There is NOTHING in The Constitution about freedom FROM religion. There IS SOMETHING about freedom OF religion.
If atheists have a problem with the founding documents of this country recognizing the importance of God, then that's tough! Their rights STOP when they collide with the rights of believers who are not obliged to kowtow to their demands, PERIOD!
Marines fight to protect crosses planted at Camp Pendleton in memory of those killed in war on terror
The Unity of Metaphysics Stems Atheistic Flashfloods
What Has Atheism Done For Us lately? The Answer Is Misery And Death On An Unimaginable Scale
Stephen Hawking's Junk Science Atheism - In The Dogmatically Blind Worlds Of Liberalism And Environmentalism, The Truth Is Irrelevant - Obama's New Plan To Cut Taxes On All But Those Most Likely To Create Jobs Is A Communist Exercise In Class Warfare - Soros Watch: $45 Million To Sabotage America's Judiciary - The Side Effects Of Obamacare As More Bad News For Those Who Like Their Current Coverage
Oxymoronic Same-Sex Marriage Goes Against Basic Rights Of Children - Study Shows That Claims Of Sexual Orientation To Homosexuality Being Final Are False - A Reply To News Story "Atheist Group Sues Over Prayers At High School Football Games That Include 'Jesus'" - The Brain-Dead At FOX News Give Us Another Ridiculous Poll Question - Worthless Boehner & Co. NULLIFYING THE 2010 ELECTION - Traitor In The White House Gutting The Military - While The Troops Were Away, Their Commander Betrayed Them - Obama's Student Loan Fraud Is A Vote Buying Scam - Paul Ryan's Great Speech Rejecting Fear, Envy And Politics Of Division - Ex-ACORN Operatives At Work With OWS - Obama Denounced For Saddling Taxpayers With $600M In Debt Mortgage Bailout - The Battles On The UN Agenda 21 Front - The Insurgent Incumbent - Justice, Obama Style: Border Patrol Agent Sent To Jail; Illegals Granted Waivers - Obamacare Traced To Soros Group, Marketed By Radicals
Memo To Atheists: The "Freedom Of Religion" Rights Of Christians Are NOT Going To Be Trashed By The Godless - Despite Plea From Diabolic Obama Administration, Conference Committee Restores Military Ban On Sodomy, Bestiality - Romney Now Embraces Sexual Perversion In The Military - Obama Makes LGBT Foreign Policy Priority - Red Cross Talking Like It's About To Declare Baby Killing A Human Right - Catholic Health Care In Jeopardy Due To Obamacare Embracing A Culture-Of-Eternal-Death - Obamacare Does NOT Deserve Credit For Decreasing Young Uninsured Due To Classic Statistical Fallacy Of Confusing Correlation With Causation - Global Warming Hysteria Is Imposing Neo-Paganism By Pushing Rights Of Nature At Durban, Championed By The Likes Of Sen. Boxer Who Never Met A Baby Not Capable Of Being Aborted While Hypocritically Warning Of Thousands Of Deaths By Not Kowtowing To The Morally Bankrupt Green Agenda - Soros' Brave New World Is Part Of Every Major Left-Wing Initiative From Abortion To Drug Legalization - Dept. of Labor: Public School Teachers Are Highest Paid State Workers Whose Compensation Doubles The Average In Private Industry, All This To Brainwash Your Children Into Being Good Little Communists
MEMO To Atheists: WILLFULLY IGNORING The Use Of "Right Reason" Does NOT Meet The Definition Of "Invincible Ignorance" Which You Will Find Out, In No Uncertain Terms, Upon Drawing Your Last Breath Staring At God's Judgment
Since when do the
rights of foreigners who have committed capital crimes take precedence over the
justice due them for the murder of Americans?
Oops, I'm sorry, what a stupid question, as I forgot that we now live in Obama's Amerika where Americans have no rights!
THE OTHER RUSH
Obama's advancing communism
Exclusive: Erik Rush urges Americans to beat the drum about BHO's 'Marxist agenda'
by Erik Rush
For 100 years, communists believed that America was the only thing standing in the way of communism truly “succeeding” internationally. That’s a convenient if transparent bit of propaganda, but one which has resulted in leftists remaining dedicated to the objective of bringing America down for decades. American communists, being the pathological narcissists they are, have convinced themselves that they’ll do it the “right way” this time. Having dismantled America, what then could they not accomplish?
Upon his return from a week’s hiatus on the radio, commentator Glenn Beck showcased a piece of audio featuring members of the New Black Panther Party on a conference call. Although the renewed activity of this group was brought on by the Trayvon Martin shooting, millions of Americans are aware that this incident did not merit the hue and cry that came up from black activists, including the NBPP. What follows is why it nevertheless did result in such.
While the pretext of the New Black War Kittens’ conference call was, as usual, that of fighting racial oppression, they were very up front about their desire to destroy capitalism. The common denominator of Marxist objectives across the activist groups rearing their decidedly ugly heads at present is something Beck has been stressing – as well as the fact that the advancing Marxist agenda is being not-so-subtly choreographed from Barack Obama’s White House.
Despite race being a mere pretext regarding the NBPP’s role in recent events, this does not mean they won’t carry things forward until civil unrest breaks out, particularly since it has resulted in an apparent backlash from white extremists, and that law enforcement (including, of course, Eric Holder’s DOJ) has eschewed involvement. Civil unrest is an Obama administration objective, since it will facilitate crises sufficient for the president to justify suspensions of civil rights. Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama’s recent National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order, as well as others, have certainly paved the way for such action.
Earlier this week, WND’s Mychal Massie detailed aspects of Obama’s star-student status as an acolyte of communist organizer Saul Alinsky. As with Beck, Massie recognizes the importance of citing the orchestration occurring between the Obama administration and radicals, in this case, the direct correlation between what is now transpiring and the teachings of Alinsky.
Also earlier in the week, commentator Rush Limbaugh delved into the intellectual rationale of our president and his comrades. While somewhat more diplomatic than I might be, he effectively conveyed their belief that the entire American experiment has essentially been a criminal venture.
This discussion of Obama’s hardcore communist objectives is an activity in which I have also been engaged, and I heartily agree with the aforementioned gentlemen in the importance of doing so.
Now, given the abject hatred Marxist leaders have for America, they don’t just want Americans to suffer through their fundamental transformation of this nation. They want us to – as one might say in the U.K. – “suffer proper.” Not like the inconveniences people in France, Spain, or Greece are suffering with the implosion of their economies; they want Americans broken.
This is the widespread social sickness to which envy and pride gives rise. It may be difficult to believe that all our travails are the result of a collection of particularly nasty character defects run wild – but it really is that simple. Marxism is little more than a codified political philosophy whereby those possessing avarice, and little else, might succeed. In truth, the radical left is no better than some loser who decides to carjack a guy in a luxury car because he feels he deserves the automobile more than its owner.
We hear the mantra “A corporation is not a person” from those who believe that granting corporations the same rights as individual persons will have an undue effect upon the electoral process. Well, the government is not a person, either, and it never had the power to do what it is doing; that power was relinquished by the people, by us. When NASA (the government) needed a space program, it contracted countless companies to build the equipment for them, because government itself isn’t capable of building anything. Those companies were owned by people, and the work therein was performed by people. Communists believe that government has the right to simply commandeer these companies, run them and even own the workers. This is no different thinking than that of the carjacker.
The question of a fair election in November is also something that deserves our attention. We can take it as given that voter fraud will abound at the hands of ACORN and other like-minded fringe organizations. It’s an even bet that tricks will be played with absentee and military votes. Questions have also been raised concerning the vote-counting technology having marked vulnerabilities that could be exploited by the unscrupulous, as well as who will be overseeing the process.
All of this illustrates the paramount importance of continuing to beat the drum of Obama’s communism in unequivocal terms, regardless of the mincing ridicule we will draw from liberals, the disbelief of many conservatives and the ire of communists themselves.
Voters in Alaska's largest city have handily defeated a proposed ordinance that would have provided special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals.
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 4/12/2012
Voters in Anchorage, Alaska, have handily defeated a proposed ordinance that would have provided special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals.
Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says passage of
Proposition 5, a measure placed on the ballot and supported by a collection of
LGBT groups called "One Anchorage," would have put homosexuality on a
par with race. But Anchorage residents turned it down, in spite of the fact
that homosexual activists outspent those with traditional views 4-1.
"This was a stunning defeat, because the homosexual agenda organizations thought that they were going to have this as an agenda that would just simply roll through Anchorage, perhaps through Alaska, and then push this across the country," he explains. "They were stopped dead in their tracks."
Religious organizations and churches in the area rallied in opposition to Proposition 5 and were successful in turning out voters.
"This is a great celebration for the family," Staver asserts. "It's a great victory for those of us who believe that we should not elevate sexual behavior to a protected status like race."
Proposition 5, which would have added "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the city's code, was defeated by a margin of 58-41 percent. The Liberty Counsel founder is proud of Anchorage for proving that Americans "still stand strong to protect the natural family."
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012
Subject: Obama's next Judge: "American courts should be more like France, Italy."
Morning Bell: The Internet Taxes that Could Be Coming Posted By Mike Brownfield On April 12, 2012 @ 9:02 am In Enterprise and Free Markets |
If you’ve ever bought anything
on the Internet, over the phone, or from a catalog, you might have noticed that
when you buy from some stores, you don’t pay any state sales tax, but if you
buy from other stores, you do. That’s because a Supreme Court decision
protected out-of-state businesses from revenue-hungry states. But a new bill
working its way through Congress would change all that, turning every online
retailer into a sales tax collector. And that’s legislation Congress should
Back in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Quill Corporation v. North Dakota that a state cannot force a retailer who doesn’t have any physical presence in that state to collect sales taxes from Internet, phone or catalog sales. So if you ordered a book online from BarnesandNoble.com and there’s a Barnes and Noble store right down the street from your house, you’d have to pay sales tax. But if you ordered that book online from a mom and pop bookstore with one location halfway across the country, they wouldn’t have to collect sales tax from you.
In the Quill case, North Dakota tried to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes and remit them to North Dakota, even if they didn’t have a physical presence in the state. Quill Corporation, which sells office supplies and is based in Delaware, had offices and warehouses in Illinois, California and Georgia, but didn’t have any bricks, mortar, employees, or sales representatives in North Dakota. It did, however, have 3,000 customers there and $1 million in annual sales, so North Dakota wanted Quill to collect tax on those sales.
The Court decided that North Dakota’s law was not permissible because the Constitution’s Commerce Clause protects against a state’s unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, unless Congress otherwise writes a law changing the rules. Since that decision, consumers, businesses and the free market have been protected from laws like the one North Dakota tried to impose, but now Congress is considering a law (S. 1832) that would overturn the Court’s decision and allow states to flip the switch on Internet taxation.
In a new paper , David S. Addington, Heritage’s Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy, explains  why Congress should not change the rules on Internet and mail-order sales:
In the long run, the
national economy as a whole benefits from allowing consumers to choose freely
what they wish to buy, of whatever quality they wish, at whatever prices they
choose to pay, and from whatever seller they wish, whether in the same state as
the consumer or not.
Intervention by the federal government and the states in the consumers’ choices by enactment and implementation of S. 1832 would increase the revenues of states, but hobbling out-of-state businesses that sell through the Internet or mail order catalogs does not help the national economy.
Addington writes that it’s not surprising that states want a new source of revenue. After all, they’re struggling with their bloated budgets in this weak economy. But overriding the Quill decision would only give states an incentive to increase taxes instead of cutting the size, scope, and cost of government. And it would be consumers and businesses that pay the price.
There are business groups, too, who are lobbying for the law, arguing that it would protect “Main Street” retailers and “bricks and mortar” stores that are supposedly at a disadvantage. But, as Addington writes, “They seek enactment of S. 1832 so that states can prefer in-state businesses over out-of-state businesses in the kind of anti-competitive economic discrimination the U.S. Constitution was in part adopted to prevent.” What’s more, every sale of goods involves at least one physical facility located in one state or another, which means that those businesses already can be taxed by at least one state. In short, no one is “untaxable.”
At a time when the U.S. economy is struggling to get back on its feet, Congress should not enact a law that interferes with the independent decisions of millions of consumers in the free marketplace and overturns the settled expectations of businesses that have made market decisions under the current rules for two decades. And it shouldn’t give state governments a reason to take more money from taxpayers instead of getting their spending under control.
· North Korea, which is poised to launch a long-range rocket, says that it should not be penalized for its action  and does not believe that the launch violates an agreement with the United States to put a moratorium on its weapons and nuclear tests.
· The AFL-CIO’s super-PAC is preparing for election-year operations and plans to unveil a new tool that uses email and social media to organize voters . So far, the super-PAC has raised $3.7 million.
· Attorney General Eric Holder may say voter fraud isn’t a problem, but some in the city of Vernon, Calif., would disagree. The city’s Chamber of Commerce says nearly 30% of the registered voters in the city don’t actually live there , and charges of widespread voter fraud are plaguing the city’s recent election.
· The fragile U.N.-backed ceasefire in Syria will face a major test tomorrow  as the Syrian people will gather for weekly prayers, a traditional rallying point for protesters in their uprising against the Assad government.
· President Obama has proposed and enacted some seriously bad energy policies, but what are his worst offenses? We’ve compiled a list of Obama’s Ten Worst Energy Policies on The Foundry. 
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/12/morning-bell-the-internet-taxes-that-could-be-coming/
URLs in this post:
 says that it should not be penalized for its action: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korea-signals-rocket-launch-does-not-flout-deal-with-us/2012/04/12/gIQAXSgNCT_story.html?hpid=z2
 plans to unveil a new tool that uses email and social media to organize voters: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/221107-afl-cio-bolsters-super-pac-for-general-election-push
 nearly 30% of the registered voters in the city don’t actually live there: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/voter-fraud-allegations-widen-in-vernon.html
 The fragile U.N.-backed ceasefire in Syria will face a major test tomorrow: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/12/us-syria-opposition-idUSBRE83B0HA20120412
 We’ve compiled a list of Obama’s Ten Worst Energy Policies on The Foundry.: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/11/obamas-ten-worst-energy-policies/
Another episode in the ongoing serial, which is going to summarily end in January of 2013, entitled "The Days of the Delusional Fraud in the White House."
The name of the game here is that when you don't have a record to run on, you must demonize all who dare to oppose you, and the good reasons why they do via your next litany of pathological lies, the generation of which is unbounded for the Obamunists!
Mr. Obama Is Claiming Reagan, Again Posted By Leslie Grimard On April 12, 2012 @ 1:00 pm In Entitlements |
President Obama tried to sell the “Buffett Rule” under a new moniker:
What Ronald Reagan was
calling for then is the same thing that we’re calling for now: a return to
basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will
help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the
Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule.
Reagan’s economic blessing is a new trend 
among liberals. And no wonder: Ronald Reagan is one of the most popular
presidents in modern times.
But what did Reagan really say about the tax rates of the millionaire and the bus driver? Reagan proposed: “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share, the loopholes” that “sometimes make it possible for millionaires to pay nothing.”
Reagan closed tax loopholes; President Obama wants to raise taxes.
President Obama does not acknowledge the profound difference between the “fair-share” solution Reagan sought in 1986 and the redistributionist tax hike he is proposing today. The 1986 law revolutionized the tax code by eliminating dozens of loopholes to make all incomes taxable (Like the Paul Ryan  [R–WI] tax reform plan). Reagan aimed to close tax loopholes, including the infamous three-martini lunch, but he never intended to take money from the small business owners who create the vast majority of American jobs.
It was Ronald Reagan who proposed the Economic Reform Tax Act [ERTA] of 1981, which cut marginal tax cuts by 25 percent across the board and reduced the highest marginal tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent. Two years after ERTA was signed into law, America began almost two decades of robust economic growth.
Ronald Reagan knew from personal experience that if you raise taxes, you erect barriers to innovation and job creation. As a film star in the late ’40s and ’50s, Reagan was taxed at 91 percent, which caused him to remark: “Why should I have done [another] picture, even if it was Gone with the Wind?…What good would it have done me?” Reagan would’ve made only 9 cents on the dollar.
His rationale for cutting taxes across the board was based on more than just personal experience. Reagan believed—and was proven correct—that, “taken together, tax cuts and budget cuts…will put us back on the road to a sound economy, with lower inflation, more growth, and a government that lives within its means. Our goal is a very simple one: to rebuild this Nation so that individual Americans can once again be the masters of their own destiny.”
Obama is not honoring Reagan’s economic legacy. The President  may see the same “Buffett” problem that Reagan saw, but he is proposing a radically different solution—one that will not work. Obama may not like it, but the real Reagan rule is that when you close loopholes and cut taxes for everyone—from the top to the bottom—everyone benefits.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/12/mr-obama-is-claiming-reagan-again/
URLs in this post:
 Paul Ryan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Aewj_IndN4
 President: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20110207,00.html
The U.N. vs. George Zimmerman: Is this What “International Justice” Would Look Like? Posted By Steven Groves On April 12, 2012 @ 12:30 pm In American Leadership |
One would think that Harvard Law School-educated Navanethem “Navi” Pillay , a South African jurist and current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would have better things to do than get involved in the affairs of a democracy like the United States. Yet Pillay, who has served as a judge on the International Criminal Court and as the president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, has made the same mistake many others have made: she has weighed in on the tragedy surrounding the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
The public, including Ms. Pillay, does not have the facts on the Martin case. Sadly, that has not stopped many pundits and activists from commenting, likely to the detriment of the investigation.
But Pillay should know better. On a recent three-day swing through Barbados—not exactly known as a hotbed of human rights violations—Pillay took time to condemn the shooting  of Martin and demand action:
“As High Commissioner
for Human Rights, I call for an immediate investigation.”
Perhaps Barbados does
not carry U.S. news or have Internet access, because Pillay
must not have heard that local authorities, the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, and the Department of Justice are all conducting investigations
into the shooting.
No matter, since Pillay seems content to skip the investigation and trial, and go straight to the punishment phase  of the proceeding:
“The law should operate
equally in respect of all violations. So, like every other situation such as
this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of
course reparation for the victims concerned.”
The problem is that
there can be no “reparation for the victims” unless and until a conviction has
been attained against Zimmerman. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, was charged with
second-degree murder last night , in the United States
a defendant continues to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The United States is a democracy where the rule of law is respected, not a backward nation run by despots. Doesn’t the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights have actual violations of human rights around the world to address? Maybe in Cuba, laughably a member of the U.N.’s Human Rights Council? From Barbados she wouldn’t have needed to look very far. Perhaps it was a slow news day in Barbados.
Pillay’s rash intervention into a controversial and volatile issue such as this speaks volumes about the careless attitude often displayed by U.N. officials. More troubling is Pillay’s seeming lack of knowledge (or perhaps respect for) such basic concepts as due process and the presumption of innocence. Is this the type of justice that Pillay was accustomed to at the international level when she served as a judge on the International Criminal Court?
Pillay’s irresponsible and uninformed outburst provides additional evidence, as if any were needed, why the United States should not expose itself to criminal proceedings at the International Criminal Court . After all, with jurists like Pillay in charge, would American service personnel and military leaders stand much of a chance of receiving a fair trial?
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/12/the-u-n-vs-george-zimmerman-is-this-what-international-justice-would-look-like/
URLs in this post:
 Navanethem “Navi” Pillay: http://www.ohchr.org/en/aboutus/pages/highcommissioner.aspx
 took time to condemn the shooting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9189884/Trayvon-Martin-killing-UN-human-rights-chief-calls-for-investigation.html
 skip the investigation and trial, and go straight to the punishment phase: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fla-civil-rights-group-welcomes-un-official-s-call-reparations-trayvon-martin-case
 charged with second-degree murder last night: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_story.html
 the United States should not expose itself to criminal proceedings at the International Criminal Court: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/the-us-should-not-join-the-international-criminal-court
Ever wonder what Barack Obama and his Justice Department think of the New Black Panthers? You know, those folks who put a bounty on the “dead or alive” head of George Zimmerman, whose involvement in the shooting of Trayvon Martin has prompted calls for his prosecution.
It appears an answer is not forthcoming, after White House press secretary Jay Carney today declined to even allow the question to be asked.
It happened when Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, attended the briefing and was prepared to ask two questions.
He wanted to know, “Does the president believe it is legal for the New Black Panthers to offer $10,000 ‘dead or alive’ for George Zimmerman, who they called a ‘child killer’ and warned Zimmerman ‘should be fearful for his life.’”
He also was prepared to ask, “Has the president any regret about his intervention in the case, when he said, ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon?”
But Kinsolving was among the dozens of reporters at today’s briefings who were not allowed by Carney to participate by asking questions. AP and CNN were allowed four each and NBC, Bloomberg and American Urban Radio were allowed three each.
In an editorial there, the newspaper asked just “What is it about the Justice Department and the Black Panthers?”
“On March 24, Mikhail Muhammad, leader of the New Black Panther Party, offered a $10,000 bounty for the ‘capture’ of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The Panthers distributed wanted posters, calling him a ‘child killer’ and offering the bounty ‘dead or alive.’ Muhammad warned that Mr. Zimmerman ‘should be fearful for his life.’”
Continued the editorial, “These acts were almost certainly criminal. Florida Code 787.01 makes it a felony to threaten someone or abduct them with the intent to terrorize. Florida Code 777.04 further criminalizes solicitation which ‘commands, encourages, hires or requests another person’ to engage in criminal activity such as kidnapping.”
The issue reflects some of the fundamental beliefs of Obama, the commentary said.
“This scandal offers an opportunity for the Obama administration to show it can act impartially and calm racial tensions. So far, the White House has failed to lead on the issue. President Obama’s high-profile public statement – ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon’ – was bizarre and seemed to show undue bias. Taking swift action against those who seek to incite racial violence would demonstrate that the federal government enforces the law without prejudice.”
The commentary noted Zimmerman’s family has asked Attorney General Eric Holder why has his office not arrested the New Black Panther Party members for hate crimes.
“Since when can a group of people put a bounty on someone’s head, circulate Wanted posters publicly, and still be walking the streets?” the newspaper asked.
It was reported that Michelle Williams, of the party, drew back from her earlier comments that, “My prize right now this evening … is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, or George Zimmerman. You feel me?”
An earlier Obama DOJ statement on the same party came shortly after the 2008 election.
See the video:
Then, WND reported, in Philadelphia, a case was brought against the organization and several individuals who witnesses say derided voters with catcalls of “white devil” and “cracker” and told them they should prepare to be “ruled by the black man.”
One poll watcher called police after he reportedly saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters.
“As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,” the witness told Fox News at the time. “So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they’d been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what.”
He said the man with a nightstick told him, “‘We’re tired of white supremacy,’ and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, ‘OK, we’re not going to get in a fistfight right here,’ and I called the police.”
Subsequently, former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the Voting Section of Holder’s organization is dominated by a “culture of hostility” toward bringing cases against blacks and other minorities who violate voting-rights laws.
Further, two other former U.S. Department of Justice attorneys later corroborated key elements of the explosive allegations by Adams.
One of Adams’ DOJ colleagues, former Voting Section trial attorney Hans A. von Spakovsky, told WND he saw Adams was being attacked in the media for lack of corroboration. He said he knew Adams was telling the truth, so he decided on his own to step forward.
Adams had been ordered by his superiors to drop the case prosecutors already had won against the New Black Panthers. When they were ordered to stop prosecution, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.
Named the Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Full Story
- Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Chance brought across my path an old friend, Dr. March, whom I had not seen in four years. During the last conversation, he was trying to convince me that electing President Obama would be a positive turn in the history of our country, particularly after the “dreadful Republican Bush.”
I do not see people so much as belonging to the Republican or Democrat Party, but as promoters and believers of a particular social and fiscal ideology. Occasionally, Congress members of either party share identical beliefs and vote the same way, regardless of the D or R after their names. They no longer represent the will of the people who elected them, but the will of the corporate interests and the lobby groups.
Many uninformed and ordinary Americans vote on their perceived understanding of the issues after watching biased commercials and presentations. Some Americans vote on family traditions. Other Americans vote for the most telegenic of the candidates, or whoever promises most welfare.
As a medical doctor and an academician, Dr. March argued at the time that Obamacare could not possibly destroy our medical system and make it any worse because it was already in a mess with so many insurance companies, in dire need of tort reform, with so much bureaucracy and daunting paperwork, requiring full time staff to deal with insurance plans.
No to worry, this week we found out that 4,000 new IRS agents will be hired to handle Obamacare. A nagging question kept swirling in my head, what does health care have to do with tax collectors? Is health care a tax? Why would tax collectors be part of the decision to treat people medically or perform surgery on patients?
According to The Hill, “the Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law. The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.” (The Hill, April 9, 2012)
Dr. March told me what a hard time his medical students were having finding jobs after spending $50,000 each year for a degree and how we are not going to have many primary care providers left – nobody will be willing to go to medical school if jobs are hard to find and salaries are capped by The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. He was bemoaning the fact that a lot of our healthcare will be provided by nurses and will thus be inadequate and lacking.
His solution was rather perplexing – find a president who is fiscally conservative and socially progressive. The pronouncement struck me as illogical and impossible, as I see those two as polar opposites. You cannot be fiscally conservative and spend money on social programs lavishly without going bankrupt at some point.
I did not dare ask him what his presidential choice would be in November. It is impolite to ask such questions unless a person volunteers the information. He did mention that his wife voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. Both had voted cheerfully and eagerly for Obama in 2008.
When I told him how corrupt the socialized medical care system was in Romania, 23 years after the fall of communism, he agreed that most good doctors in the former iron curtain nations left for other places where they were paid based on merit and not on a central government salary decree. Only doctors who accepted bribes to supplement their salaries stayed behind to deliver care to the population.
There are not enough doctors and nurses left behind, and people do not have enough money for bribes in countries where medical care is free but care and drugs must be rationed. At some point there is not enough “free everything” to go around.
Socialized medical care in Western Europe’s nations fares slightly better. Doctors are still paid a government capped salary, there is rationing of care, long waiting lists for procedures, and gross negligence in hospitals. When patients have sniffles, everyone is treated, no problem. That is when free medical care works best. When more expensive procedures and long-term care become an issue, rationing ensues, depending on the patient’s age.
Dr. March was not aware that Muslims are exempt from the requirements of The Affordable Health Care Choice Act but will be full beneficiaries of free health care paid by the rest of us, a blatant form of dhimmitude.
Because health care has become so expensive in Germany and birth rates are going down, Chancellor Angela Merkel is considering an extra tax on young people in order to support the pensions and health care costs of the burgeoning older population. Could that become a future issue in the U.S.?
The cost of Obamacare has been purposefully misrepresented. A recent and more accurate report doubles the cost. This does not take into account the 1,500 plus exemptions offered to many crony capitalists for a year.
Dr. March was not incensed by the fact that faith-based hospitals will be forced to provide abortion on demand or that contraceptives are considered health rights.
Obamacare is not about providing affordable healthcare choices, it is about government control by unelected bureaucrats with no medical degrees or training over hospital admissions, payments to doctors, medical devices, and forcing private insurance companies out of business. It is about the most massive transfer of power to the executive branch of the government.
The law rations care to seniors and other classes of citizens and gives free
health care to illegal immigrants. Free abortion services under Obamacare
forces participation in abortions by members of the medical profession who find
the procedure highly objectionable.
Dr. March concluded with an interesting observation, that, in the D.C. area, Republicans who live in Virginia and Democrats who live in Maryland are two distinct groups at odds in the fight over Obamacare while the rest of the country supports Obamacare. Perhaps a biased poll gave credence to his belief, but the polls I read show the majority of the U.S. legal population against Obamacare.
It is a moot point if you are for or against Obamacare. It is already the law, the bureaucracy is already in place to completely overhaul and destroy the best care in the world, and we are waiting on the Supreme Court to weigh in with their opinion in June, which is likely to determine that the law is constitutional. We, the “units,” will see each other in line at the IRS office begging for healthcare, surgery, and pain pills or petitioning the 15-member non-medical “death panel” for mercy.
- J.D. Longstreet
On the tenth of April, 2012, at the Florida Atlantic University, President Obama stated: “This is not some socialist dream ... ” I would beg to disagree. That is exactly what it is. And it is HIS dream, not mine, and it is not a dream the majority of Americans share.
It doesn’t take a college degree in politics and/or government to know socialism when you see it, especially for my generation. We grew up fighting it. I mean, we literally took up arms against socialism.
Today in America, socialism has a death grip on the Oval Office of the President of the United States. Far from fighting socialism, as a President of a free country ought to do, Obama has embraced it and is now proselytizing for socialism. He sounds more like a missionary sent from the old Soviet Union to bring America the gospel of socialism than he does the president of a capitalist, democratic country. Sad to say, Obama resembles Hugo Chavez more every day.
President Obama, who has been calling for tax increases on the wealthy in America to “spread the wealth around,” is vehemently denying that his tax increases on the rich are an attempt to “redistribute wealth.”
Let me state this as clearly and concisely as I can: The President of the United States is telling us a lie. And it is a malicious lie, because he KNOWS he is lying!
Redistribution of a nation’s wealth IS socialism, period.
Look. Those of us who went to private and parochial schools (and even to public schools before the federal government moved in and “dumbed-down” the curriculum) can read, write, and reason. We KNOW what socialism is—and we know he is lying!
However, we make a mistake by thinking that Obama is talking to us. He is not. He is talking to his base, the voters who put him in office in 2008. Governor Chris Christie, of New Jersey, nailed it just a few day ago. Paraphrasing, he said, we have become a people sitting on the couch waiting for the government check to arrive. And THAT is Obama’s base.
What do they care what kind of government the United States has? Just keep those checks rolling in, babe!
Obama wants to take money from the “Makers” and give it to the “Takers.” When a government takes money from the job creators, it means fewer jobs will be created. That is just basic economics. I learned in high school.
Here’s a truism for you: Any time you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul! Obama is counting on that support.
Remember back in 2008 when Obama was running for his first term as President and he told “Joe the Plumber” the following: “I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts.” He was speaking to Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber). By the way, Samuel, or “Joe,” is now running for Congress—as a republican. Joe got the message. He saw the threat in what Obama said.
Nothing has changed since 2008. Obama is STILL preaching his message of socialism for America, only he is being very careful not to use the words “socialism” or “socialist”— except— when denying he is one—which he most assuredly is.
Obama is spoon-feeding socialism to his base and they are lapping it up!
“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Obama said that back in 2008 and it made cold chills race up and down my spine.
America has seven months, only seven months, to decide if she wants to live free or die in slavery. The choice could not be clearer.
Now that the GOP candidate has been chosen, not officially, but chosen, nevertheless, it is time to turn all republican political guns on Obama and spread the word that the man is an out and out socialist and his agenda for America is to trash capitalism, which he believes has failed, and institute socialism.
Conservative voters must convince America that we are in a fight for freedom. What was once a fight to restore America has now become a fight for the very life, the very existence, of a free America.
The fight would be more energized if the GOP had a candidate that could light a fire in the hearts of conservatives. It is conservatives who provide the energy in republican campaigns. But, sadly, we don’t. As some wizen head one said: “We go to war with the army we have.” And we have Romney—who does not inspire conservatives one iota.
If conservatives are to make a difference in the coming election, we have to forget about Romney and concentrate on voting against Obama. THAT should be the battle cry.
As much as I personally dislike Mr. Romney, I just don’t believe he would knowingly do anything that would threaten freedom and democracy in America. I cannot say that about Obama.
At this moment in history, voters must concentrate, not so much on restoring America, but on SAVING America. To do that, Obama MUST be defeated in November.
By Michelle Malkin • April 12, 2012 10:57 AM
White House visitor logs show that Hilary Rosen, the DC lobbyist/Anita Dunn colleague who attacked Ann Romney’s stay-at-home-mom status on CNN last night, visited 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at least 35 times.
(Remember: White House logs are an inaccurate measure of ACTUAL White House visits, as liberal media outlets/watchdogs themselves have reported and as I’ve reminded you many times.)
White House Visitor Records Requests
Powered by Socrata
More illuminating than the number of visits is the info about who Hilary Rosen visited.
The records are a mess, so let me break it down for you:
3/11/09 Meeting with White House consigliere Valerie Jarrett.
3/13/09 Meeting with David Axelrod.
3/30/09 Meeting with top Big Labor operative and political director Patrick Gaspard.
9/21/09 Meeting w/Natalie Bookey, East Wing aide, and unidentified visitee.
10/8/09 Meeting with WH senior press lead, Jesse Lewin.
10/13/09 Meeting with POTUS — President Barack Obama.
10/22/09 Meeting with Anita Dunn, former WH communications director.
10/28/09 Meeting with POTUS in the East Room.
11/25/09 Unidentified East Wing (First Lady Michelle Obama’s office) meeting.
1/26/10 Rosen visited Dagoberta Vega, White House broadcasting media official and director of surrogate booking.
2/1/10 Rosen visited top White House official Jim Messina, now Obama’s 2012 campaign manager.
2/24/10 Rosen visited White House consigliere Valerie Jarrett.
3/24/10 Rosen visited White House consigliere Valerie Jarrett.
7/7/10 Meeting w/Jocelyn Frye, East Wing aide.
12/10/10 Rosen visited Ellie Schafer, White House Visitors Office director, in the East Wing.
12/10/10 Meeting with POTUS.
9/8/11 Meeting with Kristina Schake, East Wing aide.
12/7/11 Meeting w/POTUS and Marie Aberger, White House press assistant.
12/7/11 Meeting with Ellie Schafer, White House Visitors Office director.
1/6/11 Meeting w/Dagoberta Vega, White House broadcasting media official and director of surrogate booking.
1/21/11 Meeting w/Meredith Carden, an aide to First Lady Michelle Obama, Old Executive Office Building.
1/24/11 Meeting w/Samuel Wilson, deputy director of broadcast media for the White House office of communications.
1/28/11 Meeting w/Jason Dempsey, White House fellow.
2/2/11 Meeting w/Obama bundler and top aide to both POTUS and FLOTUS, Tina Tchen.
2/24/11 Meeting w/POTUS.
2/24/11 Meeting at WH Visitors Office.
2/14/11 Meeting w/Samuel Wilson, deputy director of broadcast media for the White House office of communications.
3/19/11 Meeting w/Alexader Lasry,strategic engagement aide.
3/18/11 Two meetings listed with Jeremy Bernard, White House social secretary.
6/15/11 Meeting w/Dag Vega, WH surrogate booking director.
8/5/11 Meeting w/Ellie Schafer, WH Visitors Office director.
Plus: 12/15/09 – 12/15/10 – 12/15/11 — Incomplete entries, no visitee identified.
Bottom line: For the last three years, Hilary Rosen has met nearly three dozen times with top Obama communications and political strategists from Valerie Jarrett to David Axelrod to Anita Dunn to Jim Messina to the president himself.
Any notion that her frontal assault on GOP women was an accident or lone wolf move is contradicted by the long paper trail of her intimate working relationship with the White House campaign/media team. The data also puts the disavowals of Messina/Axelrod last night into much-needed perspective.
They can’t disassociate themselves from one of their most frequent visitors and associates.
They just never expected the fierce online/social media pushback they got from conservative women, who are beating them at their own medium.
Naturally, Hilary Rosen is out with a new piece on CNN deriding GOP moms again and calling their outrage fake.
April 12, 2012 02:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
She apologizes if she
“offended” anyone with her attack on Ann Romney and women who stay at home to
raise their children.
Spoken like a true good ol’ Beltway boy schooled in blame-avoiding politics as usual.
I especially love how her apology continues her attack on conservative women by accusing them of “faux” outrage…even as First Lady Michelle Obama herself chimed in this morning to make clear she supports all mothers and create cover for herself.
Keep digging, Ms. Rosen. Keep digging.
by Joe Kovacs
When it comes to politicians, they often say the same thing over and over.
That statement is taken to a new level when comparing budget speeches from President Obama, one from 2011 and one from 2012.
The Republican National Committee has produced a video showing separate speeches a year apart from Obama talking about financial issues.
The strange thing is that the sentences uttered by the president are virtually identical.
“During moments of great challenge and change like the one that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and it gets more vigorous,” Obama said in a speech on the House budget in 2011.
On April 3, 2012, Obama parroted himself, saying, “During moments of great challenge and great change like the ones that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper, it gets more vigorous.”
As the speech continues, there are only very minor variations in the precise wording.
“The speech is exactly the same,” wrote blogger Eric Odom at LibertyNews.
“I watch a LOT of videos throughout each week. Many of them are outright damning of Obama, his administration and his campaign. But I don’t think any make it more obvious that Obama is a man without ideas or a plan than this one.”
He added: “Why is it the RNC is catching this and the media isn’t? Nevermind. That’s something we all already know.”
Earlier this year, the RNC produced another video highlighting repeated phrases and sentences from Obama’s State of the Union addresses from 2010, 2011 and 2012:
The president’s overuse of the same terminology has even caught the eye of Thomas Buch-Andersen, host of the Danish TV show “Detektor,” who mocked Obama’s political rhetoric in a recent episode. As seen from White House video, the president has a special liking for the boxing analogy “punching above its weight”:
If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Poll.
In recent years, NASA
officials have spoken up frequently in defense of the theory that human
activity is adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and is dangerously
elevating the Earth’s temperatures.
But that belief is not universal in the nation or even within NASA. That’s why a large group of former astronauts and Johnson Space Center officials are pleading with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden to stop presenting an unproven contention as settled science.
“The global-warming hypothesis has never been proved … look at the data,” Apollo 7 astronaut Walt Cunningham told WND.
Cunningham says the space agency has no business wading into a politically charged debate and believes the prestige of NASA is being used to achieve political goals that are not good for America.
“We’re concerned by the politicizing of science. NASA is ruining the reputation that we all helped to established over the last 40 or 50 years because they’re taking a position that’s not substantiated by scientific data.”
Cunningham also offers his thoughts on the end of manned space flights here in the U.S. and what the priorities of our space program ought to be.
“The cancellation of the space shuttle is probably the single biggest mistake NASA has made in their 50-year history. It is the safest and most capable vehicle ever developed and now we’re going back to try to reinvent the wheel.
“We’re not pushing ahead to be the best in the world anymore.”
What this story proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is that "common sense" has been long since extinct in this country since 2009 with Obama's stimuli to nowhere other than his private stash which the terminally dumbed-down are on record as believing that Obama will share with them!