Sunday, February 8, 2009

Out of Afghanistan?? ACORN to do census?

Amazing --- utterly amazing what our new prez can come up with in the nam of "hope and change" --------------- we're in big trouble, folks.

from Over the Hill Oracles:

The answer to the census question may be decided by the Supreme Court, but watch Obama’s clandestine maneuvers to assign “responsibility” for the census from the Secretary of Commerce to the White House.


Here’s the law:


The Congress, by law directed that:



“The Secretary [of Commerce] shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate.”


Credit those folks over at Samizdata ….



As I read it, the Director of the Census must, by law, be within the Department of Commerce and under the direction of the (Senate approved) Secretary of Commerce who then reports to the president. Am I missing something?
Correction: From reading through Title 13, Chapter 1 it appears obvious to me that the POTUS has no role in the census whatsoever beyond, with Senate approval, selecting the Secretary of Commerce and, also with Senate approval, selecting the Director of the Census who shall perform such duties as may be imposed upon him by law, regulations, or orders of the Secretary.” Hhmmm… No president mentioned.


The Secretary of Commerce is the only authority the law recognizes. Since as commenter Laird points out, the Constitution did not place the census function in Article II - the Executive branch but in Article I - the Legislative branch, it is not at all within the President’s reach unless the legislature places it there.


And watch for Obama to still try and put ACORN in charge of the census ….


Any question about WHY there are so many Obama-watch sites on the web???


More blurbs from the blogs:


– Stimulus Plan (Porkarama) updates are here ….


Biden: Ignore the voters


HERE’S a good question: why doesn’t Obama tell us specifically HOW this money will resolve his “now or never” crisis? We won’t see any jobs outta this political payback package for years.


– Obama has again voted “present” on this bogus stimulus plan. How to hype a crisis in two steps …. So where exactly is the change we (?) hoped for??? Forget it. It’s the same ole way with a Chicago twist ….


– BREAKING: Obama tells Gates to “stand down” on the troop surge in Afghanistan …..


Is he looking for ‘out‘ in Afghanistan???


– World opinion on Obama is fading ….


From London to America: What have you done?


Pakistan to the US: Show us the money!!!


Russia forms Alliance with six central Asian nations: Take THAT, America.


Ecuador expels US Embassy official: South America rejects the “Chicago way” …


USS Cole mom is disgusted with Obama …. article and video


Pending: More and more parents and (retired) naval personnel are speaking out about the way the killers of their loved ones are being released ….


more pending …..


.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Stimulus Plan = Pork Bait?

From Las Vegas on the DC stimulus pudding (i.e., America's Pork Pie):

Las Vegas’ proposed mob museum is a subject ripe for ridicule, and the
Republicans here have held it up as just that.

Now that work is under way on the economic recovery package of tax breaks
and public works projects being developed by President-elect Barack Obama and
congressional leaders, lawmakers in both parties are insisting that no money go
for earmarks — pet projects in lawmakers’ home districts.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, raised the mob
museum as Exhibit A in frivolous spending on a Sunday morning political talk
show on ABC.

“We would like, on the spending side, obviously, to avoid funding things
like a mob museums or water slides,” McConnell reiterated during a news
conference on Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in his own appearance Sunday on “Meet
the Press,” insisted there will be no earmarks in the stimulus
package.

Reid’s spokesman repeated the refrain on Monday when asked whether the mob
museum should get stimulus money. “There will be no earmarks in the stimulus.
Nada. Zero. Zilch,” spokesman Jon Summers said.

Las Vegas’ effort to secure federal money to help turn a historic post
office into a museum about its storied criminal past is something watchdogs of
excess spending love to hate.

The museum rose to prominence last month after Las Vegas Mayor Oscar
Goodman was quoted telling the Review-Journal he would seek funding for the
project in the stimulus package.

In fact, he said, he was hoping to suggest as much in an upcoming talk with
Reid.

“If we could get some help along those lines, that would be what the
stimulus bill was really talking about,” Goodman said at the time.

What happened next is a product of the 24/7 nexus of media and
politics.

The story went out the way stories do — on a local radio station and blogs,
including the Drudge Report, the conservative must-read site.

Republicans in Washington heard about it and, presto, a poster child was
born.

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley declined to dip into the fray Monday with a
response.
Rep.-elect Dina Titus, a Democrat, chuckled when asked whether the
museum should get stimulus money.

“That wouldn’t be at the top of my list for infrastructure,” Titus said.
“I’m thinking more of highway construction is what we need in Nevada —
transportation infrastructure. You’ve got to be careful. The public’s not going
to put up with things.”

But Ted Olivas, Las Vegas’ director of administrative services, said he
remained “hopeful some of the economic stimulus money would make it to Southern
Nevada.”

“We think our projects are just as important as those of the other local
jurisdictions in the nation.”


Rumor is that after this pork-pit is built, it will be "piggy-backed" to it's rightful sty in Chicago ....

oink oink oink!!

.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Obama: 9/11 was "a failure of empathy"

Eight days after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, Obama -- the man who would be Commander in Chief -- blamed the terrorist attacks on "a failure of empathy."



The July 20 issue of the New Yorker magazine got a lot of attention for its cover, which carried a "satirical" cartoon depicting Michelle and Barack Obama that Obama supporters found tasteless and offensive. Buried inside that issue's feature story, however, was a reaction by Obama to 9/11 that all voters should find even more tasteless and offensive.


The article reprised a piece published in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on Sept. 19, 2001, and written by a then-unknown and otherwise undistinguished state senator from Illinois. The senator, a former community organizer, wrote that after tightening security at our airports and repairing our intelligence networks, we "must also engage . . . in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness."


According to Barack Obama, the madness that drove terrorists to turn passenger jets into manned cruise missiles aimed at our centers of finance, government and military power "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."


As if the answer to the attacks should have been food stamps for al-Qaida.


Sen. Obama advised caution and warned of overreacting. "We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad," he wrote. "We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent."


We should also be just as concerned, he felt, with American anger and bigotry as we were about al-Qaida.


In an opinion piece in Commentary magazine, writer Abe Greenwald commented on Obama's belief that the 9/11 attacks were rooted in poverty and despair. "Strange," he called it, "considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic."


As Greenwald put it, Obama "could have asked (terrorist and colleague) Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?" Did poverty and despair also cause the Weather Underground member and host of Obama's first fundraiser to bomb government buildings?


Fact is, the roster of terrorists and their handlers reads like a list of of Ivy Leaguers:


Osama bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of 9/11 and other major attacks, has a degree in mechanical engineering. Mohammed Atta, who flew a jet into the World Trade Center, is the son of a lawyer and earned a master's degree in urban planning at Hamburg University. Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon. Seven doctors were involved in the London-Glasgow bomb plots.


You get the idea, even if Barack Obama doesn't.


In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush pointed out the real reasons Islamofascists hate us: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."


Bush aptly called the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century."


"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he said.


Knowing the nature of your enemy is the key to victory. On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, we should all thank President Bush for keeping America safe. Along the way, he brought freedom and democracy to the Middle East, draining the terrorist swamp.


Bush gets it. So does John McCain. This is one thing we shouldn't want to change.


I have no idea how Obama's comments have failed to resonate with the American people. Hopefully, those words will resonate before it's too late.


Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Take Back the Truth!!

Finally --- a software program that spots the spin in journalism.



It's about time!!!

Friday, February 1, 2008

McCain and Amnesty

Have GOP Voters forgotten that just a few months ago, John McCain stood hand-in-hand with liberal icon Ted Kennedy pushing for the largest amnesty for illegal aliens in American history?

While Rasmussen polling showed that Americans following the legislation very closely opposed it 3 to 1 (69% to 23%), McCain ignored the massive public outcry! The angry calls rolling into the Senate offices, including John McCain's, were between 50 and 100 to 1 against McCain and Kennedy's bill.

We know this because we stood outside his door counting calls received by his staff and because other Senators told us the ratios they were receiving. History was made when the Capital phone system shut down, due to overload of calls from angry Americans.

John McCain refused to listen to Americans and went so far as to call members of the Senate who refused to support the McKennedy Amnesty "Racists"! John McCain showed no regard for American voices and instead called those who disagreed with him petty names. Who was John McCain listening to? He was listening to the US Chamber of Commerce and the racist illegal alien support groups like La Raza (The Race) whom he openly coordinated the effort with.

John McCain has illustrated in dramatic fashion that when he feels safe in his office, he couldn't care less about what a majority of Americans think. Now, John McCain claims he is listening because he wants to be President in a few months. He says he will "Secure the Border First!"

Even if you could trust John McCain, which you cannot, his border security pledge will be quickly reduced to irrelevance, if his desire for Amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens becomes a reality...

Barrack Obama brags about how he worked with Senator McCain for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" amnesty. If the GOP voters allow McCain to win the primary, they will be denying Americans any real choice against Amnesty in November.

Unless an independent candidate enters the race, our choice will be between Clinton, Obama, or McCain all pushing for Amnesty from the White House, just like Bush!

Some conservatives will hold their nose and vote for McCain out of fear of the Democrats, others will go third party. Many conservatives would not vote for McCain at gunpoint! The Republican Party will not be destroyed, if the McCain, Obama, Clinton Amnesty becomes a reality. Each party will race to replace American voices in their ranks, with the twenty million new voters who were recently illegal aliens.

Does this surprise anyone who is knowledgeable about how American homes, jobs, tax dollars, limited health care resources, and finite seats in schools are being given to illegal aliens as well?

Any border security promised by McCain will quickly fade into irrelevance beneath the political weight of America's new race based voting block of legalized illegal aliens. What hope will Americans have for border security or immigration enforcement once this happens? The answer is clear... NONE!

Seventy Seven percent of Americans oppose licenses for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million illegal aliens will be eligible for licenses within a few years. Over seventy percent of Americans oppose taxpayer benefits and welfare for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million illegal aliens will be turned into citizen voters and will be eligible for welfare and all taxpayer benefits.

Over 80 percent of Americans oppose in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million legalized illegal aliens will qualify for in-state tuition. Under the McClintObama plan, employers will only have to worry about hiring the next twenty million illegal aliens flooding the country, in response to the Amnesty provided to the most recent wave.

John McCain supports Amnesty. If you have any doubts, then ask yourself why his campaign has deployed open borders fanatic, Juan Hernandez to secure the Hispanic vote for McCain.

Juan Hernandez is a dual citizen of Mexico and America. He used to work for Mexican President Vicente Fox by reaching out to and organizing illegal aliens from Mexico inside the US. Hernandez is known for his stance called, "Mexico First". He is a regular on national television, where he flagrantly advocates amnesty and Open Borders with Mexico.

Juan Hernandez is the face of the McCain's campaign to Hispanic voters and he did a great job delivering the Hispanic vote in Florida to McCain!

There are two main reasons McCain is winning the GOP Primary right now. One is the anti-illegal immigration vote is split up between Romney and Paul, who appear to be sincere in their "No Amnesty" pledges. The anti-illegal immigration vote is also splitting to Mike Huckabee, who truthfully supports Amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, but is a very skillful liar. Huckabee is deceiving voters by mailing out endorsment cards from lone Minuteman Jim Gilchrist.

The anti-illegal immigration vote is divided three ways, and the pro-amnesty vote is now collected around John McCain.

The second reason McCain is winning is that many GOP voters don't know his immigration stances, have forgotten his immigration stances, or have forgiven his immigration stances.

They say, "He has changed" or "We have to stop Clinton and Obama". John McCain has not changed or he would not have Juan Hernandez out promising Amnesty for illegal aliens. John McCain has not changed or he would not be saying, "Secure the Borders first", without getting into the part where amnesty is then passed. John McCain has not changed because he recently stated on the national news that he would still vote for his amnesty bill or sign it into law as President!

Do GOP voters really prefer to have one of their own pushing amnesty than a Democrat?

I am a Republican, getting closer to independent every day, but I will say that at very least the Democrats are more honest about their pro-amnesty positions than McCain and Huckabee.

What madness, lies, or misinformation would infect the mind of a GOP voter for them to support a man like John McCain, who works openly with ultra-liberal Democrats, almost changed parties to join the Democrats in 2001, and has the worst record on immigration of any of the GOP candidates?

Why would anyone support a man who is so detached from reality that he told a booing crowd of Union workers that they would not pick lettuce for even $50 an hour!?!?!

John McCain says he knows all about securing the border because he is from Arizona. Say what? Has anyone seen the conditions in Arizona lately, where they have declared a state of emergency and fought to pass strict state laws to enforce the immigration laws, which John McCain and his DC insiders refuse to enforce?

There are good reasons why Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram, Hugh Hewitt, and Michelle Malkin are heavily criticizing John McCain. There are good reasons for Ronald Reagan's son, Michael to condemn the McCain candidacy. There are good reasons why ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, and almost every other organization in America fighting against Amnesty and illegal immigration, while supporting Border Security, are screaming NO to McCain!

The principles of this nation are at stake. The value of our votes is at stake. The survival of the United States, in its current form, is at stake.

We must stop the McClintObama Amnesty Plan. We must stop twenty million illegal aliens from becoming voters by 2010.

We must race against time to warn every GOP voter before Super Tuesday, because we must do all we can to stop John McCain.

from Americans for Legal Immigration

Monday, January 7, 2008

Mitt. Today FOR Tomorrow!

America needs Mitt Romney.



Today. For Tomorrow.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

I was with Mitt and MLK

.... in Michigan, in spirit. I was also with Gull in Greensboro. Did you see me in Denver? How about Birmingham?

When we gonna get back to the REAL issues in campaigning and stop the banter over "was" ? It's not like we don't know the meaning of "is" already.