http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wh-some-critics-serving-the-goals-of-al-qaeda.html
The White House says Obama's critics are helping Al-Queda. I would like to point out that Obama is helping Al-Queda with his refusal to let the military deal with terrorists and instead try them with civil authorities. Granting them the rights reserved only for US citizens and others legally in this country is a slap in the face to its law abiding citizens and military who have died fighting for these rights, many against these same terrorists, only to have these rights given to the terrorists in return.
John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, wrote in an op-ed to USA today that, "Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation."
No, the fact that they are bombing things in order to kill Americans and non-muslims hardens their determination to resist co-operation. Typically one does not co-operate with people one is trying to bomb. Just my observation of the way things tend to be. Apparently this administration does not see it that way, and thinks that if you sit dwn with someone over a cup of tea (or a couple of beers), you can have a "teachable moment" and all will be well. Everyone will see eye to eye and the world will sing in perfect harmony. Unfortunately, they forget one thing: There are those that hate music - outlaw it even. Who? Well I'm speaking of course, of Al-Queda and the Taliban.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Police Want Backdoor Access to Your Private Web Info
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10446503-38.html
Be angry. Be very angry. The police are trying to violate your 4th Amendment rights protecting you from illegal search and seizure.
"The 289-page report detailed how the FBI obtained Americans' telephone records by citing nonexistent emergencies and simply asking for the data or writing phone numbers on a sticky note rather than following procedures required by law."
(See the report here: http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1001r.pdf)
Couple this intrusion with the tendency towards (nay, the Law of) Mission Creep (anything the government proposes as a mission statement will grow to include anything else that can possibly be brought under the scope of that mission statement), and the teaming up of Google and the National Security Agency, and you have a big problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057_pf.html
Why is this a big problem? Well, I'll let you connect the dots on that, but suffice it to say that when Big Sister (Janet Napolitano) over at the Department of Homeland Security can declare people with "Don't Tread On Me" bumper stickers to be possible domestic terrorists (http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/homeland-security/2009/04/14/id/329451) while the federal government gives civilian rights to the real terrorists, let's just say nothing is out of the question.
Be angry. Be very angry. The police are trying to violate your 4th Amendment rights protecting you from illegal search and seizure.
"The 289-page report detailed how the FBI obtained Americans' telephone records by citing nonexistent emergencies and simply asking for the data or writing phone numbers on a sticky note rather than following procedures required by law."
(See the report here: http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1001r.pdf)
Couple this intrusion with the tendency towards (nay, the Law of) Mission Creep (anything the government proposes as a mission statement will grow to include anything else that can possibly be brought under the scope of that mission statement), and the teaming up of Google and the National Security Agency, and you have a big problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057_pf.html
Why is this a big problem? Well, I'll let you connect the dots on that, but suffice it to say that when Big Sister (Janet Napolitano) over at the Department of Homeland Security can declare people with "Don't Tread On Me" bumper stickers to be possible domestic terrorists (http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/homeland-security/2009/04/14/id/329451) while the federal government gives civilian rights to the real terrorists, let's just say nothing is out of the question.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Hmm... is the Obama pot calling the Bush kettle black?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/
hmm... so much for blaming Bush for sweetheart contracts... Obama donor gets a $25M no-bid contract for training "legal professionals" in Afghanistan (competitive bids need not apply). I wonder if that includes a course on ethics?
hmm... so much for blaming Bush for sweetheart contracts... Obama donor gets a $25M no-bid contract for training "legal professionals" in Afghanistan (competitive bids need not apply). I wonder if that includes a course on ethics?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
UK calls legal protests "domestic extremism." US next...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-domestic-extremism
UK police call lawful protests "domestic extremism." Worried? You should be. The Homeland Security Department headed by "Big Sister" Janet Napolitano essentially did the same thing last year. Oppressive tyrannical government is here.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
UK police call lawful protests "domestic extremism." Worried? You should be. The Homeland Security Department headed by "Big Sister" Janet Napolitano essentially did the same thing last year. Oppressive tyrannical government is here.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
5th District Tea Party Debates in my Hometown
The 5th District Tea Party Debates were held last night in my hometown - just outside the ground of my University. That's right, beautiful Charlottesville.
Each of the 7 candidates had agreed beforehand to be there - although one refused to be there unless there was a change in the moderator. So, accommodations were made for State Senator Robert Hurt.
There was a packed house as each of the candidates showed up - well, sort of - to promote themselves as the best choice for the Republican nominee and to tout their knowledge of the Constitution. Senator Hurt reneged on his promise to be there, but was represented instead by a cardboard cutout with his face on it, dressed in a suit. Politicians are said to be empty suits from time to time, but Sen. Hurt literally was.
After going around the will of the people and the other 6 candidates (who all supported a convention for - among other reasons - the ability to save the state $250,000 at a time of fiscal difficulty) to secure a primary via the good old boy network, he now snubbed the people who showed up to hear what he thought on the issues presented.
There were several references made to him (or his suit) specifically on the question of whether or not they would vote for a tax increase if a government shut down were at stake. Lawrence Verga said he would absolutely shut the government down, then said "how about you Robbie?" Mike McPadden said that there was just that situation in Richmond in 2004 and the Republicans held the line and went toe to toe with the Democrats, until the line buckled and somebody gave in. At this he turned his head and cast a sideways glance to Hurt's empty suit. Ron Ferrin perhaps gave the most memorable response when he said, "Personally, I think the Congress does it's best work in August when they aren't in session." At this the crowd gave a loud round of applause and agreeable laughter.
Any way you want to slice it, not only is Tom Perriello clearly in the crosshairs of the Tea Party and the public, but if Robert Hurt keeps up his smug dismissal of the people, he will be too. After last night, every political opponent he faces in the future will be using photos of his empty suit and he may have just ended his political career.
The 400+ people in attendance last night bore witness to the fact that there are 6 good candidates in the race, 1 that doesn't care about them, and of the 6, 2 that are better than the rest at thinking on their feet and public speaking: Ferrin and McPadden.
Each of the 7 candidates had agreed beforehand to be there - although one refused to be there unless there was a change in the moderator. So, accommodations were made for State Senator Robert Hurt.
There was a packed house as each of the candidates showed up - well, sort of - to promote themselves as the best choice for the Republican nominee and to tout their knowledge of the Constitution. Senator Hurt reneged on his promise to be there, but was represented instead by a cardboard cutout with his face on it, dressed in a suit. Politicians are said to be empty suits from time to time, but Sen. Hurt literally was.
After going around the will of the people and the other 6 candidates (who all supported a convention for - among other reasons - the ability to save the state $250,000 at a time of fiscal difficulty) to secure a primary via the good old boy network, he now snubbed the people who showed up to hear what he thought on the issues presented.
There were several references made to him (or his suit) specifically on the question of whether or not they would vote for a tax increase if a government shut down were at stake. Lawrence Verga said he would absolutely shut the government down, then said "how about you Robbie?" Mike McPadden said that there was just that situation in Richmond in 2004 and the Republicans held the line and went toe to toe with the Democrats, until the line buckled and somebody gave in. At this he turned his head and cast a sideways glance to Hurt's empty suit. Ron Ferrin perhaps gave the most memorable response when he said, "Personally, I think the Congress does it's best work in August when they aren't in session." At this the crowd gave a loud round of applause and agreeable laughter.
Any way you want to slice it, not only is Tom Perriello clearly in the crosshairs of the Tea Party and the public, but if Robert Hurt keeps up his smug dismissal of the people, he will be too. After last night, every political opponent he faces in the future will be using photos of his empty suit and he may have just ended his political career.
The 400+ people in attendance last night bore witness to the fact that there are 6 good candidates in the race, 1 that doesn't care about them, and of the 6, 2 that are better than the rest at thinking on their feet and public speaking: Ferrin and McPadden.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tea Partiers take over national politics
This article talks about the "angry Independents" making the difference in the races over the past few months.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31717_Page2.html
"This voting bloc has swung decisively against Democrats, starting this past summer. A review of polling in Massachusetts, in other states and nationally shows the same thing: By about a 2-to-1 margin, independents have turned on Democrats.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31717_Page2.html
"This voting bloc has swung decisively against Democrats, starting this past summer. A review of polling in Massachusetts, in other states and nationally shows the same thing: By about a 2-to-1 margin, independents have turned on Democrats.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that two-thirds of independents would prefer Republicans controlled Congress. The same polls show the voters don’t even like Republicans. A CBS News poll showed only one-third of independents approve of Obama’s handling of the economy — a nearly 20-point drop in less than one year.
In all three big Democratic losses this past year — in New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts — better than 60 percent of independents said they backed Republicans."
Make no mistake, these are Tea Partiers. Pelosi's Politburo didn't want to acknowledge them when they marched on DC over 1 Million strong. She's hearing them loud and clear now.
This is no GOP backed movement. They don't like the GOP either. These are former GOP and Democrat supporters who have banded together over the ideas of limited government and the freedom to determine their own lives.
The rallying cry is starting to become "Ballots or bullets" as the mounting frustration with the clear tyrannical bent of the government is starting to boil over. The government is clearly not listening to the wishes of the people or they never would've tried the stunts they pulled over Christmas, nor the mere idea of trying to ram a bill through before the new senator was seated, or of trying to circumvent a filibuster by using cloture or of changing the rules of the Senate as the despicable Barney Frank insinuated.
The people are becoming educated as to what is going on, they are organizing and they are volunteering all over the country to make sure the candidates that they agree with (even in other states) are winning elections by making phone calls, donating time, money, resources, anything that is needed. Some even take off from work and drop everything to go door to door in other states.
The Tea Party is now the dominant force in American politics. These are not "redneck teabaggers" as Janeane Garofoalo contemptuously referred to them. These are neighbors, citizens, middle class, upper class, lower class - Americans, coming together to save their freedom, their country and their way of life. They are taking heed of Mr. Jefferson's directive:
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.
The current administration would be wise to listen to the people before they deem it necessary to obey another of his directives:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
Obama wants to control something else
Obama now wants to nationalize the student loan industry
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/60074
That ought to work out about as well as the Post Office, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, Fannie & Freddie, and bailouts of the auto and banking sectors. (In case you've been living under a rock for the past 6 decades, those have all been miserable failures)
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/60074
That ought to work out about as well as the Post Office, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, Fannie & Freddie, and bailouts of the auto and banking sectors. (In case you've been living under a rock for the past 6 decades, those have all been miserable failures)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Dems want it both ways... Americans be damned
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/01/18/pelosi/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room
Pelosi says we will have healthcare "one way or the other." On the one hand, Obama headed to MA yesterday to plead his case that the "health are bill is in jeopardy"! They realize that a loss there would be a stinging defeat in what has quickly become a referendum on the current healthcare bills. One candidate has pledged to pass it - she had a 30 point lead a few months ago. Her opponent has pledged to vote against it - he has a 9 point lead in a poll released on the morning of the election. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html)
So, on the one hand, the gun to the head of the voters is "you won't get healthcare if you vote for Brown."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/rep_weiner_health_care_dead_if_scott_brown_wins.html
The gun to the head of the rest of the voters is, even if you pull off an astounding victory by electing a Republican to the Senate in traditionally Democratic Massachusetts and say "NO" to healthcare, we'll pass it ANYWAYS!
If Brown does win, the Democrats controlling the state are threatening not to certify the election results and let him be seated in the Senate in time to vote on the bill. Contrast this with the Democrats saying Coakley will be sworn in IMMEDIATELY if she wins and you have a tyrannical government on your hands that gives no account to the will of the people.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/19/new-mass-senator-sworn/
Historical Significance
The Senate seat up for grabs is the one previously occupied by Ted Kennedy. If Brown, a Republican, were to win the seat previously held by the Democratic leader who's life goal was to push national healthcare and thus stop the bill in its tracks, the irony and embarrassment would be a very bitter pill for Obama and his ilk to swallow. They will have been given the political equivalent of the finger by the people (who, as we know from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, are the ones that are REALLY in charge - in theory anyways).
Lets go back a bit further, to say... 1775.
Now, those Mass residents would say that the current residents are pansies, although they may applaud them for standing up to tyrannical gov't in the short term. The real truth is that they would've never let it get this far.
Sons of Liberty
They started protesting tyrannical actions by the British government beginning in 1765. Their most famous act was ultimately the Boston Tea Party on Dec. 16, 1773. They had members in many states, including Patrick Henry, John Hancock, James Otis Paul Revere and Dr. Joseph Warren. (Patrick Henry, obviously, was a Virginian)
They forced British loyalists into hiding beginning in 1766. An event they are quite famous for is the incident involving Andrew Oliver. He was to be commissioned as the Distributor of Stamps for Massachusetts. On August 14, 1765 an effigy of him was found hanging in a tree on Newbury Street. Next to it, was a devil climbing out of a large boot. (A play on words regarding the Earl of Bute)
A large crowd gathered and the sheriff's were commanded to remove the display but refused to in fear for their lives. Before the day was over Oliver's property on Kilby street was burned, his effigy was paraded to his frount yard where it was beheaded with the occupants of his house looking on, followed by his house being stoned. The effigy was then taken to nearby Fort Hill where it was burned in a large fire. Later that night the Sons of Liberty ransacked Oliver's (now abandoned) home. It was very clear who was in charge in Massachusetts - the people, not the tyrannical government.
From the South Carolina chapter of the Sons of Liberty, we get the origins of the yellow Gadsden Flag, with it's rattlesnake and the now famous words, "Don't Tread on Me." It doesn't take much to see how the origins of that flag now resonate with the revived movement to dispel tyrannical government. In fact, that's what they are doing in Massachusetts today.
Tying It Together
On April 19, 1775 Massachusetts Minutemen fired the shot heard 'round the world against the oppression of the world's largest super-power. Today, January 19, 2010, they will have another chance to do the same. The current government has made it clear that the will of the people is of no account to them. The Massachusetts patriots will fire their shot heard 'round the world one ballot at a time. Whether the government chooses to listen to that is a different matter altogether. One thing is for sure, the people of Massachusetts in 1775 wouldn't stand for the dictation of their lives by an oppressive government that was unresponsive to their wishes. We will see if the people of Massachusetts in 2010 will do the same.
The British Boston Commissioner of Customs, John Malcom, was tarred and feathered twice.
Pelosi says we will have healthcare "one way or the other." On the one hand, Obama headed to MA yesterday to plead his case that the "health are bill is in jeopardy"! They realize that a loss there would be a stinging defeat in what has quickly become a referendum on the current healthcare bills. One candidate has pledged to pass it - she had a 30 point lead a few months ago. Her opponent has pledged to vote against it - he has a 9 point lead in a poll released on the morning of the election. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html)
So, on the one hand, the gun to the head of the voters is "you won't get healthcare if you vote for Brown."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/rep_weiner_health_care_dead_if_scott_brown_wins.html
The gun to the head of the rest of the voters is, even if you pull off an astounding victory by electing a Republican to the Senate in traditionally Democratic Massachusetts and say "NO" to healthcare, we'll pass it ANYWAYS!
If Brown does win, the Democrats controlling the state are threatening not to certify the election results and let him be seated in the Senate in time to vote on the bill. Contrast this with the Democrats saying Coakley will be sworn in IMMEDIATELY if she wins and you have a tyrannical government on your hands that gives no account to the will of the people.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/19/new-mass-senator-sworn/
Historical Significance
The Senate seat up for grabs is the one previously occupied by Ted Kennedy. If Brown, a Republican, were to win the seat previously held by the Democratic leader who's life goal was to push national healthcare and thus stop the bill in its tracks, the irony and embarrassment would be a very bitter pill for Obama and his ilk to swallow. They will have been given the political equivalent of the finger by the people (who, as we know from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, are the ones that are REALLY in charge - in theory anyways).
Lets go back a bit further, to say... 1775.
Now, those Mass residents would say that the current residents are pansies, although they may applaud them for standing up to tyrannical gov't in the short term. The real truth is that they would've never let it get this far.
Sons of Liberty
They started protesting tyrannical actions by the British government beginning in 1765. Their most famous act was ultimately the Boston Tea Party on Dec. 16, 1773. They had members in many states, including Patrick Henry, John Hancock, James Otis Paul Revere and Dr. Joseph Warren. (Patrick Henry, obviously, was a Virginian)
They forced British loyalists into hiding beginning in 1766. An event they are quite famous for is the incident involving Andrew Oliver. He was to be commissioned as the Distributor of Stamps for Massachusetts. On August 14, 1765 an effigy of him was found hanging in a tree on Newbury Street. Next to it, was a devil climbing out of a large boot. (A play on words regarding the Earl of Bute)
A large crowd gathered and the sheriff's were commanded to remove the display but refused to in fear for their lives. Before the day was over Oliver's property on Kilby street was burned, his effigy was paraded to his frount yard where it was beheaded with the occupants of his house looking on, followed by his house being stoned. The effigy was then taken to nearby Fort Hill where it was burned in a large fire. Later that night the Sons of Liberty ransacked Oliver's (now abandoned) home. It was very clear who was in charge in Massachusetts - the people, not the tyrannical government.
From the South Carolina chapter of the Sons of Liberty, we get the origins of the yellow Gadsden Flag, with it's rattlesnake and the now famous words, "Don't Tread on Me." It doesn't take much to see how the origins of that flag now resonate with the revived movement to dispel tyrannical government. In fact, that's what they are doing in Massachusetts today.
Tying It Together
On April 19, 1775 Massachusetts Minutemen fired the shot heard 'round the world against the oppression of the world's largest super-power. Today, January 19, 2010, they will have another chance to do the same. The current government has made it clear that the will of the people is of no account to them. The Massachusetts patriots will fire their shot heard 'round the world one ballot at a time. Whether the government chooses to listen to that is a different matter altogether. One thing is for sure, the people of Massachusetts in 1775 wouldn't stand for the dictation of their lives by an oppressive government that was unresponsive to their wishes. We will see if the people of Massachusetts in 2010 will do the same.
The British Boston Commissioner of Customs, John Malcom, was tarred and feathered twice.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Criminal Sympathizer's Protest Sheriff Joe
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100117/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_sheriff_protest
Ah yes... more criminal sympathizers that think anyone should just be able to waltz into our country, grab their share of bounty off the backs of tax payers and get something for nothing. "We're Human" they say. Ah, I can tell. It's human nature to want what others have without doing the hard work they did to get it. That's called jealousy.
I believe there was a commandment about that... oh yes, the 10th one... Thou shalt not covet! Thou shalt not covet your neighbors house, your neighbors wife... or his schooling that he pays TAXES for, or his healthcare that he pays for, or his voting rights that he earned via his legally obtained citizenship, or his high standard of living that he obtained through legal means and hard work.
One family wore t-shirts saying, "Who Would Jesus deport?" Well, he might sit down and braid a whip and tell them to get out of his Father's house (he did that once), or he might tell them to "Give unto Caeser, that which was Caeser's" and obey the laws of the land (he did that once too).
They accuse Sheriff Joe of racially profiling them. Well, when 99.9% of the illegals in one area all have the same characteristics, it certainly wouldn't behoove them to search a 90 year-old granny not bearing those characteristics, in an attempt to find out if she was legally in the country. (No, that would be too much like the TSA which now relies on passengers in their planes to do the job they aren't - does that come with hazard pay? Maybe a 1st class upgrade? You never know when it might be a one way trip.)
“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” - Alexander Hamilton
These people have no national sentiment. If they did, they would've come here legally. That is, they would think so highly of this country as to want to adhere to its laws and truly be a part of the fabric of american life. As it is now, these illegals thumb their noses at the very fabric of America - our laws, our ethics and our general sense of fair play. These are not Americans. No, these are not even decent people. Decent people do not eny their neighbors, nor do they conspire to take from their neighbor what he has worked hard for and has rightfully earned!
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." - Teddy Roosevelt
And so it is. These people are not here in good faith, nor do they wish to be Americans. They wish to leach off the backs of hard-working Americans, taking for themselves what is not theirs to take. They clog our streets, fill our prisons, meddle in our elections, demand rights that are neither theirs (nor do they have the right to demand), force our people to bear all sorts of injustices at the mere bullying insistance that because they want what we have, they have the right to take it.
They are in no way Americans, nor do they intend to be Americans, nor follow our laws, nor assimilate or be beneficial to us in any way. Their flag is not the American flag, nor is their loyalty to America and the American people. They must be driven out, removed, radiated, chemo'd and by all means necessary removed from this country lest in their greed to take what is not theirs from those that have earned it, they remove from us our own country and our very way of life.
Ah yes... more criminal sympathizers that think anyone should just be able to waltz into our country, grab their share of bounty off the backs of tax payers and get something for nothing. "We're Human" they say. Ah, I can tell. It's human nature to want what others have without doing the hard work they did to get it. That's called jealousy.
I believe there was a commandment about that... oh yes, the 10th one... Thou shalt not covet! Thou shalt not covet your neighbors house, your neighbors wife... or his schooling that he pays TAXES for, or his healthcare that he pays for, or his voting rights that he earned via his legally obtained citizenship, or his high standard of living that he obtained through legal means and hard work.
One family wore t-shirts saying, "Who Would Jesus deport?" Well, he might sit down and braid a whip and tell them to get out of his Father's house (he did that once), or he might tell them to "Give unto Caeser, that which was Caeser's" and obey the laws of the land (he did that once too).
They accuse Sheriff Joe of racially profiling them. Well, when 99.9% of the illegals in one area all have the same characteristics, it certainly wouldn't behoove them to search a 90 year-old granny not bearing those characteristics, in an attempt to find out if she was legally in the country. (No, that would be too much like the TSA which now relies on passengers in their planes to do the job they aren't - does that come with hazard pay? Maybe a 1st class upgrade? You never know when it might be a one way trip.)
“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” - Alexander Hamilton
These people have no national sentiment. If they did, they would've come here legally. That is, they would think so highly of this country as to want to adhere to its laws and truly be a part of the fabric of american life. As it is now, these illegals thumb their noses at the very fabric of America - our laws, our ethics and our general sense of fair play. These are not Americans. No, these are not even decent people. Decent people do not eny their neighbors, nor do they conspire to take from their neighbor what he has worked hard for and has rightfully earned!
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." - Teddy Roosevelt
And so it is. These people are not here in good faith, nor do they wish to be Americans. They wish to leach off the backs of hard-working Americans, taking for themselves what is not theirs to take. They clog our streets, fill our prisons, meddle in our elections, demand rights that are neither theirs (nor do they have the right to demand), force our people to bear all sorts of injustices at the mere bullying insistance that because they want what we have, they have the right to take it.
They are in no way Americans, nor do they intend to be Americans, nor follow our laws, nor assimilate or be beneficial to us in any way. Their flag is not the American flag, nor is their loyalty to America and the American people. They must be driven out, removed, radiated, chemo'd and by all means necessary removed from this country lest in their greed to take what is not theirs from those that have earned it, they remove from us our own country and our very way of life.
Americans for Limited Government to attempt to stop voter fraud in Mass on Tues.
http://netrightnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1252294:citizen-watchdogs-in-massachusetts-to-observe-tuesday-special-senate-election&catid=1:nrn-blog&Itemid=7
Looks like citizens are taking matters into their own hands when it comes to making sure their elections are clean and fair. Given the enormity of the election and how much is at stake, they'd better be. Granted, this is nothing more than, A. people getting fed up with elections being stolen from them by corrupt parties, and B. people taking to heart the words of Thomas Paine, "Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It ceases to be our government when we allow those wolves among us who would pervert it to their own uses. (In this case, political parties who seek to control the government - according to the very nature of government itself.) "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Ben Franklin
Here's to you, well armed lambs of Massachusetts - may the Kennedys and their ilk never serve mutton again!
Looks like citizens are taking matters into their own hands when it comes to making sure their elections are clean and fair. Given the enormity of the election and how much is at stake, they'd better be. Granted, this is nothing more than, A. people getting fed up with elections being stolen from them by corrupt parties, and B. people taking to heart the words of Thomas Paine, "Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It ceases to be our government when we allow those wolves among us who would pervert it to their own uses. (In this case, political parties who seek to control the government - according to the very nature of government itself.) "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Ben Franklin
Here's to you, well armed lambs of Massachusetts - may the Kennedys and their ilk never serve mutton again!
CNBC's Cramer calls out "Pelosi Politburo"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/17/jim-cramer-brown-win-causes-huge-stock-rally-investors-nervous-about-
Jim Cramer said a Brown win will signal the end of the Pelosi Politburo and cause a huge rally on wallstreet. (as well it would!) Cramer (and the rest of the business world) are quite aware of what Pelosi, Reid, et. al. mean for business - and the end of the economy in this country as we know it!
The business world knows exactly what final passage of this healthcare bill would mean for freedom and the future of the economy.
The mere possibility of Brown's election in a traditionally VERY left wing state signals the beginning of the end of Obama's unfettered power. Certainly not a good sign for him that he has to go campaign for Coakley in this election after November elections that saw the trouncing of Creigh Deed's in VA and then the very unexpected loss of the NJ Governorship to a Republican. Here's to another embarrassing blow to the "anointed one" and wanna-be President of the World.
Jim Cramer said a Brown win will signal the end of the Pelosi Politburo and cause a huge rally on wallstreet. (as well it would!) Cramer (and the rest of the business world) are quite aware of what Pelosi, Reid, et. al. mean for business - and the end of the economy in this country as we know it!
The business world knows exactly what final passage of this healthcare bill would mean for freedom and the future of the economy.
The mere possibility of Brown's election in a traditionally VERY left wing state signals the beginning of the end of Obama's unfettered power. Certainly not a good sign for him that he has to go campaign for Coakley in this election after November elections that saw the trouncing of Creigh Deed's in VA and then the very unexpected loss of the NJ Governorship to a Republican. Here's to another embarrassing blow to the "anointed one" and wanna-be President of the World.
Mass. Senate hopeful Coakley shows typical snobbery of left-wing elitests
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/15/race_is_in_a_spinout/
How do you lose an election in Massachusetts as a Democratic Senatorial candidate? Simple, don't go out, don't talk to people, don't consider yourself as above the voting masses and don't consider yourself as an anointed candidate. (That only worked once and the voters aren't buying it anymore!)
Further, you shouldn't tie yourself to a VERY unpopular program like nationalized healthcare (although truth in advertising is always nice and the President should consider it sometime). Lastly, there's this little thing called the Constitution and you should at least PRETEND to know and care about it. Even in semi-socialist states like Massachusetts (which I spelled correctly and she didn't in one of her early campaign commercials)
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/01/12/martha-coakley-spelled-massachusetts-wrong-seriously/
Oh, and with that note, let's note the final thing you shouldn't do in a campaign... incorrectly spell the name of the state you wish to represent. Oops. It's hard to claim conservatives/republicans/anyone you are running against is ignorant and stupid when you can't even spell the name of your own state correctly.
How do you lose an election in Massachusetts as a Democratic Senatorial candidate? Simple, don't go out, don't talk to people, don't consider yourself as above the voting masses and don't consider yourself as an anointed candidate. (That only worked once and the voters aren't buying it anymore!)
Further, you shouldn't tie yourself to a VERY unpopular program like nationalized healthcare (although truth in advertising is always nice and the President should consider it sometime). Lastly, there's this little thing called the Constitution and you should at least PRETEND to know and care about it. Even in semi-socialist states like Massachusetts (which I spelled correctly and she didn't in one of her early campaign commercials)
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/01/12/martha-coakley-spelled-massachusetts-wrong-seriously/
Oh, and with that note, let's note the final thing you shouldn't do in a campaign... incorrectly spell the name of the state you wish to represent. Oops. It's hard to claim conservatives/republicans/anyone you are running against is ignorant and stupid when you can't even spell the name of your own state correctly.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
US Blames Ineffective Gov't on Slow Computers
So apparently it's the slow computer's fault that government is being ineffective here in the U.S.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/75965-white-house-blames-inefficient-government-on-outdated-technologies
That's funny because for the vast majority of U.S. history, there were no computers (they hadn't been invented yet) and the government was just fine - quite effective and efficient.
I'd have to say that to the contrary, the government is inefficient because it's trying to do too much.
That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine
In fact, we are quickly approaching the point of another of his memorable quotes...
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine
Why is the government inefficient? Simple, it has no incentive to be either effective or efficient. The private sector depends on profit to stay alive. If there is profit, the business stays around, if not, it folds. How do you get profit? Simple, by being more efficient or more effective than a competitor. This leads to innovation.
The government has no need for either effectiveness or efficiency because it does not depend on profit to stay alive. Rather, anything it needs but doesn't have, or want's but doesn't have, or thinks someone else needs or wants but doesn't have, it simply takes from the taxpayer. Since it has no need for profit, it has no need for effectiveness or efficiency. And this is the REAL reason the government is inefficient - it has nothing to do with computers. After all, the Constitution was written roughly 200 years before the personal computer was a possibility, and those guys did just fine with paper, pen and ink. (no calculators needed)
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/75965-white-house-blames-inefficient-government-on-outdated-technologies
That's funny because for the vast majority of U.S. history, there were no computers (they hadn't been invented yet) and the government was just fine - quite effective and efficient.
I'd have to say that to the contrary, the government is inefficient because it's trying to do too much.
That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine
In fact, we are quickly approaching the point of another of his memorable quotes...
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine
Why is the government inefficient? Simple, it has no incentive to be either effective or efficient. The private sector depends on profit to stay alive. If there is profit, the business stays around, if not, it folds. How do you get profit? Simple, by being more efficient or more effective than a competitor. This leads to innovation.
The government has no need for either effectiveness or efficiency because it does not depend on profit to stay alive. Rather, anything it needs but doesn't have, or want's but doesn't have, or thinks someone else needs or wants but doesn't have, it simply takes from the taxpayer. Since it has no need for profit, it has no need for effectiveness or efficiency. And this is the REAL reason the government is inefficient - it has nothing to do with computers. After all, the Constitution was written roughly 200 years before the personal computer was a possibility, and those guys did just fine with paper, pen and ink. (no calculators needed)
Mass Immigration from Haiti to the US?
It appears that FL officials are bracing for mass immigration by Haitian refugees following the earthquake.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583156,00.html
However, U.S. officials would be wise to turn them back. Up until fairly recently, immigration was restricted to those who were highly skilled in their particular trades. This created a highly skilled workforce and as a result the U.S. economy flourished as businesses had more than enough talent to grow effectively.
That changes with the passage of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, which allowed specifically easier entry for: "unmarried adult sons and daughters of citizens, and spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents." Beginning with this, (especially in the South-West) immigration stopped being a merit-based reward, and started being viewed as a right by non-citizens.
Note the language in the wording above: "permanent residents." These aren't even citizens. They have simply been granted permanent resident status, and use that to bring their entire family over. "What is wrong with that?" you may ask. Quite simply this: If they are not willing to become U.S. citizens, and contribute to our society in a positive manner, then they should not be here. Period!
- Theodore Roosevelt, 1917
With this came the assumption that they would naturally learn English. After all, would you move to France without learning French? Or Spain without learning Spanish? Or Germany without learning German? Let alone if you were to become a citizen!
"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country," he said in a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918. "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools."
- Theodore Roosevelt, Kansas City Star, 1918
To get the facts on Illegal Immigration and the burden that it poses to the country and you the citizen, I would suggest going here: http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html. Further, I would suggest reading Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny. It will make you very angry. The bottom line: Illegal Aliens commit A LOT of crime. Those Illegals in prison have been arrested an average of 8 times, for 13 crimes and been convicted 5 previous times EACH!
And here's the kicker: Those that have been arrested for re-entry make up 90% were previously arrested and OF THOSE, 50% were arrested for violent or drug related felonies. (Then there's the sex crime numbers...oh yes. Those will make you very angry.
The last bit here, arrested for "re-entry"... These people should not have been allowed BACK in the country. The government wasn't doing its job in protecting the borders as it was, it's citizens were victimized by these people and are now forced to PAY for their incarceration. That is the ultimate slap in the face. when they are finally released, they will be deported and what do you think they will do? Come right back across the border. Why? Because they've already done it a couple of times. (Yes, this would be that part where you pick up the phone and tell your Congressman that you want leathal force used to protect the border because it's a matter of national security - just like military base security - For you lefties out there, go ahead... try and sneak onto a US military base... see what happens)
Ultimately, the character of a person that would sneak into a country rather than to enter it legally, is not the type of character we want in our country. They are not of upright moral character, nor do they appreciate and respect something enough to go about it the correct way. That is a person we can do without.
Now, to bring this back to Haiti... Not only do we have enough trouble here domestically, but we do not need to add to it by taking in refugees that are not willing to fix their own country. We already provide Billions in aid each year around the world.
Haiti has had up to $1.4Billion in outstanding international debt. Further, Venezuela and Cuba are spending $1Billion to develop energy and infrastructure in Haiti. The debt per capita is only $169 US (whereas in the US it is $40,000 US - yes, you read that correctly, each person has a per capita national debt of $40,000. That should make you angry)
What we DON'T need at this point in time is more Haitian's coming here. Yes things are very difficult over there, but you don't run away from problems. You stay and face them head on. There is a massive relief effort going on to help them. (Let's be real, if they aren't willing to stay and help fix their OWN country, do we really want them here?! How will that be any different than the millions of non-contributors already here that leach off of the system and provide nothing in return - except for law enforvement job-security of course!)
Here's the bottom line: These people have nothing to offer the U.S. We are already helping them both through $100M (at a time when we are in a severe economic crunch) and through millions more in private donations - which I encourage you to make to a reputable aid organization. If they do not have the work ethic to fix a country that they should be fiercely loyal to, since it's their homeland, what reason do we have to believe that they would be of benefit to the U.S. (especially since there is massive historical precedent that immigrants are only allowed in if they would BENEFIT the rest of the country - and rightfully so!)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583156,00.html
However, U.S. officials would be wise to turn them back. Up until fairly recently, immigration was restricted to those who were highly skilled in their particular trades. This created a highly skilled workforce and as a result the U.S. economy flourished as businesses had more than enough talent to grow effectively.
That changes with the passage of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, which allowed specifically easier entry for: "unmarried adult sons and daughters of citizens, and spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents." Beginning with this, (especially in the South-West) immigration stopped being a merit-based reward, and started being viewed as a right by non-citizens.
Note the language in the wording above: "permanent residents." These aren't even citizens. They have simply been granted permanent resident status, and use that to bring their entire family over. "What is wrong with that?" you may ask. Quite simply this: If they are not willing to become U.S. citizens, and contribute to our society in a positive manner, then they should not be here. Period!
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
- Theodore Roosevelt, Jan. 3, 1919
Roosevelt's fear was of the nation being "brought to ruins" by a "tangle of squabbling nationalities."
"It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us."- Theodore Roosevelt, 1917
With this came the assumption that they would naturally learn English. After all, would you move to France without learning French? Or Spain without learning Spanish? Or Germany without learning German? Let alone if you were to become a citizen!
"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country," he said in a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918. "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools."
- Theodore Roosevelt, Kansas City Star, 1918
To get the facts on Illegal Immigration and the burden that it poses to the country and you the citizen, I would suggest going here: http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html. Further, I would suggest reading Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny. It will make you very angry. The bottom line: Illegal Aliens commit A LOT of crime. Those Illegals in prison have been arrested an average of 8 times, for 13 crimes and been convicted 5 previous times EACH!
And here's the kicker: Those that have been arrested for re-entry make up 90% were previously arrested and OF THOSE, 50% were arrested for violent or drug related felonies. (Then there's the sex crime numbers...oh yes. Those will make you very angry.
The last bit here, arrested for "re-entry"... These people should not have been allowed BACK in the country. The government wasn't doing its job in protecting the borders as it was, it's citizens were victimized by these people and are now forced to PAY for their incarceration. That is the ultimate slap in the face. when they are finally released, they will be deported and what do you think they will do? Come right back across the border. Why? Because they've already done it a couple of times. (Yes, this would be that part where you pick up the phone and tell your Congressman that you want leathal force used to protect the border because it's a matter of national security - just like military base security - For you lefties out there, go ahead... try and sneak onto a US military base... see what happens)
Ultimately, the character of a person that would sneak into a country rather than to enter it legally, is not the type of character we want in our country. They are not of upright moral character, nor do they appreciate and respect something enough to go about it the correct way. That is a person we can do without.
Now, to bring this back to Haiti... Not only do we have enough trouble here domestically, but we do not need to add to it by taking in refugees that are not willing to fix their own country. We already provide Billions in aid each year around the world.
Haiti has had up to $1.4Billion in outstanding international debt. Further, Venezuela and Cuba are spending $1Billion to develop energy and infrastructure in Haiti. The debt per capita is only $169 US (whereas in the US it is $40,000 US - yes, you read that correctly, each person has a per capita national debt of $40,000. That should make you angry)
What we DON'T need at this point in time is more Haitian's coming here. Yes things are very difficult over there, but you don't run away from problems. You stay and face them head on. There is a massive relief effort going on to help them. (Let's be real, if they aren't willing to stay and help fix their OWN country, do we really want them here?! How will that be any different than the millions of non-contributors already here that leach off of the system and provide nothing in return - except for law enforvement job-security of course!)
Here's the bottom line: These people have nothing to offer the U.S. We are already helping them both through $100M (at a time when we are in a severe economic crunch) and through millions more in private donations - which I encourage you to make to a reputable aid organization. If they do not have the work ethic to fix a country that they should be fiercely loyal to, since it's their homeland, what reason do we have to believe that they would be of benefit to the U.S. (especially since there is massive historical precedent that immigrants are only allowed in if they would BENEFIT the rest of the country - and rightfully so!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
