Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Townhall.com is reporting that Obama has ordered a full review of all the intelligence related to the Nidal Hasan, and is specifically asking the question if that information was properly disseminated and thoroughly checked out.

Obama also ordered the preservation of the intelligence. Members of Congress, particularly Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for a full examination of what agencies knew about Hasan’s contacts with a radical imam and others of concern to the U.S., and what they did with the information.

Hmmm, I can’t help think this a “CYA” response to questions Hoekstra raised about Hasan’s finances. This guy was making close to $90k/year, and he was living in a $300/mo apartment on Ramen Noodles and Beenie Weenies (beef of course). Where was the money going?

The FBI confirmed this week that the U.S. government knew about 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam beginning in December 2008.

It think it pretty obvious if it was properly disseminated, the answer to the last question above is, No!

“Everybody says this is going to create a lot of jobs. We feel strongly that it’s going to be in the three to four million range.”

Those were Christina Romer’s (Obama’s top economic advisor) words nine months ago in a February press conference, touting the $789 billion White House stimulus package. So where do we stand now? According to the Labor Department’s number this morning, that “the three to four million range” is actually how many jobs eliminated.

But these numbers are based strictly on unemployment claims, and are a little misleading. There millions of Americans who’s unemployment compensation has, and millions more who have settled for a part-time job.  So, in reality, the number of jobs eliminated is more like 14.5 million jobs gone or 17.5 percent.

How’s the $789 million working for you?

In a 1775 letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams wrote, “A constitution of government once changed from freedom can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.” How right he was.

Of Thee I Sing has posted a great article on the current statist crossroads where we sit, well worth the read.

Today, a new paradigm for America is being imposed upon us. New for America, but old, tattered and largely discarded where it has been imposed by repressive regimes elsewhere. Its basic premise is that everyone will produce and contribute to society to their full ability and will accept as the fruit of their labor only the earnings the government allows them to retain. It is, essentially, a redistributive philosophy of governance, whereby the government decides what you can keep of what you earn. Of course, one could argue, correctly, that a progressive income tax, which Americans have long accepted, does exactly that. But in America, when citizens acquiesce to such progressive forms of taxation they do so with the unwritten understanding that government will be responsible in limiting its appetite for funding, and will observe the powers reserved to the states and the people under the Constitution.

When government overreaches and establishes programs that require a modern form of tax farming that makes an art of taxing everything that national, state and local governments think they can get away with in order to impose state mandates to replace the free choice of its citizens, the people get restive and angry. And that state of mind leads them inevitably to use the one weapon that has always been available to them to curb government gluttony…the ballot box. Sadly, by that time, any damage done by this Congress will already be the law of the land.

In his ‘Opening Argument‘ piece, Stuart Taylor describes how three weeks ago the US State Department quietly and subtly, albeit arguably, traded away our right to free speech. Apparently, in his masterful conciliation to Islamic states, Obama partnered with Egypt to draft a UN resolution that admonishes what the UN determines to be religious and racial stereotyping and mandates to all nations “that relevant national legislation complies with … international human rights obligations.”

According to Steve Groves of the Heritage Foundation, the resolution is nothing more than a crackdown on criticizing Muslims.

The U.S. government has spoken out strongly against the “defamation of religions” effort at the United Nations. The next U.S. Administration should oppose the further promulgation of “defamation of religions” at the U.N. and must resist any attempt to legitimize the concept within the United States. Given the penchant of some federal judges—including jus­tices on the U.S. Supreme Court—to rely on the deci­sions and opinions of international courts and organizations, the “defamation of religions” effort at the United Nations must be confronted.

From National Journal

It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, “I strongly disagree” with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.

But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I’m not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I’m talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton’s own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.

The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.

H/T: Clarice Feldman

In the spirit of bipartisanship, the White House has determined that black voters can’t vote the issues, black candidates are only viable if they’re in the democratic party, and that white voters don’t have to capacity to look past skin color.

From today’s Washington Times (emphasis mine)

Voters in this [Kinston, NC] city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

Did anyone in the DoJ Google Kinston, NC? It’s 65% minority; there is a very good chance blacks will be represented. And, what about this doesn’t sound race driven? “So that black voters can elect their ‘candidates of choice’…” Is the DoJ suggesting black voters can’t decide based on the issues, or even based on personal knowledge; it’s small town USA for Pete’s sake, everyone knows everyone. Oh, and what about black republican candidates, are they not legitimate?

And, by the way, why in the world is the DoJ concerned about the local elections in a town of 23,000? Shouldn’t the DoJ have it’s sites on right-wing extremists and would-be conservative lunatics?

Even the local NAACP thought it was a little over the top.

“To begin with, ‘nonpartisan elections’ is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart,” said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s involvement.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.

“The determination of who is a ‘candidate of choice’ for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction,” he said.

Hmmm, sounds like affirmative action for elections. Hello, the city is 65% minority and a democratic stronghold! Even the residents couldn’t recall a GOP candidate, ever. What, does the White House think, if the elections were based strictly on the issues, that somehow the republicans would steal the election?

Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. “The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.”

Well, Ms. Thernstrom, I have to disagree with you here. The is always an entitlement for the democrats.

Kinston residents contributed to Barack Obama’s victory as America’s first black president and voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city.

The measure appeared to have broad support among both white and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city’s nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-majority precincts.

Ms. [Loreta] King [head of the DoJ civil rights division] wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, “the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more.”

Black voters account for 9,702 of the city’s 15,402 registered voters but typically don’t vote at the rates whites do.

As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, “black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections.”

“It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice,” she wrote.

It is demeaning and racist to suggest that blacks don’t have the capacity to know or care about the issues, and to assert their only option is ‘voting a straight Democratic ticket.”

Mrs. Thernstrom of the civil rights commission blasted the department’s interpretation of the law.

“The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for failure of voters to show up on Election Day,” she said. “The Voting Rights Act doesn’t guarantee an opportunity to elect a ‘candidate of choice.’ … My ‘candidate of choice’ loses all the time in an election.”

Read more here…

cross posted at ConservativeNC

I am not sure why this surprised me the way it did. After all, didn’t the apostle John have a “revelation” about these things? Lord Christopher Monckton, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher and climate change anti-Al Gore, gave a speach at Bethel University last week. In that speech, he warned of the consequences of the UN Climate Treaty to be signed in December in Copenhagen. 

Thanks to Minnesota Majority for providing the video.   

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” Where have the liberties gone? Did we ever really have them?

We are legally required to where a seatbelt while driving, we can’t talk on the phone, and my four-year-old son must now be in a booster seat until he’s eight. Okay, perhaps those laws are for my safety, but isn’t my safety my business. How about this, in some areas we can’t fly our own flag, we can’t speak our minds, we can’t where a particular shirt, because we might offend someone. Oh, I’m sorry, but isn’t being offended a personal thing. When was “unless found to be offensive” added to the First Amendment?! Aren’t I entitled to my opinion? No, not anymore; being offensive is a matter of interpretation, but it’s also apparently illegal.

James Madison said, “It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government.“ Do we control the government?

We are being force fed a healthcare bill that at the least is unwanted by the majority of Americans, and at the most unconstitutional; we will be required to carry health insurance or pay a tax! Isn’t that my choice? I seem to remember another tax many years ago that taxed my choice – the poll tax! Oh, but the government cares, it wants to help us, it’s its duty to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States.” Remember Hillary Clinton’s, “it takes a village to raise a child.” Truthfully, it takes a family to raise a child, and a village to raise a village idiot. Government doesn’t want to help us; it wants to rob us. Alright, yes we elect our representatives every so often, and they campaign proposing to represent the electorate, but after taking the oath, it’s not about constituents anymore, it’s about staying in office. We don’t control the government, it controls us!   

Thomas Jefferson said, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Wow, would Tommy be mad now. “Spending money to be paid by posterity” is the standard operating procedure for Congress today; everything has a ten or 20 year plan. How does the bill affect the deficit in 10 years; we will balance the budget by 2012; whatever. The problem is that each new session of Congress extends the “posterity.” The national debt is approaching $12 trillion; I would say we’ve been swindled on a large scale. What did Jefferson mean? Borrow it today, pay it back before the next election; anything is else is crooked accounting. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is serving time for crooked accounting.

Thomas Jefferson also said, “On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them?” I wonder where the “angry [tea party] mob’; the “manufactured outrage” at town hall meetings, and Take Back American got their ideas? And, yet our rise in rebellion was squashed, silenced, or at least ignored by our representation.

John Adams said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” It’s obvious to me we don’t live in a republic any more, and the democracy (majority rule) is only in DC. We can all hope that suicide transpires on November 2, 2010.

crossposted at ConservativeNC.

Do you remember prop 187? In 1994 a ballot initiative was put to the California electorate to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care, government schools, etc. It passed the 59%/41%, BUT was later deemed to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And, should the new health care bill include a public option, illegals would not be prohibited from using it, here’s why… the equal protection clause and case precedent.

According to Fox New’s Andrew Napolitano, who suggested that illegals will be covered because of the Constitution’s “equal protection” clause. “The last time the Supreme Court looked at this,” Napolitano said, “is when Texas tried to prevent municipalities from educating the children of illegals. The Supreme Court said the government can’t do that because the Constitution doesn’t distinguish between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ when it comes to education or health care. The court will invalidate any provision that tries to punish people.” Constitutional attorney Shannon Goessling agreed with Napolitano’s, and said, “Here you have the President of the United States, a graduate of Harvard Law School, suggesting that he doesn’t know the consequences of the public option. President Obama is playing politics and the public should be forewarned.” Obama… playing politics? Imagine that…

For what it’s worth Constitution didn’t distinguish between “slave and free” until 1865.

Fox News – Bill O’Reilly

Religious authority for physical violence against women, legal mutilation, execution for homosexuality, death to critics of the state religion, forced marriages at age nine, outlaw of drinking and gambling, exact legal revenge for the injured, execution for sex before marriage…

While appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group, President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, explained how the United States and other western countries have an “oversimplified” view of Sharia Law, and how most women “around the world associate it with ‘gender justice.’ The show, which aired this week on London based Islam Channel, was hosted by representatives of Hizb ut Tahrir, an extremist group that promotes the destruction of western capitalism and the introduction of Sharia Law worldwide.

During the discussion Mogahed listened to 45 minutes of the panel dumping on the US and western liberty. And, while the group called for Sharia Law to be the “source of [all] legislation,” and the removal of women from positions of leadership, she did not challenge the rhetoric, but instead, in Obama-like fashioned apologized for the misconception of Sharia in the western media, added that “promiscuity and the breakdown of traditional values” were sources of the Islamic disapproval. Mogahed did suggest that “many Muslims associated Sharia with ‘maximum criminal punishments’ and ‘laws that… to many people seem unequal to women,’ but added, ‘part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood.”

James Arlandson of American Thinker wrote an article two months ago about what westerners believe are the problems with Sharia law. He cited ten examples, each with references to the Quran or hadith; here are a few:

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

Back in February, Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo, NY man was charged with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce. Ironically, he was the founder of  a cabletelevision channel created counter anti-Muslim stereotypes.

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and  wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’

Here’s what I understand, Sharia Law is an ancient oppressive legal system that degrades and dehumanizes woman, promotes violence, hatred, and intolerance, limits or eliminates personal freedoms. What is “misunderstood” about that?

from the Telegraph

The rule of law is the very fabric of a free and civil society. Lev Rex is Latin for “law is king” and represents a fundamental principle upon which the American experiment rests. Central to our consideration is the stability conferred to the general public by the rule of law. For it is the absence of arbitrary law that enables individuals to make rational decisions regarding their futures and fortunes. Lex Rex is the sure foundation upon which a free and civil society can be and has been built.

But reverse the order, make “king is law” the rule and what results is the personification of arbitrariness!  If the ruler makes, rather than follows and enforces the law, then freedom and civility are destroyed. The random, unsure nature of this type system provides no certain principles upon which to base rational decisions. This presents businesses with incalculable risks, discourages investment and job creation. (Not to mention the deleterious effects of the rulers now being the focus of business rather than the customer.) Clearly, the common man benefits under the rule of law.

Now, for the really uncomfortable part.

President Barack Hussein Obama has appointed dozens of so called “czars” accountable only to himself. Neither the voters nor their elected representatives have had any voice in their selection, confirmation or, indeed, in whether the positions even ought to exist! This is the act of a Sovereign, a King and not a president. A president’s job is to act as chief protector of the citizen’s freedom by enforcing the particulars laid down in the constitution of the U.S.A.

F. A Hayek in his classic “The Road To Serfdom” describes how a free democratic people become enslaved. First a “crises” is seized upon to make political capitol. Then come the inevitable debates resulting in political stalemate. Finally a leader emerges promising to “change” the state of affairs if given enough power (temporarily, of course.) Authority is gradually concentrated until all opposition is squelched. The fact that this sounds like today’s headlines should be cause for alarm and action!

What can possibly result from appointing czars but an administration and governance reflective wholly of the president’s personal will? Where are the representatives of the people? The congress is being marginalized and the will of the citizen is becoming less and less relevant.

There is no easy or politically correct way to state it so I’ll just be blunt. Our free and civil society cannot survive the consolidation of power now taking place under Barack Hussein Obama. This situation represents nothing short of Rex Lex. The king is law. Only America doesn’t have a king…or do we?