Paul Smith Candidate for Congress will hold a Recall Rally on the steps of the Capitol building in Sacramento California
The City council voted to boycott Arizona over the immigration Law.
Now it's time the Tea Party stands up for Arizona and Recalls the Mayor of Sacramento and the City council for this dangerous and reckless act
Thursday 12 noon on the steps of the Califonria Capitol Building 10 street
Be there.. Stand up for Arizona!
6-18-10 Arizona is a good example of the leftist movement in our federal government. That state is trying desperately to defend itself and its citizens from criminals, drug runners, human traffickers, gun smugglers, drug cartels, financial ruin, and the failure of our federal government to do its job. They passed State Senate Bill 1070 to be able to implement some of the protections the federal government has failed to provide.
We have been invaded, but the federal government does nothing of any substance to stop the invasion. No, I am not referring to the estimated 12 to 14 million criminal aliens known to be here. I am referring to the flow of paramilitary groups and other heavily armed foreigners who have already come across an 80 mile stretch of the U.S. / Mexican border including the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge which is right on the border. These people commit crimes against U.S. Citizens and law enforcement officers. The crimes have increased in the last four months to where the situation is out of control according to Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu. The invaders have taken over to the extent that our federal government has closed the wildlife refuge to U.S. citizens. So this part of the United States has been taken over by foreign nationals and is off limits to U.S. Citizens. And all our federal government has seen fit to do is to erect signs telling U.S. citizens they may not enter this area of U.S. sovereign territory. They have not sent troops to rout these foreign invaders. They have not even thought that doing so is a reasonable idea.
So let me see if I understand the situation. Mr. Obama refuses to protect this country; but in stead, he believes the right thing to do is to allow invaders to take over our land. He also believes that when Arizona passes a law to protect itself from such failings of our President and our federal government, that the state should be sued for usurping the federal government’s powers regarding immigration. Arizona doesn’t want to control legal immigration - it wants to halt illegal entry into the state. However, the reason the state passed 1070 was because the all-powerful federal government is not using its power to protect its citizens.
The most important thing here is that the President is refusing to protect the this country. If I remember right, he took an oath to protect this country. I guess he just failed and the country is giving him a pass on it. If he were a Republican President, the Democrats would be calling for his impeachment. But I guess the Republicans are just blind to the situation…………..or they are gutless…………..or something.
Where is the citizenry’s cry for the impeachment of a President who refuses to honor his oath?
Foxnews.com carried the article on which this writing is based. It can be found at: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16/closes-park-land-mexico-border-americans/?test=latestnews.
If the public reads this blog and the Fox News article and understands that our own President is making part of this country off limits to its own citizens because of a foreign takeover, they would be up for an impeachment. However, the President doesn’t even want this subject mentioned because he stopped construction of the border fence and did not provide any of the 3000 troops requested by Arizona and Senator McCaine to take back this part of our country. If the subject is mentioned, he would look bad. But the facts are there. So again, I ask where is the citizenry’s cry for the impeachment of a President who refuses to honor his oath?
Setting Obama's inexperience and ineptitude aside, his most disturbing attribute is his arrogance. Not very presidential, and certainly not endearing, as so many of our historic presidents have been. Arrogance gets in the way, blinds you, and will trip you up every time. This is why Obama cannot see the cure to fix this disaster, and will not call in experts to help -- because he can do it all.
OBAMA'S ANSWER TO SPILL COMES UP SHORT
Barack Obama doesn't do the mundane. He was sent to us to do larger things http://bit.ly/bgMGXZ
Mr. Clinton oh excuse me, Mrs. Clinton said that Obama planned on bringing a law suit against Arizona's law, well im here to tell you that wont happen. He is just going to let Mexico take over. So democrats, a month ago you applauded the president of Mexico and I assume his reward for his fantastic speech is he gets Arizona and we get our drugs cheaper? Or is it that we get our labor cheaper? im confused. I know maybe we get both. Well good job guys you took care of that problem now you just have to concentrate on this "damn gulf". Actually i have a great idea Obama, give it the Mexicans. I live in Florida and im so glad that its hurricane season. Maybe, just maybe if were lucky a Jurricane will come along wash all that oil across Mexico then all we will need is a match!!!!!!!! That would be one helluva Cinco de Mayo now wouldnt it?!!!!!!
p.s. a Jurricane is a Hurricane in Mexican
Managing to survive the repercussions of the Jimmy Carter administration has left me with apprehensions about the future of our country. The signs are similar, but worse. As Gerald Celente of Trends Reseasrch Institute says: We have ....
"Debt piled on top of a failed bailouts, stimulus, tarp, cash for clunkers, housing tax credits, 5.5 trillion dollars dumped into the system to pump it up after the crash in Mar-2009, printing phantom money out of thin air, backed by nothing and producing nothing."
TAX HIKES AND THE 2011 ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately... http://bit.ly/djCcpX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPrl4P9AcrQ
It just keeps getting better
According to the highly accurate Rasmussen Reports polls, 66% of American voters are angry at the media and 33% call themselves “very angry” at the media. The question did not differentiate which media sources were causing this anger. This is not necessarily a new perception, voters for years have insisted that the American media have a strong “liberal bias.” Back in the final months of the 2008 election, 51% of voters said that most reporters were trying to help Obama win the presidency while only 7% said the media was trying to help John McCain and 31% thought media coverage was neutral.
68% of voters say that when covering political campaigns and news, reporters try to help politicians they favor. 48% today believe that most reporters when they write or talk about President Obama are trying to help the president pass his agenda and only 18% of voters believe that reporters are interested in blocking Obama’s agenda. The media fairness issue is big in most voters’ eyes as 54% of voters think most reporters would hide any information they uncovered that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win, up seven points from November 2008 when voters already thought media bias was a problem.
In all 51% of voters today label reporters as more liberal than they are; while only 15% say reporters are more conservative than they are and 55% of voters say media bias is a bigger problem in America than campaign contributions from big donors.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
According to the highly accurate Rasmussen Reports polls, 66% of American voters are angry at the media and 33% call themselves “very angry” at the media. The question did not differentiate which media sources were causing this anger. This is not necessarily a new perception, voters for years have insisted that the American media have a strong “liberal bias.” Back in the final months of the 2008 election, 51% of voters said that most reporters were trying to help Obama win the presidency while only 7% said the media was trying to help John McCain and 31% thought media coverage was neutral.
68% of voters say that when covering political campaigns and news, reporters try to help politicians they favor. 48% today believe that most reporters when they write or talk about President Obama are trying to help the president pass his agenda and only 18% of voters believe that reporters are interested in blocking Obama’s agenda. The media fairness issue is big in most voters’ eyes as 54% of voters think most reporters would hide any information they uncovered that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win, up seven points from November 2008 when voters already thought media bias was a problem.
In all 51% of voters today label reporters as more liberal than they are; while only 15% say reporters are more conservative than they are and 55% of voters say media bias is a bigger problem in America than campaign contributions from big donors.
Another area of anger is the Gulf oil spill. The vast majority of Americans are blaming British Petroleum (BP) for the explosion and leak. However, 67% of Americans believe the U.S. government does not inspect offshore oil rigs properly and 33% say it’s very likely that the problem could have been avoided IF government inspectors had done a better job. Certainly, since the ’90 and ’94 safety laws were “signed off on;” BP was one week away from getting a safety award from the government’s MMS; and since ten fire booms were required at the Deepwater Horizon site and zero were there . . . the public perception seems grounded in fact. Since these facts have NOT been widely disseminated by the media, perhaps this too is part of the anger Americans feel toward the media?
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
Little known, however, is Reid’s aim to create a national police force for Barack Obama killing two birds with one horrible stone . . . Reid is pushing the “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (HR 413) as a way to solidify the strength of unions in the country and hand Obama a national police and fire force loyal to him more than the states and cities they protect.
The temerity of the Democrats in aiming to make individual union “yea” or “no” choices into a matter of national law is scandalous. Of course, Reid is talking up the proposed laws as “crucial to national security.” One wonders if radical Islamic Jihadists are part of that particular vision of national safety? The law “benignly” seeks to nationalize rules governing every police, fire and other first responder union in the country and to have every single policeman and fireman and emergency responder to be represented by collective bargaining rules emanating from Washington, D.C. In the process, state rules and municipal rules would be nullified.
You’d think the Greek example of overly powerful national unions would have been an abject lesson for Harry Reid, who’s never met a socialist law which didn’t send an orgasmic thrill up his leg. By taking away the local and state control over police and fire forces, this is a tremendous challenge to the 10th Amendment’s separation of federal powers from state and local ones. Of course, national unions would also determine pay and benefits as well as promotions. An evil law that deserves to be flushed down the toilet.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
