a threat. What could you do if your entitlement was declared unconstitutional? All government entitlements are unconstitutional. Government entitlement is purely an expedience. Before New Deal Law there were no government entitlements. We were not threatened with bankruptcy. Future generations were not burdened with former generations’ debts. By your expedience—your choice of politicians—you have left your children a nation that is weak and uncertain.

It took determination, and for an extended period of time to beat Uncle Sam, but my reward was great. If we knew that our rights are not automatic, we would not be in the current debt crises. The economy would be more productive than anyone can imagine. The politicians would be making the right decisions. We would be able to say our dreams have come true.

When I was establishment oriented, I used to dream that I was out on the street with no clothes on. It came from being taught that I was going to make a fool of myself if I dared to make my voice heard. I’m no longer religious. The Constitution supports me. The religious don’t. They look at me as a threat.

The background of law upon which the Constitution was founded followed no particular religion. The Bible doesn’t follow the doctrines and dogmas of various religions. Jesus’ teaching does not follow the doctrines and dogmas of religions. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence was not religious. Religions are manmade. Jesus said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God.” God brings us love; man’s religions bring us war, and the same for the idea that government’s duty is to do for the good of all. God-given rights cannot be replaced by man. There can be no compromise. By compromising your God-given rights, you allow your representatives to do for the good of all things that rob you of your God-given rights and responsibilities. You will never be able to say all your dreams have come true as long as you compromise what is yours forever—rights that do not come from religions or from government, rights that may not be taken, or in any way compromised.

God is love; all else is false. God put man on earth to build a solid foundation of love. Jesus warned us to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. He told us to not hide our light under a bushel. He told us we cannot serve two masters. And he told us to ask and it would be given, seek and you will find. I learned all of this after the fact. It’s incomprehensible but true. My life is as good as it gets. Naturally, I want to pass on what I’ve learned.

Is 'Evidence' of Crimes Erased Before Our Eyes?

Posted by Jake Martinez on June 28, 2011 at 6:30am

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on WND.com-By Art Moore-On June 26, 2011:

“The legal complaint by a U.S.-based Islamic lobby group asking a federal judge to expunge all copies of a best-selling exposé that documents the group’s terrorist ties is an attempt to eliminate evidence that could lead to criminal prosecution, according to a lawyer defending a co-author of the book.

Daniel Horowitz, who represents “Muslim Mafia” co-author P. David Gaubatz and his son, Chris, believes the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, knows that the material is incriminating and wants it destroyed.

“So far, the Obama administration has refused to prosecute CAIR,” Horowitz said, “despite undeniable evidence that following 9/11 they sought donations for 9/11 victims and passed the money to the Hamas-based Holy Land Foundation.”

CAIR has insisted its designation by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Justice Department’s terror-finance case against the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation is unjustified. But the group admitted in a legal brief in 2009 that it solicited donations in the wake of the 9/11 attacks for Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted of funneling more than $12 million to Hamas.

In May 2007, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the scheme.

As WND reported, CAIR is asking a federal judge to expunge all copies of “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”, which exposes the Islamic group’s ties to radical jihad through original documents secured in a daring undercover operation by Chris Gaubatz, who posed as a CAIR intern.

CAIR’s admission that it raised funds for the Hamas group was made in talk-radio host Michael Savage’s lawsuit against CAIR and attached to a brief filed in December 2009 in the Muslim group’s suit against the Gaubatzes.

In the Savage case, Horowitz asserted CAIR “exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website.”

{…}

CAIR’s Northern California branch, while denying the organization “exploited” 9/11, admitted on page 15 of its reply that its national office “offered a link to websites for Muslim and non-Muslim organizations collecting donations for 9/11 survivors, including Holy Land Foundation’s website.”

In the Holy Land Foundation case, federal prosecutors listed CAIR as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement based in Egypt that birthed al-Qaida and Hamas and other Sunni terrorist groups and seeks to establish Islamic law in America.

“In the height of cynicism, (CAIR) basically knew the money they were collecting in the name of terrorist victims was going to create more terrorist victims,” said “Muslim Mafia” co-author Paul Sperry.

In the book, the authors write, “After 9/11, as rescue workers were still pulling bodies from Ground Zero, CAIR tricked visitors to its Web site into contributing to the charitable front by telling them their donations would benefit World Trade Center victims – including New York firefighters”

{…}

The FBI stepped into the Gaubatz case Nov. 23, 2009, with a warrant to examine the papers and recordings, apparently as part of its concern about CAIR and its terrorist links to Hamas. The bureau cut off ties to CAIR in response to the Islamic group’s role in the Holy Land Foundation case.

Just two weeks after 9/11, CAIR also began soliciting funds for the Global Relief Foundation, which also was shut down by the U.S. government on terror charges. The Treasury Department declared that the Global Relief Foundation provided support to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

When the Holy Land Foundation was shut down Dec. 4, 2001, CAIR removed the HLF link from its website and 10 days later removed the Global Relief Foundation link, when it, too, was closed.

The Holy Land Foundation’s chairman had a direct link to CAIR. Ghassan Elashi, who was charged in December 2002 with selling computers and computer parts to terrorist-sponsoring Libya and Syria, was a founding board member of CAIR’s Texas chapter.

Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism revealed the Holy Land Foundation provided at least $5,000 in revenues to CAIR as it was starting up its operations. CAIR, in turn, solicited funds for the foundation.

{…}

A 'media twinkle' on jihad:

As “Muslim Mafia” recounts, FBI wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case showed CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was at an October 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in Philadelphia.

At that time, Awad was public relations director for a group created by the Muslim Brotherhood called the Islamic Association for Palestine, the IAP. At the Philadelphia meeting, IAP and Holy Land Foundation officials developed a scheme to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists and their families as charity.

The creation of CAIR can be traced back to the meeting, when IAP and Holy Land officials, according to a transcript, discussed the need to give a “media twinkle” to their agenda of supporting violent jihad abroad while slowing institutionalizing Islamic law at home.

CAIR was first mentioned by name in Muslim Brotherhood documents as part of the July 30, 1994, agenda of a meeting of the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee.

The minutes reveal the purpose of the meeting was to discuss “suggestions to develop [the] work of CAIR” and its “coordination” with the IAP, Holy Land Foundation – which shared its Texas offices with the IAP – and the Washington, D.C.-based United Association for Studies and Research, or UASR. Along with IAP, UASR was co-founded by the deputy chief of Hamas’ political operations, Mousa Abu Marzook.

Marzook led the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee in the America before he was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist. He and other participants at the July 1994 meeting discussed satisfying the “need for trained resources in the media and political fields” to “exert more efforts in the advancement of the Palestine Cause from the Islamic aspect.”

CAIR was incorporated less than two months later.

Book ban:

After filing two unsuccessful versions of its complaint in the Gaubatz case, CAIR has filed yet another amended complaint that asks the court to bar the Gaubatzes and anyone related to their effort from publishing the documents and recordings obtained in the undercover operation.

Horowitz argues the complaint does not explicitly list any damages done to the organization by “Muslim Mafia.”

Posing as a Muslim, Chris Gaubatz gathered some 12,000 pages of documents, which were meant to be shredded, while serving as an intern at CAIR’s national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building.

In the lawsuit, however, CAIR, a self-described Muslim civil-rights group, does not defend itself against the book’s claims.

Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., is considering CAIR’s motion to file an amended complaint after the first one failed to gain traction. The Gaubatzes’ legal team, meanwhile, has filed a motion to dismiss the case, pending Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling.

In April, however, before the judge decided on the second complaint, CAIR attorney Nadhira Al-Khalili informed the Gaubatzes’ lawyers that CAIR planned to file yet another amended complaint that added causes of action based on “newly discovered information.”

Horowitz has said he hopes the judge will dismiss the first complaint and then determine whether the second and third are any different. If there is no difference, Horowitz has explained to WND, she can reject CAIR’s request to amend the complaint and then throw out the case.”

Source:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=313641

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Farah Exposes Radicals' Plan to Silence Exposé!-Posted on WND.com-By Joseph Farah-On June 18, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=312433

II. With Dodging and More Dodging, Holder Admits DOJ Dumped CAIR Case!-Posted on National Review Online-By Andrew C. McCarthy-On April 27, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265729/dodging-and-more-dodging-holder-admits-doj-dumped-cair-case-andrew-c-mccarthy

III. Peter King vs. Eric Holder: Why did the Justice Department never indict CAIR?-Posted on National Review Online-By BRIAN BOLDUC-On April 26, 2011:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265576/peter-king-vs-eric-holder-brian-bolduc

IV. Did Obama and Holder Scuttle Terror Finance Prosecutions? ‘High-level source concedes DOJ let off CAIR co-founders and others for political reasons!’-Posted on Pajamas Media-By Patrick Poole-On April 14, 2011:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/did-obama-and-holder-scuttle-terror-finance-prosecutions/?singlepage=true

V. The Judas Media-Posted on Floyd Reports-Guest Writer-On April 27, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/the-judas-media/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=43b350b9f6-EO_04_27_20114_27_2011&utm_medium=email

Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

What are CAIRs obstructionist goals?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/6951/

Federal judge confirms CAIR is Hamas!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/federal-judge-confirms-cair-is-hamas/

Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America-Will America Notice!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/muslim-brotherhood-declares-war-on-america-will-america-notice/

Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

The Extinction of the Left

Posted by Marjorie Haun on June 28, 2011 at 6:29am

If Conservatives, Red-staters and those who believe in the holy directive to "multiply and replenish the Earth," are patient, they will never again have to campaign against the Left, because Liberals are sprinting down the road to self-extinction.

Non-procreation has been a fashion trend among Liberals for a lot of years now, especially European Liberals. Just this week, the face of climate hypocrisy, Al Gore, called on women to save the planet by "stabilizing the population." That is a euphemism the Chinese one-child bureaucrats would have loved. But of course it is just another float in the parade of anti-human ideas that ooze from the pens and mouths of the environmentalist Left.

First we had to cease using DDT because it made the eggshells of certain seabirds fragile. The result has been the needless deaths of millions of people each year, primarily in equatorial Africa, from mosquito-borne malaria. Then came abortion on demand. The human cost is staggering; upwards of 55 million dead humans in the United States alone since 1973. The "women's liberation" movement derided the nuclear family and the children it produces and protects. Birthrates fell as women bought into that lie. Next in the parade is gay marriage. What could be more anti-procreation than fashioning a model for sex and marriage that is irrevocably sterile? The ideologies of the Left are fundamentally anti-human; National socialism, Facism, Marxism, Communism. If you haven't noticed yet, all governments based on those ideologies kill lots and lots of people (Liberals included). And now we have arrived at the juncture where having babies is not an eco-friendly thing to do. Children and the human race be damned! 'We don't want to inconvenience the planet with the dreadful dumplings' dastardly landfill-clogging diapers,' goes the reasoning of the enviro-Left.

The modern Left is on the path to extinction. But this is not the natural selection of weak species dying out while the adaptable and vigorous species thrive and evolve. This is human-selected extiguishment of a species (although the Left is not, technically, a separate species). Oddly enough, they are selecting themselves to eternal banishment from the planet. A self-destructive movement using the scalpel of fecundity to kill itself in a single generation. This is fascinating from a theoretical standpoint. There are, of course, a lot of variables which go into reproduction and population dynamics. But generally speaking, the Left is trending itself out of existence.

Red-staters, Christians, and Conservatives are ensuring political domination simply by having more babies that Liberals and Blue-staters. Abortion rates are lower in Red states. Conservatives have higher birth rates than Liberals: 2.7 children on average in the Red state of Utah vs. 1.7 in very blue Vermont. Evangelical Christians and Mormons have nearly twice the birthrates of their secular neighbors. Perhaps it boils down to the fact that most Conservatives believe IN God, believe His word, and believe that He is SERIOUS when He gives commandments. Liberals answer first to political ideology then self (God is stuck some place where they can pull Him out if it is convenient), so "multiply and replenish" to them are a blasphemy against their overburdened Mother Earth.

I frankly feel bad for the broads and dipsticks that somehow feel their environmental awareness will compensate for the awful void of children that never were. Mother Earth will not like you any better just because you skip producing a batch of little eco-destroying nasties. Nature will eat you up in an eyeblink because it is dispassionate, and vast and you can do nothing to impact the planet for long term good or ill. You are a flyspeck on the cosmic timeline. But your human heart may long for a family, especially when Al Gore and the Environmental movement are remembered only as a hoax. Your heart may break. Your Heavenly Father may be a little miffed.

But, hey. In just a few years Conservative candidates won't have to do any fundraisers, stump speeches, or social media campaigns. There won't be any Liberals left to run against.

God & Country BANNED in Public Schools

Posted by Lloyd Marcus on June 28, 2011 at 5:51am

Remember the hit song by Marvin Gaye, “What's Going On”? Patriots, what the heck is going on with U.S. public schools and our kids? There is a deliberate effort to diminish our children's respect for God, country, freedom, liberty and our culture. The schools are BANNING, in essence, Christianity, patriotism and individualism.

Just a few examples:

U.S. Open, NBC cuts 'Under God' from Pledge of Allegiance

http://bit.ly/mhp3ca

American Flag Art Banned in classroom

http://bit.ly/jbWdMW

Bible Banned From School

http://bit.ly/jg43gB

Teens Banned From High School Graduation for Wearing Military Sash

http://bit.ly/mPBNap

High school Valedictorian, Banned from saying "How God changed my life" in his speech. http://bit.ly/mBxha7

Meanwhile, celebrating Gay and Lesbian Pride Day is considered an important part of the public school curriculum. http://bit.ly/m5qcqw (This video will blow you away!)

While I can not confirm how wide spread, I do know many public schools are filling our kids' minds with a belief system opposite of their parents. The public schools' “Operation Dumb Them Down” is step one in preparing our children to drink their socialist/globalist kool-aid.

Karen Schoen, a former teacher wrote...

“In the 60-70's The Anti-War, Anti America, anti-family, anti-religion youth were prompted into the teaching profession as a way to beat the draft. Teaching was a draft exempt profession.
We (myself included) learned the works of Marx and Dewey and how to get this message to our students.
We were taught to lie, use psychology, break down the family, separate children, promote the environment, and treat boredom with drugs.
We were taught to use subliminal messaging to instill ideas not factual information, this is called indoctrination.
We were also taught divide and conquer techniques and to discuss class warfare pitting one group against the other. (Obama is a master at this technique. He demon-izes achievers.)

I taught the worst classes in Brooklyn with over 35 kids in a class and my students sat on the stage to get honors at graduation.
It is the curriculum, that is the only problem. I fought my principal about the failing of this new curriculum until I had to leave.
Reading, math, writing, critical thinking, logic, reason and factual information has been stripped out of our schools.
Factual information regarding American history, civics, economics, nationalism, family values, religion are no longer found in schools.
Cognitive thinking through consensus is now the norm.

The goal is dumb students=dumb citizens = dumb legislators who will pass horrific bills without reading them.

As you know the poor and minorities will be the biggest losers as generation upon generation will be nothing more than indentured servants working for crumbs doled out to them by the government through continued generations of people on entitlements. People are taught to be entitled and accept their minimal slot in life. (Witnessing the devastated lives and early deaths of several of my relatives, I can testify about the tragic consequences of government replacing daddy in the black family.)

It is no surprise there is no outrage on the debt, these schools are teaching that the more debt you have the more prominent you are...”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aehmCcE4oM&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

Parroting Marvin Gaye, I ask, “What's going on”? Answer: the public school agenda is to steal generations of our children turning them into useful idiots. They promote socialist programs, social justice, world citizenship and destroying any concept of American as a sovereign nation. In a nutshell, they're going after our kids, folks! They must be stopped.

Again, I thank God for TEA For Education, a non-profit. Here are excerpts from their Mission Statement.

“The mission of Tea for Education is to fundamentally change public education in

America.

The ultimate goal of Tea for Education is to re-direct the focus of the public

education system in America away from the leadership of the teachers unions and

government bureaucracy and toward a free market in education that is structured to

benefit the children first.”

Yes, That's what I am talking about! Patriots, we must rally around these good guys and support them. If you feel lead, get involved.

What is going on in our schools is un-American and evil.

Contact info for TEA for Education

Bruce Gardner Beverly Elliott

828-506-5007 828-400-5556

bruce@teaforeducation.com Beverly@teaforeducation.com

Website: www.teaforeducation.com

“The only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Taking back America includes taking back our kids.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

Vice Chair, www.CampaignToDefeatObama.com

Does Chris Wallace Look at Porn?

Posted by Marjorie Haun on June 28, 2011 at 5:32am

"Are you a flake?" "Are some of the things you say flaky?" These are actual questions that Chris Wallace of Fox News asked of Michelle Bachmann, a woman with at least twice his IQ and qualifications. Why Mr. Wallace did this is inexplicable, but he got a big shiner as Mrs. Bachmann and the Fox viewers punched back. He will probably never recover.

This was an attempt at a clever rhetorical trick by Mr. Wallace which associates a person with a word. The less cerebral among us, Liberals, children, will turn that word into an image and superimpose it onto the name and persona of the individual that has been thus labeled. So Chris Wallace (clever trial attorneys, and virtually all of the disingenuous interviewers that prowl the main stream media) attempted to use that psychological ruse to create the impression that Michelle Bachmann is a flake, despite the total absence of evidence that she is anything other than a highly accomplished, educated, intelligent, righteous, devoted mother, wife and American. He invented it, but when he put her name in a sentence with the word 'flake,' ending with question mark, he created a trick of word association. The imprint of image to which mobs and Liberals are so susceptible.

So I will do the same for Chris Wallace. "Does Chris Wallace look at porn?" I have no idea. There have been no reports that he looks at porn. It's a stupid question. But I've associated the name of Chris Wallace with PORN. Chris Wallace, PORN. PORN, Chris Wallace. Have you heard that Chris Wallace looks at porn? Of course not, I haven't. But this if this trick lie, shielded from libel laws by a little curved punctuation mark, is repeated often and broadly it will stick. No matter how innocent Chris Wallace is of viewing porn, if the lie is spread, and the word becomes paired with his name often enough, he will become, in the media consumer psyche, "Chris Wallace, "Pornman."

Social media and passionate Conservatism combined with a fedupness by Americans of a schoolyard bully approach to news and politics interrupted Mr. Wallace's gotcha moment. It didn't sneak past like he hoped. The insult was stinging, and totally undeserved by a dignified an serious presidential contender. Michelle Bachmann pushed back. We pushed back, and we pushed back hard. An American activist class has emerged. They are politically savvy, sophisticated in history, debate, and human nature, and always on high alert for trickery and hypocrisy.

Sorry about your epic fail Mr. Wallace. Your name will forever now be associated with the word 'flake." Just like Weiner and TWEET, Weiner and WEINER, and Weiner and IGNOMINIOUS RESIGNATION, will always be paired in water-cooler talk forevermore. Chris Wallace, FLAKE? Chris Wallace, PORN? Chris Wallace, UNEMPLOYED? We'll see.

Liberal Outrage Over Weiner Scandal: Belly Laughs Galore!

Posted by john lillpop on June 27, 2011 at 3:39pm

Satire By John W. Lillpop

While the Anthony Weiner scandal was deadly serious and cause for grave concern, it is nonetheless hysterical to hear Democrats scream foul about morality and decency. Both subjects have all but been eliminated from the liberal vocabulary, especially since the perverted administration of Bill Clinton.

In fact, comparing the case histories of Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton helps to place the weiner crisis in perspective.

To wit, unlike Bill Clinton, Weiner did not:

* Lie under oath about a sexual relationship with a subordinate (Monica Lewinski) on government property (The White House).

* Discuss military matters on the telephone with a member of the U.S. Congress while receiving oral sex from an intern (Monica Lewinsky) in the Oval Office.

* Leave a foreign leader (Yassar Arafat) waiting in the Rose Garden of the White House while engaging in sex with the same intern.

* Sexually assault (allegedly) a volunteer worker (Kathleen Wiley) in the White House.

* Rape (allegedly) an associate (Juanita Broderick).

Furthermore, at least Weiner had the good sense to resign, albeit with pressure from Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other feminists just now discovering the wild, wonderful world of morality!

Obviously, Clinton’s sexual transgressions have nothing to do with those of former Rep. Weiner.

But watching liberals gag on their own words while feigning outrage over the sexually explicit nature of Weiner's e-mails is the most entertaining theater seen in Washington, D.C., since Clinton’s impeachment in December of 1998!

We’re Putting Unconstitutional ‘Concentration of Power in President,’ Says Constitutional Scholar!

Posted by Jake Martinez on June 27, 2011 at 3:00pm

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on CNSNews.com-By Terence P. Jeffrey-On June 24, 2011:

“(CNSNews.com) - A scholar who served for 40 years as a constitutional law expert at the Library of Congress is pointing to President Barack Obama’s use of military force in Libya without congressional authorization—and, in the longer-term, a lack of effective action by Congress to protect its constitutional prerogatives—as evidence the United States has begun putting an unconstitutional “concentration of power” in the hands of one man.

“We’re ending up with a concentration of power in the president which is not constitutional,” Louis Fisher, now a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project, told CNSNews.com’s Online With Terry Jeffrey.

Fisher, who is the author of Presidential War Power, a definitive scholarly account of the drafting and historical implementation of the constitutional war power, said President Obama cannot use the United Nations or NATO to authorize his use of military force in Libya because under the U.S. Constitution only Congress can authorize a U.S. military action not needed to defend the United States against an attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvoJgRTmGts&feature=player_embedded

“I think President Obama had an obligation to get authority up front,” said Fisher. “Obama, as you know, reached out to NATO, reached out to Security Council, reached out to the Arab League.”

Fisher said he is not calling for impeachment hearings for Obama, but did say he believes members of Congress and the public should understand that “nothing would be more impeachable” than war without authorization and that it was “a very grave offense.”

“I’m not going to recommend that the House Judiciary Committee hold impeachment hearings. But I would like members of Congress and the public to say that nothing would be more impeachable than a president who takes the country to war without coming to Congress, who does it unilaterally,” said Fisher. “So I would like people to be educated, including members of Congress to be educated, that that is a very grave offense.”

In addition to working for four decades as a constitutional expert at the Library of Congress, Fisher also taught, among other places, at Georgetown University and the William and Mary Law School.

“I would like to make it clear that in the UN Charter you cannot have the president and the Senate through the treaty process—the UN Charter or NATO—you cannot have those two actors take the power of Congress and the House of Representatives and give it to either the Security Council or to NATO countries,” said Fisher. “And I think even people who read presidential power broadly know that that’s not possible.

“You cannot use a treaty to amend the Constitution,” said Fisher.

Fisher points out that the war-powers language presented to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 initially granted Congress the sole power “to make war.” According to James Madison’s notes from the convention, Madison himself and delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts offered an amendment to change the language to “declare war.”

“Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry moved to insert ‘declare,’ striking out ‘make’ war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks,” said Madison’s notes.

The ensuing debate at the Constitutional Convention, the ratification process that followed, and the treatment of the war power by early congresses, presidents and Supreme Courts, Fisher explained, all make clear that the Founders understood that the Constitution gave Congress authority over initiating hostilities—whether sharply limited actions or broader wars—except when the president needed to act unilaterally to “repel a sudden attack.”

In the debate at the constitutional convention, for example, Roger Sherman of Connecticut agreed with Madison and Gerry’s understanding of what the war power should be, saying, as recorded in Madison’s notes, that the “Exectuive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.”

Apparently responding to Pierce Butler—a delegate from South Carolina who did suggest that the power to initiate hostilities be vested in the president—Gerry said he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.”

Fisher said that Butler was “the only one” who argued at the Constitutional Convention for giving the war power to the president. The “other Framers were just stunned that anyone could give that power to the president,” said Fisher. “And later Pierce Butler backed away a bit. He recognized he was out by himself and no one would support that argument.”

George Mason of Virginia, who supported Madison and Gerry’s successful amendment, told the Constitutional Convention, as recorded by Madison, that he “was agst giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred ‘declare’ to ‘make.’”

Fisher said Mason’s language illustrates the Framer’s belief that both houses of Congress needed to act on a decision to go to war. “The reason he would use words like that is if you go to war, it’s part of the deliberative process, it’s not the decision of a single person,” said Fisher. “It’s the whole elected officials in the legislative body making that decision.”

Every president and Congress from the ratification until the Korean War in 1950 respected this meaning of the Constitution’s war power.

“From 1789 to 1950, every president, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the rest, Polk, they all went to Congress either for authorization or a declaration,” said Fisher.

Fisher says that even after President Harry Truman told Congress that he would not use U.S. troops in a U.N. operation without first getting congressional approval, and even after Congress passed the U.N. Participation Act that required that the president come to Congress first, Truman went ahead and ordered troops into combat in Korea without congressional authorization.

“So in 1950, when he goes to war against Korea, he never ever came to Congress either before or after for authority,” said Fisher. Truman, he said, later told reporters the conflict in Korea was not a war, but a “police action.”

More recently, President Bill Clinton was a prolific abuser of Congress’s power to authorize military actions not needed to repel attacks on the United States.

“He never came to Congress one time for authority, Clinton,” said Fisher. “Invade Haiti. Go into Bosnia. Go into Kosovo.”

Looking back on his 40 years of experience working with Congress, Fisher says that some members fail to protect the rightful constitutional powers of the body in which they serve, thus ceding authority to the president that the Framers never intended the president to have.

“Some take care of their institution, many do not take care of their own institution,” said Fisher. “That was an assumption by the Framers, that each branch would take care of itself and push away encroachments.

“If members of Congress don’t do it, then I think constituents and the general public have to say that it’s your duty,” said Fisher. “You have to protect yourself, because if you don’t protect yourself, you’re not protecting us. And we’re ending up with a concentration of power in the president, which is not constitutional.”

Fisher said the media is culpable, too.

“And the media doesn’t help,” he said. “The media often says: Oh, the president has all these really brilliant people around him and he knows what the national interest is and so forth. So the media plays into that.”

Nor, he said, are scholars always helpful.

“And even scholars do it,” he said. “Arthur Schlesinger’s famous for the imperial president. Well, he helped build up the imperial president with his books on Andrew Jackson and FDR and John Kennedy. So scholars have been very negligent on having this really idealistic view of the president. He’s someone with goodness and expertise and all of that. It’s purely imaginary.”

On Friday, the House cast a pair of seemingly contradictory votes relevant to its constitutional war power. It voted against a resolution that would have authorized President Obama to continue to use the U.S. military in Libyan operations while prohibiting the use of ground troops there. Then it voted against a resolution to cut off funds for the Libyan operation.”

Source:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/we-re-putting-unconstitutional-concentra

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Video: Liberal Congressman, Obama is “An Absolute Monarch”!-Posted on ExposeObama.com-On June 24, 2011:

http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/06/24/video-liberal-congressman-obama-is-an-absolute-monarch/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=d9ed8c26f9-EO_06_24_2011_Aft6_24_2011&utm_medium=email

II. Video: Obama Is In Violation of the War Powers Act!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn5wNKGHIDc

III. Video: Obama Could Now Be Facing His Watergate!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTynrNyuXRE&feature=related

IV. Video: It's time to impeach the president!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Hgyr6SU8o&feature=related

V. Congress, Obama at the Brink on Libya War!-Posted on FoxNews.com-By Chris Stirewalt-On June 20, 2011:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/20/congress-obama-at-brink-on-libya-war/

VI. Video: Congressmen Sue Obama Over Illegal Libyan War!-Posted on ExposeOabma.com-On June 17, 2011:

http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/06/17/video-congressmen-sue-obama-over-illegal-libyan-war/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=87801648da-EO_06_17_20116_17_2011&utm_medium=email

VII. Obama: UN ‘Legitimated’ U.S. Action in Libya!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Matt Cover-On June 16, 2011:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-us-actions-libya-legitimated-un

VIII. Video: TIME Magazine Asks: ‘Does the Constitution Still Matter?’-Posted on PatriotPost.US-On June 24, 2011:

http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2011/06/24/time-magazine-asks-does-the-constitution-still-matter/

IX. George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution: ‘White House officials involved in rewriting nation’s founding document’!-Posted on WND.com-By Aaron Klein-On March 27, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280277

X. The Judas Media-Posted on Floyd Reports-Guest Writer-On April 27, 2011:

http://floydreports.com/the-judas-media/?utm_source=Expose+Obama&utm_campaign=43b350b9f6-EO_04_27_20114_27_2011&utm_medium=email

Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/godfather-of-the-islamic-revolution/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

FCC of BUST!!!!

Posted by MAX SIMON UHRIG on June 27, 2011 at 2:24pm

February 2009 was the deadline for the FCC and the Communications Companys of America to mandate HDTV for all users of Television Nation wide.

The Prowess and excuse given for reasoning was that the US Armed Services needed these airways of UHF / VHF as needful emergency and National Security stations in all event concerning America and the United States as a whole.

Now, for them (FCC) to ascert extreme predjudice against its own people twice in less than 3 years upon the communications of the American Rights of Passage and Privilege to curtail and eventually stop any and all communications from our venues of speaking to one another, all because they are all butt hurt over the idiom of the US Postal Service being dropped from their alleged Retirement funds is against our Constitutional Rights and Privileges as per the Preamble statements and promises.

It violates our rights to Free Speech. Violates and dogs our rights as a Free Society to communicate our thoughts and feelings, suspicions and horrors of and over what our country and its leaders are saying, doing, and effectually performing against our American Right, et al.

It is more than just a matter of FCC -vs- America, its more than a simple slap on the wrist of those empowered to run and control the entity known as the WorldWideWeb and all Internet Providers (ISP's), no dear friends, this is an ALL OUT FRONTAL ASSAULT against ALL our Freedoms. They get this passed and made Law, and we kiss our,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,good bye!

Always in Christ, Always American

Max Simon Uhrig 3

San Tan Valley, AZ

U.N. Chief Endorses U.S.-Bashing ‘Anti-Terror’ Conference Hosted by Iran!

Posted by Jake Martinez on June 27, 2011 at 2:20pm

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on CNSNews.com-By Patrick Goodenough-On June 27, 2011:

“(CNSNews.com) – U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has come under fire for apparently endorsing an “anti-terrorism conference” hosted by Iran, at which the United States and Israel repeatedly were attacked and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reprised his 9/11 conspiracy claims.

Also attending the two-day event this past weekend in Tehran were leaders of three of the top six recipients of U.S. aid in fiscal year 2010 – Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

According to Iranian state media and the “International Conference on the Global Fight Against Terrorism” Web site, a message from Ban was read out at the event, expressing the hope that the conference would “attain great goals.”

Multiple Iranian media reports on the conference highlighted the participation of the United Nations. The event’s Web site carries the U.N. logo alongside those of six other organizing entities – such as the conference secretariat and offices of Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – further implying U.N. involvement and endorsement.

Phones at the U.N. press office went unanswered on Sunday evening.

Less than a week ago, Ban won a second five-year at the helm of the world body, with the full support of the Obama administration.

In its response to that development, Iran stated, “We expect that Ban Ki-moon, during his second term, will try to make up for the shortcomings of his first term and deal with all countries based on justice.”

The conference in Tehran reportedly was attended by senior officials from some 60 countries and representatives of “international organizations including the U.N.”

Apart from Zardari, Karzai and Talabani, other participating leaders included Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – who is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged war crimes in Darfur – and the presidents of Tajikistan and Mauritania.

Addressing the conference on Saturday, Ahmadinejad revisited the sentiments he expressed at the U.N. General Assembly last September, stating that “the real truth [about the 9/11 terror attacks] has been kept from the Americans and the world.”

“Some believe that the motive behind the September 11 attacks was to ensure the safety of Zionist regime, foment insecurity in regional countries, divert the U.S. public opinion from the chaotic economic situation in the country and fill the pockets of uncivilized belligerent capitalists,” he told the Tehran gathering.

American and Israeli responsibility for terrorism were themes running through many of the speeches delivered at the conference, from the opening address by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the closing speech by Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi.

Khamenei accused Israel of “shamelessly and openly” carrying out terrorist acts and the U.S. of “a long list of terrorist behaviors by financing and arming terrorist organizations in the region.”

Salehi linked terrorism to “foreign invasion, occupation, and meddling in internal affairs” by outside countries.

A statement released at the conclusion of the event condemned “all acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including state terrorism.”

“It was underlined that state terrorism has posed, for long, a real threat to the peace and stability of many nations across the globe through unlawful use or threat of force, aggression and occupation.”

The statement also called for a distinction to be made between terrorism and the legitimate right to fight occupation – echoing the long-held view by Islamic states that any definition of terrorism should exclude “resistance” against occupation. That stance, usually cited in the context of the Palestinian and Kashmir conflicts, has for well over a decadestymied efforts by the U.N. to agree upon a definition of terrorism.

'Height of cynicism'

On Saturday, a non-governmental organization that monitors the U.N. wrote to Ban, urging him to distance himself from the Tehran conference.

U.N. Watch highlighted some of the anti-U.S. and anti-Israel sentiments pervading the event, both in speeches and “inflammatory” conference media, such as the publication of cartoons accusing the U.S. of terrorism.

In one of sketches, from smoke billowing from the burning Twin Towers missiles and bombs fall on men holding Iraqi and Afghan flags. Another shows a dove with an olive branch, trapped in a cage made up of the American flag.

In the letter to Ban, U.N. Watch executive director Hillel Neuer deplored the U.N.’s association with the event.

“As you know, this conference is the height of cynicism,” he wrote. “Iran is a leading sponsor of terrorism, arming and training terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Iran has been accused of sponsoring terrorist attacks in Iraq, and of now aiding the Syrian regime in the bloody repression of its own population.”

Neuer said Ban’s “good name and that of the United Nations should not be exploited in this way.”

“It harms the credibility of the world body, contradicts the principles of the U.N. Charter, and aids and abets the sponsors of terrorism in their global propaganda. We urge you to publicly distance yourself and the UN from this shameful conference.”

Neuer said early Monday U.N. Watch had received no reply from the U.N. but planned to follow up. “Iran’s propaganda machine has made significant use of the U.N. endorsement,” he said. “It’s outrageous.”

'Hegemonic powers, plots'

On the sidelines of the gathering, Ahmadinejad held meetings with some of the leading participants, including three-way talks with the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The trio pledged to expand security, political and economic ties.

In his meeting with Zardari, the Iranian president complained that “hegemonic powers” were trying to impede the progress of countries in the region by sowing discord among them.

Ahmadinejad and Sudan’s Bashir discussed the “threat of state terrorism posed by Washington and Tel Aviv,”according to IRNA.

Khamenei also held meetings with some of the visiting presidents.

He told Sudan’s Bashir that the U.S. was deeply concerned about the “Islamic awakening” in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, which he said was undermining the interests of the West and Israel.

He also praised the Sudanese regime for standing firm against U.S., Western and Israeli pressure, presumably a reference to the ICC indictment.

Khamenei told Iraq’s Talabani that the U.S. has lost its influence in the Middle East and that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq was the root cause of the country’s problems.

Meeting with Zardari, the supreme leader praised Pakistanis for foiling U.S. “ plots” and called for deeper ties between Tehran and Islamabad.”

Source:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/un-chief-endorses-us-bashing-anti-terror

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and video relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. U.N. Human Rights Council Retaining Its Bias Against Israel!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Patrick Goodenough-On June 17, 2011:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/un-human-rights-council-retaining-its-bi

II. Iran sends submarines to Red Sea in move that could anger Israel!-Posted on Israel News-By Reuters-On June 7, 2011:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-sends-submarines-to-red-sea-in-move-that-could-anger-israel-1.366500

III. Iran says no offer can stop it enriching uranium!-Posted on Yahoo News-By Mitra Amiri, Reuters-On June 7, 2011:

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-no-offer-world-powers-could-halt-144459550.html

IV. Iran parliament votes to send Ahmadinejad to court!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press-On June 1, 2011:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-parliament-votes-send-ahmadinejad-c

V. Video: Socialists Explain How They Worked With Muslim Brotherhood In Revolutions!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdI0A1KLKmM&feature=related

Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The President Must Stop Voting 'Present' on Iran!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/the-president-must-stop-voting-“present”-on-iran/

Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/godfather-of-the-islamic-revolution/

Is Israel the next Arab Facebook Campaign?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/is-israel-the-next-arab-facebook-campaign/

Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

FCC Quacks Duck Court Showdown!

Posted by Jake Martinez on June 27, 2011 at 1:27pm

Posted on The Washington Times-By By Seton Motley, The Washington Times-On June 17, 2011:

“June 21 marks the six-month anniversary of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) illegally imposing itself on the World Wide Web in order to assert patently absurd “net neutrality” rules.

A half-year later, the FCC still has not filed the order with the Federal Register, which is where all new rules and regulations must go to begin their imposition.

What’s the holdup? There are several possibilities, some or all of which may be why the FCC is so thoroughly slow-playing it. (Please note that it took the FCC less than a month - April 7 to May 6 - to file its wireless data-roaming seizure - so it can get things done when it wants to.)

One possibility for the delay: Two wireless providers - Verizon and Metro PCS - had filed suit to undo FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s net neutrality order. Verizon had sought relief in the same U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that unanimously ruled in April 2010 that the FCC has no net neutrality authority.

The court dismissed the suit, saying the company couldn’t contest the rules until the agency published them. But the court’s docket is moving along and the clock ticking. The longer the chairman drags his feet on the net neutrality order, the less likely it becomes that the court will be able to hear the case. By stalling, the chairman is callously venue-shopping - and ducking a court in which he knows he most likely will lose.

This demonstrates just how proud the FCC must be of the shabby lawyering - and linguistic and intellectual contortions - it has executed to try to re-concoct justification for its second unjustifiable and illegal Internet power grab.

If the FCC thought it had found a newer and better way to assert its alleged authority than the one summarily dismissed last year - authority that Mr. Genachowski admits he doesn’t have - the commission wouldn’t be attempting to duck the court that last time told it to take a flying leap.

The FCC’s newest official excuse for the delay is that it is going through the process of complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). That pretext was proffered on Wednesday at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association’s Cable Show by FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick.

There’s at least one huge problem with this assertion: The FCC - and every federal department, agency and commission - is supposed to comply with the PRA before it votes to impose a new order, not after. To do so afterward defeats the point of the law.

The intent of the PRA is to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals; small businesses; educational and nonprofit institutions; federal contractors; and state, local and tribal governments; and to prevent the government from imposing new rules and regulations without the feds first executing a thorough assessment of just how much damage to the private sector the rules and regulations would do.

The act states: “With respect to the collection of information and the control of paperwork, each agency shall … assess the information collection burden of proposed legislation affecting the agency … for any proposed collection of information contained in a proposed rule (to be reviewed by the Director under section 3507(d)), provide notice and comment through the notice of proposed rule-making for the proposed rule. … (VISec. 3506. Federal agency responsibilities subsection 4B c2).

In one sentence, the word “proposed” - not “passed” - is used four times with respect to the rule being examined. That only makes sense. It doesn’t help to glean this information if you’ve already voted on the rule.

What if the government votes on an order and then comes to find that it dramatically damages the industry upon which the agency already has dropped the hammer?

Net neutrality is just such an order. A June 2010 New York Law School study found that reclassification of the Internet as a telecom service and subsequent imposition of net neutrality rules would cost the economy at least $62 billion annually over the next five years and eliminate 502,000 jobs. What the FCC ultimately thrust upon us was Internet reclassification and net neutrality in all but name, so these numbers most likely will prove painfully accurate. That’s fantastic news for the economy.

The FCC already has imposed its net neutrality power grab - will it now unimpose it?

Does the federal leviathan ever cede power it has obtained, especially when obtained - as with net neutrality - by hook or by crook?

Umm, no.

Seton Motley is president of Less Government and the editor-in-chief of StopNetRegulation.org, a publication of the Center for Individual Freedom.”

Source:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/17/fcc-quacks-duck-court-showdown/

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and video relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. FCC Commissioner Talks of FCC's Governance of Internet's 'On/Off Ramps'!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Nicholas Ballasy-On June 13, 2011:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/fcc-wants-regulate-internets-onoff-ramps

II. Could the Net be killing the planet one web search at a time?-Posted on The Vancouver Sun-By Alex Roslin, For Postmedia News-On June 3, 2011:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Could%20killing%20planet%20search%20time/4891461/story.html

III. Organization with Socialist Ties Driving “Net Neutrality” Agenda Inside FCC!-Posted on Judicial Watch-June 2011:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/jun/fcc-colluded-leftist-organization-free-press-push-government-regulation-internet-docum

IV. Video: TIME Magazine Asks: ‘Does the Constitution Still Matter?’-Posted on PatriotPost.US-On June 24, 2011:

http://patriotpost.us/perspective/2011/06/24/time-magazine-asks-does-the-constitution-still-matter/

V. George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution: ‘White House officials involved in rewriting nation’s founding document’!-Posted on WND.com-By Aaron Klein-On March 27, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280277

Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The FCC Should Not Interfere With The Internet!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/the-fcc-should-not-interfere-with-the-internet/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

$120 trillion: The shocking true size of our nation's debt!

Posted by Jake Martinez on June 27, 2011 at 12:00pm

What’s wrong with this picture?

Posted on The New York Post-By Michael Tanner-On June 26, 2011:

“The Congressional Budget Office released a new report this week showing that the federal government’s publicly held debt would top 101% of GDP by 2021, more than the value of everything produced in this country over the course of a year. Think of it like owing more on your credit cards than your entire family income. By 2035, the publicly held debt, CBO says, could top an almost unfathomable 190% of GDP.

And that was the good news.

The federal government actually has three different types of debt.

Debt held by the public, which generated the headlines in the CBO report, is the type of government bonds that you — or the Chinese government — might own. Economists worry a lot about this type of debt because the government has to borrow the money from private credit markets.

The government borrowing competes with investment in the nongovernmental sector, leaving less money available for private investment in such things as factories and equipment, research and development, housing, and so on.

Growing levels of publicly held debt can drive up interest rates in the long-run, and may already be choking off interbank lending.

But that’s not the only type of government debt.

For example, there is “intragovernmental” debt, which is essentially debt that the federal government owes to itself, such as debt it owes to the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. If publicly held debt is like the money you borrowed from a bank, intragovernmental debt is like the money you swiped from your kid’s piggy bank. It may not be on your credit report, but you still have to pay it back.

Today, intergovernmental debt exceeds $4.6 trillion.

The good news here is that intragovernmental debt is not projected to grow much in the future. The bad news is that that is because both Social Security and Medicare are already running deficits — there’s nothing left to steal.

As if that’s not enough, there is also a third category of government debt: “implicit debt.”

This represents the unfunded obligations of programs such as Social Security and Medicare — the amount that those programs owe in benefits in excess of the amount of taxes that they expect to take in. Think of it as bills you know are going to come in next month but haven’t been delivered yet.

According to the annual report of the Social Security system’s trustees, that program’s unfunded liabilities now exceed $18 trillion. Medicare is in even worse shape. The most recent estimate of its finances, also released this week, warns that Medicare owes $36.8 trillion more in benefits that it is expected to be able to pay for.

And that is the optimistic outlook: It assumes that all the projected savings from President Obama’s health care reform actually happen as promised, something that even Medicare’s own actuaries are deeply skeptical of. If those savings don’t materialize, Medicare’s debt could actually top $90 trillion!

Add it all up, and total US debt actually exceeds 900% of GDP.

That’s somewhere in excess of $120 trillion. We are beginning to talk real money here.

The CBO also contains bad news for those who believe that we can fix this problem simply by cutting “fraud, waste and abuse.” As CBO points out, the projected growth in the debt “is attributable entirely to increases in spending on several large mandatory programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and (to a lesser extent) insurance subsidies that will be provided through [Obamacare].”

There is simply no way to deal with our debt problems without reforming those entitlement programs.

Finally, the CBO report makes it clear that we have a debt problem because spending is too high, not because taxes are too low.

In fact, even though taxes are currently at a near historic low as a proportion of the economy, that is largely a result of the recession.

If the economy returns to normal growth rates (a big “if”), federal revenues will not only rise, but will actually be higher than the postwar average percentage of GDP by the end of the decade. In fact, this will happen even if the Bush tax cuts are extended and the Alternative Minimum Tax AMT continues to be patched.

GOP lawmakers who left negotiations with Obama this week over his unwillingness to pledge no new taxes understand this.

The problem is the money going out, not coming in.

We face a simple choice: Cut spending or face fiscal catastrophe.

The question is: Is Washington listening?

Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Source:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/trillion_the_shocking_true_size_tOxcrobUBUup9IEW3vQAhJ

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and video relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Jon Voight Asks Some Important Questions About Obama!-Posted on The Patriot Update-By Ann-Marie Murrell-On June 27, 2011:

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/jon-voight-asks-some-important-questions-about-obama

II. Michelle Obama, Elitist Vacationer!-Posted on The Patriot Update-By Ann-Marie Murrell-On June 27, 2011:

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/michelle-obama-elitist-vacationer

III. Americans Worse Than When Obama Inaugurated!-Posted on Bloomberg-On Mike Dorning–On June 21, 2011:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-22/americans-worse-now-than-when-obama-inaugurated-by-44-34-margin-in-poll.html

IV. Archie Bunker on Democrats!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fqCS7Y_kME&NR=1

Note: My following blog post contains numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

What's Next

Posted by Joseph Whitworth Smith on June 27, 2011 at 12:00pm

The picture is of my flower garden. Notice the variety of flowers. Gardeners know that a variety is more appealing than all of a kind. It’s basic to the interactions of organisms to the environment, something the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t know. Little does the majority know, and most particularly, environmentalists. By incorporating into the law equal distribution—socialism—all of a kind, you go against nature’s law.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s—great because it lasted 11 years under Roosevelt’s New Deal Law—“take from the rich and give to the poor and needy,” it ended with World War II, when the common cause of the American people became the survival of freedom and independence. I understand there is no such thing as objective reality. All natural is subjective. Objective reality, the end result justifies the means, is an all-time loser.

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor, in-so-far as man is concerned, denies what the cutting edge of science tell us. Our minds are interactive with the basic makeup of the universe. Clearly, there is a distinction between mind and government; that is, my mind, your mind; nature’s law and nature’s god. Man’s law is subject to natural law. Environmentalists place man ahead of nature.

Not only do environmentalists not dig natural law, but various religions do not understand the “Higher Law” of the universe. Religion has a firm grip on the poor and needy in impoverished parts of the world, and, coincidentally, “taking from the rich and giving to the poor”—socialism—in the United States of America. Religions and socialism are often birds of a feather, and most assuredly in the case of America’s environmentalists.

America, come to the party! We are on the brink of losing everything we’ve worked for. Both environmentalists and certain religions take from the individual God-given rights—turn good into evil. Look within and find God. Turn evil into good.

It is impossible to perceive of a natural reason for America’s national debt to reach the point that many future generations will be saddled with today’s debt; and not only that, to demand that the debt be increased to pay for that which has already been spent when the excessive spending continues. This is no answer. When Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner visited China and spoke to Chinese university students, promising that the dollar is “very safe,” he was almost laughed off the stage. The American economy that everyone depended on is pulling Europe and Japan into a black hole impossible to escape.

It is easy to perceive of bankruptcy. Under “Higher Law” this is always what happens when the pressure reaches the point that resistance is overcome. The crown jewel of America is Crater Lake. Six thousand years ago Crater Lake was the caldron of a volcanic eruption 40 times as great as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. There is a groundswell building that is going to break and sweep the world. The old, in nature’s process, is going to be replaced with the new, once again proving that “Higher Law” always in the end prevails.

I dreaded the inevitable change that was coming in my life. I desperately looked for a way to avoid it. To me, it was the end of my world. When I was at rock bottom, forced to jump into an unknown future, on my own I found who I really was, and found my path of destiny. All my dreams came true.

This comment today on my blog “My Miracle Message” on my Web site www.mymiraclemessage.com/?p=75 “A lot of the things you say happens to be surprisingly precise and that makes me wonder why I hadn’t looked at this with this light before. This particular piece really did turn the light on for me as far as this specific topic goes. Nevertheless at this time there is just one factor I am not really too comfortable with and whilst I try to reconcile that with the central idea of your issue, let me see what all the rest of the subscribers have to point out. Nicely done.

This comment was followed with this: “Hi! The info on this site is just incredible. It keeps me coming back time and time again. Personally i met my wife using this site, so i couldnt like it any more. i have done my best to word out about this site as i feel that others need to read this thing. Thanks for all the time you take in making this brilliant blog ! ok,cheers Julie.

It all started for me when I read America’s Constitution and felt that voices of the past were speaking to me. From then on voices of the past have spoken—well not actually, but figuratively. By blogs are the result. The miracle of it is that they resonate with others in a very positive way. Astrologers say that from the standpoint of the original pattern of man, how you feel as you go through life relates archetypically—how you naturally uplift people, to give you some good information as you try to find out what your spiritual mission is.

I don’t think that starting over is such a bad idea. Welcome to the Age of Aquarius.

Illegal Alien Jose Anthony Vargas and The Great Pulitzer Prize Panic of 2011!

Posted by john lillpop on June 27, 2011 at 11:00am

By John W. Lillpop

Those who advocate on behalf on illegal aliens have argued that America simply cannot do without the 12-20 million illegals squatting in our midst.

“Who will pick our fruit?” “Who will mow our lawns, who will wash our cars, clean our lavatories, etc. ,” they rant.

However, things are dramatically different when it comes to illegal alien Jose Anthony Vargas, the Filipino criminal who has lived and lied in America for 18 years.

Rather than asking “Who will pick our fruit?” moon bats arguing for Vargas are crying, “Who will write our Pulitzer Prize winning news stories and articles?”

Apparently, fears of a devastating shortfall of Pulitzer Prize quality writers has driven rule of law skeptics like David Leopold to the edge of insanity with remarks like those below:

“MANILA, Philippines – An official of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) thinks it is highly unlikely that Filipino Pulitzer Prize winner Jose Antonio Vargas will be deported.

David Leopold said, “Jose Vargas is the kind of person that we want in America.”

A lying, cheating criminal who has ignored our immigration laws for 20 years is the sort of bloke that America wants?

Please, the insanity of that is just too much!

To be fair, Vargas does have one thing going for him: He is not an impoverished, unskilled Latino who simply jumped a border fence in Arizona.

Other than that, Vargas is just as despicable and UNWANTED in America as any other illegal alien who cleans toilets or operates a leaf blower eight hours a day!

The simple fact is that Vargas and all of the other 12-20 million invaders come from cultures and societies inferior to American institutions, which means that screening out undesirables is not only preferable, but is, in fact, mandatory.

Still, legal migration to America is available to folks like Vargas.

There exists a path to citizenship that involves examining one’s background for evidence of criminal behavior, for medical exams to determine health status, for determining ability to live independently without becoming a burden on taxpayers, for ties to drug cartels and terrorists, and other inquiry to determine worthiness to join our American family.

This process applies to all would be immigrants, even those who claim to possess Pulitzer Prize writing skills.

Yes, the legal immigration process is exacting and discriminatory, which it must be to protect the interests of American citizens.

America’s immigration laws exist to protect American citizens, not to mine for Pulitzer Prize prospects, grape pickers, or car washers.

Jose Antonio Vargas deserves to be arrested and deported immediately, just like any other criminal invader!

Rajjpuut's Folly: Dear Abby Column Strikes Home

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on June 27, 2011 at 10:50am

Husband's Erratic Behavior
Confounding Future

Dear Abby,

My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit-card bills and at the end of the month, if I dare try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says just pay the minimum and then really starts yelling, saying to let our kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the interest . . . Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to
whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more . . .

Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, he attacks the Jews one weeks and has them over to the house the next; and he's spending more and more of his time with Muslims . . .

Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, theymust sign a loyalty

oath. It's all just so horribly creepy! Can you help us?

Sincerely,

Lost in DC .

Dear Lost:

Stop whining, Michelle. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with him for another 19 months.

Half of Americans Would Like Congress to Investigate Obama's Eligibility For The Presidency!

Posted by Jake Martinez on June 27, 2011 at 7:00am

Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On June 26, 2011:

“Half of Americans would like to see Congress investigate Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency and nearly that many believe the definition of the constitutional term “natural born citizen” means both parents must be U.S. citizens, according to a new scientific poll.

“There’s no marginalizing those who want this matter investigated by Congress,” said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, who conducted the WND/Wenzel Poll telephone survey June 16-19. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.85 points.

“Even among Democrats, more than one in four – 28 percent – said they now want an inquiry, as do 43 percent of independents and 77 percent of Republicans. Interestingly, men are much more skeptical than are women about the question of eligibility – only 42 percent of men said they think Obama proved his eligibility by releasing the electronic birth certificate, compared to 59 percent of women.”

The poll indicated 43.5 percent of Americans believe that a Hawaii birth would make no difference in Obama’s eligibility, as the Constitution requires both parents of a U.S. president to have been U.S. citizens – and Obama’s father was not a citizen.

The figure included 56.9 percent of the GOP, 40.2 percent of independents and 32.9 percent of Democrats.

The eligibility saga, as Wenzel noted, has taken on a life of its own. It began with questions about Obama’s birth place and parentage before his election. At that time, he released a computer image of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii and insisted it was original and the only document available.

Dozens of lawsuits followed, and hundreds of questions remained unanswered. Documents that typically would be available from a president’s history for Obama remain concealed, including passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records.

Then in April, just as a new book, “Where the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is Not Eligible to Be President,” by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., reached the No. 1 spot on Amazon and was about to be released, Obama took a dramatic step.

He instructed his White House counsel, Robert Bauer, to have a private attorney, Judy Corley of Perkins Coie, contact the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a copy of his “Certificate of Live Birth” purportedly on file with the state.

The White House subsequently released copies of a copy of that document, as well as an online image, calling it “proof positive” of a Hawaii birth. Since then, however, dozens of experts, including several ex-CIA members, have asserted that the document is fraudulent.

That image:

http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf.

At its release, WND contacted the Hawaii Health Department and the office of Gov. Neil Abercrombie, an ardent Obama supporter, to request confirmation that the image released was an accurate representation of the state’s file information. Officials refused to respond.

Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of WND.com, the only news organization to report fully on the controversy, and publisher of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?,” said the issue is growing in significance and will be a dominating question in the 2012 presidential election.

“Barack Obama may think he put his eligibility controversy behind him with the release of an unauthenticated and unauthenticatable document, but this poll shows the American people still believe he is still hiding his own constitutional ineligibility for office,” he said. “I agree with the large percentage of respondents who say this issue will continue to haunt him through the campaign of 2012 – if he actually dares to run for re-election.”

Wenzel’s analysis of the poll results agreed.

“If Barack Obama thought that by releasing an electronic version of what the White House said was his long form birth certificate, the question of his eligibility to serve as president would be settled once and for all, he was badly mistaken. My latest polling shows that only a bare majority of 51 percent believe the release of his birth certificate proves he is eligible to serve, and now, half of adults nationwide want a congressional inquiry into his eligibility to serve.

“This reflects a deep distrust of the White House on this question. More telling is that 57 percent in this national telephone survey were either greatly or somewhat troubled by assertions that the electronic birth certificate appears to have been either forged or tampered with. Another 38 percent said they were not troubled at all by such assertions,” Wenzel said.

“Obama came into office with such fanfare and made such sweeping claims that his administration would repair holes in our social fabric and fix our economy, but America has seen none of that. Disappointment has given way to disillusionment and anger, and this survey reveals that even on a simple, basic question of his qualification to hold the office of president, many are skeptical that what the White House has delivered is not at all what was advertised,” Wenzel said.

“There are many reasons this eligibility question has taken on a life of its own, but that only half the country believes that the president has proven he deserves to hold the office reveals a deeply held belief that he is somehow trying to trick the country. This sense of distrust underlies public perception of everything Obama does and says, which means that, as he begins to build a re-election campaign, it is going to be increasingly difficult for him to make a case on any issue as long as this question about the authenticity of his birth certificate remains unanswered. In fact, releasing the birth certificate that Obama released may have made worse his standing with the American people, and that will certainly be the case if a congressional inquiry discovers it has been tampered with or forged,” Wenzel warned.

Asked whether the constitution’s requirement for a “natural born citizen” means “anyone born in the U.S.,” there was a majority of 78 percent. But there obviously is a level of confusion on the issue as 43.5 percent said they believe that to be eligible, both parents of a president must have been U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

Nearly 27 percent said “just one parent needs to be a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth.”

The most likely definition at the time the Constitution was written was a person born of two parents who are citizens of the nation.

Only 50.5 percent believe that the electronic image released in April documents his eligibility, and skeptics included more than 73 percent of the GOP, 48 percent of independents and more than 26 percent of Democrats.

Further, almost 57 percent were troubled by the evidence that the Obama electronic image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” was forged or had been tampered with. Only 38 percent said they were not troubled, and another 4.7 percent said they were uncertain.

Looking at the presidential campaign that Obama already has launched, 38.2 percent said eligibility will be an issue. More than 44 percent of all voters said the lingering questions will impact their decision regarding their vote in the next presidential election.

Shortly after the White House released the “birth certificate” image, Gallup reported that only 47 percent think Obama was definitely was born in the U.S. and 18 percent said he “probably” was.

Obama released the image saying he had no time for such silliness as questions about his birth, then departed for an appearance on Oprah’s television show.

Part of the doubt that remains could be attributable to the many analysts who have issued statements casting doubt on the integrity of the online image posted by the White House.

Web document experts have questioned the document’s authenticity, and a close inspection of the Hawaii Department of Health state registrar’s official stamp on the birth records even reveals an apparent typographical error.

The stamp, affixed April 25, 2011, says “TXE RECORD.”

Yet, on a copy of a Hawaii long-form birth certificate issued only one month earlier, the stamp says “THE RECORD.”

Also, the former Department of Health director, Chiyome Fukino, who reported she examined the original document, in an interview described it as half-typed and half-written. The image released by Obama, however, is all typed, with only the signatures written.

Another recent poll reported by the Los Angeles Times showed that the release of the White House image just weeks ago failed to convince a majority of Republicans.

The poll by Public Policy Polling said only 48 percent of Republicans said they believe Obama was born in the United States.

Some 34 percent said they did not believe Obama was born in the U.S., while 18 percent said they still aren’t sure.

On April 26, the day before the release of the long-form birth certificate, a USA Today/Gallup poll indicated only 38 percent of Americans were convinced Obama was born in the U.S., and another 18 percent said he probably was.

It was only a few months after Obama’s inauguration that a WND/Wenzel Poll showed that 51.3 percent of Americans said they were aware of the questions raised about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office. Only 18.7 percent said they were not and another 30 percent were unsure.

At that point, 58.2 percent of the GOP said they were aware of the controversy.

Polls later revealed Americans to be increasingly skeptical of Obama’s official narrative:

A survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group, in October 2009 found three in 10 people in the U.S. believed Obama to be a foreigner.  ”While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers,” the report said.

Then in January 2010, another WND/Wenzel Poll showed on the one-year anniversary of Obama’s tenure in office that fully one-third of Americans refused to believe Obama was a “legitimate president,” with another 15.8 percent saying they were not sure.  Barely half the voters, 51.5 percent, said they believed the president legitimate even though he had not produced documentation proving his constitutional eligibility. Even 14.6 percent of the Democrats said they did not consider him legitimate.

In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll showed that 55 percent of Americans wanted Obama to release all recordsrelating to his childhood and his education, including “college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation.”

”Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed,” the poll’s analysis revealed.

By June 2010, other media were beginning to put their toes in the waters of the controversy. A 60 Minutes-Vanity Fair poll showed only 39 percent of respondents believed Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed in his book.  ”A shocking 63 percent – very nearly two-thirds of us – went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It’s enough to make you proud to be an American – or 63 percent proud, at any rate.”   But that figure included those who said they believe he was born in Kansas or some other unknown state, which still would conflict with Obama’s story.

Last August, a poll by CNN said 6 of 10 people were uncertain Obama was born in the U.S. The poll said only 42 percent believe Obama “definitely” was born in the U.S.  The CNN report said, “Hawaii has released a copy of the president’s birth certificate – officially called a ‘certificate of live birth.’ And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama’s birth.”

Source:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=314585

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Bogus Obama document 'bigger than Watergate'!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On June 30, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317353

II. Eligibility returns to Supremes' conference agenda!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On June 25, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=315069

III. Stunning precedent would let al-Qaida chief be president!-Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On June 20, 2011:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=313665

IV. Video: General Jones: "Dr. Taitz is Right about Obama"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxwXziHH6qE&feature=related

Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newly-released-colb-be-a-forgery/

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetrated-in-american-history/

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-understand-the-marxist-assault-on-the-foundations-of-our-system/

Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial. Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake

ACTION

All Posts (27776)

Marxist theory: Hate Your Neighbor

In a victory for President Barack Obama, a Senate panel voted Tuesday to approve U.S. participation in the military campaign against Libya and Moammar Gadhafi's forces. The 14-5 vote in the Senate Fo

Need Additional Revenues? Why Ignore Those Who Pay No Taxes!

Our Sharia-Compliant Afghan War!

Legal Drug dealers

After the Fact

Is 'Evidence' of Crimes Erased Before Our Eyes?

The Extinction of the Left

God & Country BANNED in Public Schools

U.S. Open, NBC cuts 'Under God' from Pledge of Allegiance

American Flag Art Banned in classroom

Bible Banned From School

Teens Banned From High School Graduation for Wearing Military Sash

Does Chris Wallace Look at Porn?

Liberal Outrage Over Weiner Scandal: Belly Laughs Galore!

We’re Putting Unconstitutional ‘Concentration of Power in President,’ Says Constitutional Scholar!

FCC of BUST!!!!

U.N. Chief Endorses U.S.-Bashing ‘Anti-Terror’ Conference Hosted by Iran!

FCC Quacks Duck Court Showdown!

$120 trillion: The shocking true size of our nation's debt!

What's Next

Illegal Alien Jose Anthony Vargas and The Great Pulitzer Prize Panic of 2011!

Rajjpuut's Folly: Dear Abby Column Strikes Home

Half of Americans Would Like Congress to Investigate Obama's Eligibility For The Presidency!

Note: this page contains paid content.