Saturday, April 30, 2011

We Don’t Have Enough Criminal Citizens

So we import some.

You can’t make this ridicules crap up.  Three Criminals Convicted in Terror-Related Cases Were Granted U. S. Citizenship by The Obama Administration

The more honest hard working citizens complain about the illicit and undesirable conduct of this administration and a vast array of corrupt and dishonest labor union bosses, the more they arrogantly take everything just one step farther in disrespect for the majority wishes and often in direct violation of existing law.   Folks, we absolutely have to get these idiots out of office.  The sooner the better.

This story is an summation of the results of a March 2011 audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs and shows that three individuals were among “defendants where the investigation involved an identified link to international terrorism but they were charged with violating other statutes [not directly related to terrorism], including fraud, immigration, drugs, false statements, and general conspiracy charges,” referred by DOJ as Category II terrorism-related cases.

The story on the GAO Audit goes on to say that there were 403 defendants on that list of investigations conducted from Sept. 11, 2001 through Mar. 18, 2010 which, according to the GAO, at least 34 percent were aliens - both legal and illegal at the time they were charged with crimes.

The CNS News report continued “Based upon our analysis of USCIS and DOJ data, three of the individuals on the DOJ list received U.S. citizenship after their convictions,” stated the GAO audit report. “Two were convicted of unlawful production of an identity document and one was convicted of transferring funds out of the country in violation of U.S. sanctions.”

If those crimes had been committed by a U. S. citizen, he would no doubt land in the slammer; and if he was an immigrant from a country not in favor of this Administration, it would probably also mean deportation. 

Friday, April 29, 2011

Shocking Evidence Revealed:

Obama Administration Stonewalls Congress By Covering Up BATFE'S "Fast and Furious" Gunrunning Scheme That Sent Thousands Of Guns To Mexican Cartels . . . Watch here, Watch Now!

Raise our taxes! Raise our taxes! Raise our taxes!

A Government Union Shakedown

By Ed Feulner   4/28/2011

 “Raise our taxes!” Can you imagine chanting such a slogan at a public rally? Neither could most Americans.

There is one notable exception, however: government-union activists. They’re pretty explicit these days about their desire to see taxes go up.

If that surprises you, you may be unaware of how dramatically the face of organized labor has changed over the last few decades. There’s a very good reason they’ve got your wallet in their sights -- more and more, that’s where their wages comes from.

To see why, it’s vital to understand the difference between unions in the private sector (steelworkers, autoworkers, etc.) and unions in the public sector (government).

Private-sector union membership has been in steep decline. Back in 1980, one out of every five private-sector workers belonged to a union. Thirty years later, less than 7 percent do. That’s fewer than one in 14. But over the same period, government-union membership has been climbing. Today, in fact, more than half of all union members (52 percent) work for the government.

So when they lobby “management” (i.e., elected officials) for wage hikes and other benefits, that money isn’t coming out of the bank account of some private company. It’s coming from you and me. When those elected officials say, “We’re in the red. We have to balance our budget, and we can’t pay you more,” government-union activists reply: “Raise our taxes!”

Of course, they don’t just say it. Government-union leaders spend millions of dollars trying to elect politicians who are open to tax hikes. They were the top outside spenders in the last election. They put their money where their mouth is, all in the hopes of putting your money where their coffers are.

This circular arrangement may be nice and cozy for union leaders and their big-government buddies, but it’s a disaster for the taxpayers they’re exploiting. If taxes aren’t raised to satisfy their demands, will workers “strike” from providing government services? They can -- and they have (e.g., the New York City transit strike of 2005). Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed the National Labor Relations Act, called such a prospect “unthinkable and intolerable.”

As George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO from 1955 to 1979, once noted, “It is impossible to bargain collectively with government.” President Roosevelt agreed: “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” When it is, it sets up a chain reaction of painful choices.

That’s why matters in Wisconsin came to a head. In an effort to balance his state’s budget, Gov. Scott Walker proposed a plan that said 1) workers would no longer be forced to pay union dues, 2) voters would have to approve any wage increases that exceed inflation, and 3) public employees had to contribute more toward their health care and pension plans.

No wonder it passed the legislature; these are hardly radical changes. Workers can still negotiate wages -- voters just have the final say. Dues are no longer compulsory, but workers can continue to pay them. (And if what the unions do is so valuable, they should have nothing to worry about, right?) Millions of private-sector workers contribute to their own pensions and health care plans. Why should public-sector workers be any different?

But anyone who listened to the hysterical protesters in Wisconsin saw people operating on an entirely different plane of reality. To hear them tell it, Walker is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, and powerful government unions are not a public policy choice but a human right. “It is shameful to play politics with American workers and their families,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., told Gov. Walker when he testified before Congress.

What irony. There’s a group playing politics with American workers and their families, all right. They’re the ones demanding that you and I cough up still more money to fatten their paychecks -- or else. Talk about “intolerable.”

Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Gold Partner, and co-author of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today .

Birth certificate isn’t Obama’s only secret

From The Washington Times


Wednesday, April 27, 2011



Christian Arrested for Reading the Bible in Public




First, the greenies used the Spotted Owl to destroyed the timber industry of the Pacific Northwest, then they used a minnow to turn the most productive agricultural land in the world into a dustbowl, and now, as energy prices spike and the economy sputters, they’re going after the Texas oil and gas industry with a useless reptile.   To be more Specific, it’s the “Dunes Sagebrush Lizard”.  Yep, that’s the latest critter that has been determined to be more important than people.

If the Fish and Wildlife Service  it determines that the lizard is indeed endangered, they will shut down the most productive oil counties in Texas, ban roads, and slow farm activity.

This no doubt comes as great news to the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, who in 2008 said, “We must increase gas taxes to force people to turn to alternative energy.  Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe.”   So there you have it, that’s the goal, make us just like Europe with lower growth and higher taxes.

The left wants us to believe gas prices rising because the big oil companies are just trying to cash in and make a killing.  But, the truth is, the Left itself is the reason why gas is getting outrageously expensive.  By using any means necessary to suppress the production of gasoline and other petroleum-based fuels, the Obama administration and the greenies are helping to ratchet up our cost of living by making energy prices skyrocket.  Ironically, that is about the only campaign promise that Barack Obama has actually kept.

As with most other commodities, the cost of petroleum-based fuels relies in large part on market forces.  Even with speculation on oil futures, ultimately, the price of oil (and thereby anything refined from it) must obey the laws of supply and demand.  When supply goes up, price goes down, and vice versa.  When demand goes up, price goes up, and so forth.  And this is where the monkey-wrenching by the radical Green Left and their allies in our government, especially in the EPA, comes into play.

Under the current administration, the efforts by the Greenies to undermine American access to energy have greatly accelerated.  By stifling the exploration, development, and marketing of our petroleum resources, they cause the price at the pump to go up.  Simple supply and demand.  When demand for petroleum goes up (as it is with China and India rapidly industrializing, as well as America and the West’s own steady increase), but supply is restricted, cost will rise sharply – which is what we’re seeing.  And make no mistake, the leftists in our own government are doing everything they can to restrict America’s access to her own oil supplies.

What’s so surprising to many people, given the current energy woes, is that America is literally floating on a massive sea of oil and gas.  We have something like six times the proven petroleum reserves as Saudi Arabia.  There are hundreds of billions of barrels locked up in the Bakken formation alone, under North Dakota.  We have billions more in Alaska, both on land and offshore.  Our Gulf Coast sits atop another several billion.  Just recently, even more billions of barrels were discovered under Texas, augmenting fields that we had thought were just about played out.  Truly, if there is any country in the world that should have cheap gasoline, it should be us.

 Here's another example...

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Al Gore Lied

The truth about carbon pollution tax.

The Green alarmists claim that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant”.  Well, here is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  The “green alarmists are like ripe watermelons, green on the outside but red on the inside.

We all know that most politicians lie to suit their agenda but this lie is so huge and so flat out ridiculous that it cannot be allowed to stand.  Their agenda is quite clear.  If it is a pollutant, then it must be taxed and taxed heavily for the greater good.

Just think back about what you learned in high school science class all those years ago.  “Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen are the building blocks for all life on earth.  All plant life, animal life, marine life and carbon fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal are composed mainly of various combinations of these four key elements.  It was true when you were in high school, and nothing has changed.

Just use a little common sense.  “When any carbon compound is burnt in a fire or digested in a stomach, the carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water. These reactions produce warmth and energy for mankind.

“All life needs food and water.  Carbon dioxide is the keystone for all food on earth – it feeds all plants, which feed all animals.  Water is the foundation for all drinks. (yes Buba, even that can of Bud in your hand.)  Thus combustion of carbon fuels provides food and drink for all life on earth.  Only a fool or a schemer could describe either of these gases of life as a pollutant.

“Both carbon dioxide and water are recycled via the atmosphere, and both make our climate liveable.  Carbon dioxide is an invisible gas that has hardly any climatic effect.  But water in all its forms such as vapor, clouds, oceans, rivers, rain, hail, snow and ice is vastly more abundant and influential in causing changes in weather and climate.

The White House vs. Boeing: A Tennessee Tale

From The Wall Street Journal

Our auto industry took off because workers could choose whether or not to join a union.


The National Labor Relations Board has moved to stop Boeing from building airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina, suggesting that a unionized American company cannot expand its operations into one of the 22 states with right-to-work laws, which protect a worker's right to join or not join a union. (New Hampshire's legislature has just approved its becoming the 23rd.)

This reminds me of a White House state dinner in February 1979, when I was governor of Tennessee. President Jimmy Carter said, "Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make here what they sell here."
"Make here what they sell here" was then the union battle cry, part of an effort to slow the tide of Japanese cars and trucks entering the U.S. market.

Off I flew to Tokyo to meet with Nissan executives who were deciding where to put their first U.S. manufacturing plant. I carried with me a photograph taken at night from a satellite showing the country at night with all its lights on.

"Where is Tennessee?" the executives asked. "Right in the middle of the lights," I answered, pointing out that locating a plant in the population center reduces the cost of transporting cars to customers. That center had migrated south from the Midwest, where most U.S. auto plants were, to Kentucky and Tennessee.

Then the Japanese examined a second consideration: Tennessee has a right-to-work law and Kentucky does not. This meant that in Kentucky workers would have to join the United Auto Workers union. Workers in Tennessee had a choice.

In 1980 Nissan chose Tennessee, a state with almost no auto jobs. Today auto assembly plants and suppliers provide one-third of our state's manufacturing jobs. Tennessee is the home for production of the Leaf, Nissan's all-electric vehicle, and the batteries that power it. Recently Nissan announced that 85% of the cars and trucks it sells in the U.S. will be made in the U.S.— making it one of the largest "American" auto companies and nearly fulfilling Mr. Carter's request of 30 years ago.

But now unions want to make it illegal for a company that has experienced repeated strikes to move production to a state with a right-to-work law. What would this mean for the future of American auto jobs? Jobs would flee overseas as manufacturers look for a competitive environment in which to make and sell cars around the world.

It's happened before. David Halberstam's 1986 book, "The Reckoning"—about the decline of the domestic American auto industry—tells the story. Halberstam quotes American Motors President George Romney, who criticized the "shared monopoly" consisting of the Big Three Detroit auto manufacturers and the UAW. "There is nothing more vulnerable than entrenched success," Romney warned. Detroit ignored upstarts like Nissan who in the 1960s began selling funny little cars to American consumers. We all know what happened to employment in the Big Three companies.

Even when Detroit sought greener pastures in a right-to-work state, its "partnership" with the United Auto Workers could not compete. In 1985, General Motors located its $5 billion Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., 40 miles from Nissan, hoping side-by-side competition would help the Americans beat the Japanese. After 25 years, nonunion Nissan operated the most efficient auto plant in North America. The Saturn/UAW partnership never made a profit. GM closed Saturn last year.

Nissan's success is one reason why Volkswagen recently located in Chattanooga, and why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and thousands of suppliers have chosen southeastern right-to-work states for their plants. Under right-to-work laws, employees may join unions, but mostly they have declined. Three times workers at the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tenn., rejected organizing themselves like Saturn employees a few miles away.

Our goal should be to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs in this country. Giving workers the right to join or not to join a union helps to create a competitive environment in which more manufacturers like Nissan can make here 85% of what they sell here.

Mr. Alexander is a U.S. senator from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

NLRB meddling pure union payoff

From The Detroit News
Scripps Howard News Service

The Boeing Co., an innovator in the rebuilding of a recession-ravaged America, found a way to proceed efficiently on a project that would help South Carolina with 1,000 employees already hired, but no.

The National Labor Relations Board has decided that fair play and an improved economy must not get in the way of union wishes. The independent agency, nowadays in the grip of pro-labor Democrats, has filed a complaint to make Boeing desert South Carolina and build the planned 787 Dreamliner passenger planes in the state of Washington.

Do this, and union workers will carry out the job, and every now and then, they may well strike. That's something they have been doing repeatedly to Boeing, leading to billion-dollar-plus losses that ultimately help no one. But, as a Wall Street Journal editorial observes, it has ordinarily been possible and a good thing for the country and prosperity that companies can move operations around to where conditions are most favorable.

Nothing doing, says the complaint, which will be heard in June. It contends Boeing is undermining the right of unions to strike by moving away from striking unions, an argument that seems to have more to do with ideology than law.

Boeing's lawyers are outraged, one of them telling the New York Times this move is absolute nonsense, but absolute nonsense has been getting its way quite a bit in this country lately. If it does this time around, it's thought it could be a bad sign for South Carolina and the other right-to-work states that think individual rights should supersede collectivist power plays.

Let's all agree that there was a time when unions helped us get to justice in this land. But let's understand, too, that that the opposite can be more nearly true today. It's not an accident that union membership has dropped to little more than 7 percent in the private sector. Federal and state laws prohibit the kinds of worker abuses that sometimes happened in the past.

The real strength of labor is now in the public sector where, in some states and cities, it has taken advantage of weak-kneed politicians. Rather tame attempts to tamp down on these threats have been greeted by angry protests and have been described in endless news stories as incursions on union "rights." But there is no right of collective bargaining with the government.

Under the Obama administration, which has found a variety of ways to treat unions to special privileges at considerable cost to the public, private unions may be making a comeback. As a wounded South Carolina might testify, that's hardly good news for most of us.

The U. S. has the most energy resources in the world

and most incoherent energy policy

The General Motors Debacle

Obama administration’s bailout of General Motors

 - Alan Caruba  Tuesday, April 26, 2011
I received an email from my friend, Seldon B. Graham, Jr., a veteran of the oil industry, possessing both engineering and law degrees. I first became aware of him through his book, “Why Your Gasoline Prices Are High.”

“After years of my campaigning for transparency and full disclosure, the media still does not give the American public the actual price of OPEC foreign oil or the actual price of U.S. oil. Who in America knows that the actual price of OPEC foreign oil last week was $119.82 per barrel? Who in America knows that the actual price of U.S. oil, which is always lower than OPEC foreign oil, last week was $4.86 cheaper? Now, you are some of the very few who know.”

“Why isn’t the media disclosing the actual oil prices to the public? Someone might figure out that American consumers could save $4.86 x 3.3 billion barrels of foreign oil annually = $16 Billion annually if US oil replaced foreign oil imports. Doesn’t everyone in America want cheaper gasoline?”

I don’t know anyone in America who doesn’t want cheaper gasoline except for President Barack Obama and his Secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu. And therein lies the problem because, between moratoriums on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, obstacles to increased drilling in Alaska (not even including ANWR), and the general ban on any offshore drilling along U.S. coastlines, the likelihood that Americans will have access to their own less costly oil, barely exists.

It really doesn’t get much dumber than this unless, of course, you consider the Obama administration’s bailout of General Motors. Amidst a bevy of costly bailout measures in 2009, Obama stepped in to “rescue” GM when, in fact, all it had to do is step aside and let the company file for bankruptcy, get restructured, and begin again. Countless companies, large and small, do this every year. The rescue, however, was not about GM so much as it was the United Auto Workers, a union that was largely responsible for putting GM in the poor house.

Fast forward to 2011 and reports that the U.S. government, Treasury, plans to sell off “a significant share of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. this summer.” Despite a much heralded initial public offering of stock last November, beginning in January 2011, the stock’s value had fallen 18 percent, “to about $31, which is $2 below its IPO price.

In January, Investor’s Business Daily grabbed reality by the scruff of its neck, shook it, and reported, “The bailout of General Motors wasn’t supposed to cost taxpayers. In fact, the promise was that taxpayers would profit. Now the government says the bailout’s a loser. No one should be surprised. Washington has handed out $50 billion to General Motors and another $35 billion to Chrysler and GMAC to keep those companies in business. Taxpayers were told their money wouldn’t end up lost in a rat hole.”

A variety of factors have contributed to shareholder and investor confidence in GM and The Wall Street Journal cited “the rise in gas prices” as one of them because it “hurt sales of big, highly profitable trucks.”

It didn’t help that the Obama administration insisted that GM step up its electric car program, always notoriously unprofitable, or that the steering wheels on some Chevy Cruze models literally came off in the driver’s hands!

Of the 61 percent ownership the government once owned, it is now down to 26 percent, but to break even, the government would have to sell at $53 per share whereas it is now priced at less than $30 per share, a new low as of April 19.

The original “investment” was $50 billion. Estimates of the sell-off of remaining shares suggest a loss of more than $11 billion if the shares were sold now.

It’s one thing if some speculator takes a loss and that happens all the time, but when it is John Q. Public’s money, the expectation is that would be more cautiously managed. Nothing about the GM bailout suggests this. The dismal results of the alleged “stimulus” funding that was supposed to generate thousands of jobs can be summed up in the statistic that only 45% of Americans are working these days.

No matter which way the taxpayer turns, the decisions made by the Obama administration has resulted in the loss of billions, an unemployment rate that resembles some third world nation, and obdurate resistance to the proposed GOP budget that calls for cutting spending and reducing the debt.

Don’t expect anything like that to occur so long as this hapless, clueless gang controls the White House and the Senate.

Saturday, April 23, 2011


Gas Price Hypocrisy
In 2006 the Democrats and the media screamed bloody murder over the high price of gas. When Barack Obama was inaugurated, the average gas price was $1.87 a gallon.
 Now that the price has more than doubled, what are the Democrats and the administration saying now?
Well now, under Obama, high gas prices are suddenly somehow a good thing.
Sometimes, even I am amazed at the hypocrisy.

I just saw on the internet that regular is $5.69 in Orlando Florida.  How’s that for hope and change?

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Obama Justice Department Shields Islamist Allies From Prosecution

This is a bit lengthy and a lot of people may find it to be boring, but it is VERY important that everyone be aware of this.

 - Joseph A. Klein  Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The Obama administration invited the president of one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas terror finance case, United States v. Holy Land Foundation—the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”)- to the White House for a Ramadan dinner banquet two years in a row. Now it is running interference for ISNA and other Islamist allies in a politically sensitive case that career prosecutors at the Department of Justice were thinking of bringing against them.

The mainstream news media, including cable news stations, have dropped the ball on an explosive story—the Obama administration’s despicable decision for political reasons not to prosecute the 246 individuals and Islamist organizations, named as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Obama administration is trying to keep its political interference as secret as possible, refusing requests for disclosure of an internal Department of Justice memorandum discussing the matter.

According to a high-ranking source within the Department of Justice, who spoke exclusively to Patrick Poole writing for Pajamas Media—part of the new media that is making mainstream media obsolete—the decision not to seek indictments of the Council on American Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) and its co-founder Omar Ahmad (also the former head of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States), ISNA, and the North American Islamic Trust (“NAIT”), was a politically motivated decision from the top down.

In order to curry favor in the Muslim-American community as part of the Obama administration’s Muslim out-reach program, high-ranking officials at Department of Justice headquarters overrode vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case.

Poole’s Department of Justice source said that from a purely legal point of view the case against the unindicted co-conspirators was solid, including wiretaps. The career prosecutors’ intent was to pursue them directly in a second round of prosecutions, after first dealing with the Holy Land Foundation itself. The case for naming them as co-conspirators in the first place was evidently strong enough to convince a Federal District Court judge to deny the requests of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT to strike their names from the United States Attorney’s list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case.

United States District Judge Jorge A. Solis concluded that the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with [the Holy Land Foundation, “HLF”], the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration decided not to allow career investigators and prosecutors to follow the evidence and pursue cases against these Islamist groups and their leaders, evidently because it was afraid of being embarrassed in prosecuting its “interfaith” allies.

Poole’s high-ranking Department of Justice whistle-blower complained:
By closing down these prosecutions, the evidence we’ve collected over the past decade that implicates most of the major Islamic organizations will never see the light of day.

And he had this chilling observation about the Obama appointees at the Islamicized Department of Justice:
Many of the people I work with at Justice now see CAIR not just as political allies, but ideological allies. They believe they are fighting the same revolution. It’s scary. And Congress and the American people need to know this is going on.

Fortunately, the Islamists’ and their Leftist allies’ favorite target in Congress, Representative Peter King (R-NY), is doing what he can to expose this scandal. He has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding some answers to such questions as the following:
  • What are the reasons for the Department’s decisions not to prosecute CAIR, ISNA, NAIT and Mr. Ahmad, who is a CAIR co-founder and former head of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?
  • Who made the final decision not to prosecute?  Who, if anyone, from the Executive Office of the President, consulted with, advised, or otherwise communicated with the Department of Justice, in electronic, oral or written form, regarding the Department’s decision to not seek indictments of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT and Mr. Ahmad?
  • How does and will the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation address the potential for CAIR, ISNA, or NAIT to engage in terrorism financing?  What policies with regard to those organizations have you implemented to address that threat?
Right on, Congressman King. Stick to your convictions and expose the Obama administration’s willingness to cover for their Islamist allies. Anyone in the Obama administration who is found to have obstructed cases against them may be guilty of obstruction of justice and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011





Pentagon contradicts Napolitano’s Mexican border assessment

 - James Raider  Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s recent description of a U.S.-Mexico border that’s “as secure as it has ever been” appear to be in direct opposition to a Pentagon assessment.

According to officials at Judicial Watch, a public-interest group that investigates public corruption and fraud, U.S. Defense Department officials believe the border is actually a gateway for Mexican criminal organizations that have infiltrated the entire country and joined forces with terrorist groups.

For months the nation’s Homeland Security Secretary has repeatedly insisted that everything is safe and secure on the southwest border, even as violence escalates and overwhelmed federal agents are increasingly attacked by heavily armed drug smugglers.

Just last month Napolitano declared that violence along the Mexican border is merely a mistaken “perception” because the area is safe and “open for business.”
Furthermore, President Barack Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary assured that “some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region….”

During another speech, Napolitano accused critics of the Obama Administration of exaggerating the problems on the U.S.-Mexican border.

“Our nation’s sovereignty is being violated and Americans killed by illegal aliens and all we get are photo opportunities with Obama Administration officials and scoldings from the Mexican government officials including President [Felipe] Calderon,” said police officer Iris Veguilla, herself a Latino.

A top Pentagon official contradicts Napolitano’s fairytale assessment, pointing out that Mexican criminal organizations extend well beyond the southwest border to cities across the country, including big ones like Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit, according to Judicial Watch.

Addressing a U.S. Senate hearing this week, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats William Wechsler warned lawmakers that all their constituencies are confronted by the threat of Mexican drug cartels.

Even more alarming is that once in the United States, the Mexican criminal groups are becoming more dangerous by forming networks with each other and insurgent or terrorist groups. In some regions the “threat networking” not only engages in drug trafficking but kidnapping, armed robbery, extortion, home invasions and other serious crimes.

The threat is so great that the assistant Defense Secretary offered federal legislators military assistance in the name of protecting national security.

“Many of the global and regional terrorists who threaten interests of the United States finance their activities with proceeds from narcotics trafficking,” Wechsler reminded, adding that “extremist and international criminal networks frequently exploit local geographical, political or social conditions to establish safe havens from which they can operate with impunity.”

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a staunch supporter of tough immigration enforcement, once again called on Napolitano to resign last week. Tancredo has led many congressional efforts to protect the borders against illegal immigration.

An incident that involved a gunfight in December between Border Patrol agents near Nogales, Ariz., and armed drug smugglers has been a sore point with Tancredo. One member of the U.S. Border Patrol, Brian Terry, was killed by automatic gunfire during a shootout that highlighted the fact that U.S. law enforcement officers are out-manned and outgunned by Mexican criminals.

The Obama administration also claimed it increased the number of Border Patrol agents from about 10,000 in 2004 to more than 20,700 now. However, an examination of records reveals that the increase in border agents occurred during the Bush Administration when the number of agents reached upwards of 18,000 in 2008.




U.S. Government on steroids as they kiss up to Islam and the Koran

 - Dr. Laurie Roth  Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Thank the Lord He has risen and it is a glorious Easter season yet again.  Jews and Christians have much to celebrate this week.  Our nation’s core, founding documents and history reflect our Christian traditions and faith.  These values and beliefs have built up this nation to be the number 1 super power on earth.  This week we celebrate our God and His amazing gifts to our world.  Not all celebrate or protect these traditions as they should however.

Under the leadership of President Obama, our Commander and Chief, in Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers who were sent much desired Bibles from back home were ordered to burn them because they might inflame the natives, those fundamentalist or ‘devout’ Muslims.  Since they were in a Muslim country it became military policy to burn them.  It gets even better as the throw up swells in my mouth.  Their policy is to burn trash and that is what the military labeled the Bible gifts as, trash.

Our soldiers have been ordered to handle the Koran as if it came down from on high.  They are to use only clean gloves in view of the detainees when handling their Koran.  In addition, they can’t just handle it with clean gloves but have to use two hands to show even more respect.  Roger Kimball covers the insanity of this story in

Did I tell you yet that our troops were ordered to burn Holy Bibles given to them?
What does Obama do about our Christian heritage?

Though he has said he is a Christian, President Obama said in June 2007 to Turkish parliament that the USA was no longer a Christian nation.  He also has said to the media that the USA is one of the largest Muslim nations.

What about our traditional National Day of Prayer?

Though Obama didn’t officially cancel the traditional, National Day of Prayer put into place in 1952 by President Truman, then designated again in 1988 by President Reagan, Obama canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House.  He said he didn’t want to offend anyone.  As far as I’m concerned that is insulting the people, our historical traditions and God.

We saw more slams against our Christian heritage by our President.  A national day of prayer occurred all right… was just for the Muslims on Sep. 25, 2009, right next to the White House.  Over 50,000 Muslims were in attendance.  Isn’t that special?

Make sure when you handle the Koran you use two gloves and hold it properly.  ‘Joe, stoke the fire will you?  There are some pages of this Bible over here still readable and unburned.”

Did you see Christians worldwide marching in the streets, killing people and burning buildings to the ground due to our Government orders to burn hundreds of Holy Bibles?  No, you did not.  People were upset, horrified and insulted but didn’t go around threatening and murdering people.

In contrast, Pastor Terry Jones who burned a Koran caused an international blow out with Islam and the media.  Many people were murdered, thousands of Islamics marched in the streets, our domestic and international media leveled and mocked him and buildings burned to the ground.  If only he would have used gloves when he burned it.

Did I tell you yet that under leadership of our Commander and Chief, Barack Obama, piles of Holy Bibles were burned so as not to offend.

Excuse me…………I have to go throw up now.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011


I guarantee you won't forget anytime soon!  She didn't cry, although she came close to losing it, and she gave those listening a reality check they dearly needed.

Texas girl had the encroachment on her second amendment rights so graphically illustrated. The honorable senator from NY, Chuck Schumer, was getting a little uncomfortable in his chair. The room was absolutely dead quiet throughout her testimony and the gun banners (meaning Senators who want to BAN citizens' ownership of all guns) absolutely speechless as this little Texas gal chews them up and spits them out. She knows what the 2nd amendment is really all about. Watch it. You will be glad you did.

Are We Allied to a Corpse?

By Pat Buchanan   4/19/2011

Of our Libyan intervention, one thing may be safely said, and another safely predicted. 

When he launched his strikes on the Libyan army and regime, Barack Obama did not think it through. And this nation is now likely to be drawn even deeper into that war.

For Moammar Gadhafi's forces not only survived the U.S. air and missile strikes, after which we turned the air war over to NATO, his forces have since shown themselves superior to the rebels. Without NATO, the rebels would have been routed a month ago.

And, today, NATO itself stands a chance of being humiliated.

"NATO's Bomb Supply Is Running Short," ran Saturday's headline in The Washington Post over a story that began thus:
"Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in maintaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time. ...

"The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts ... about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi hangs on to power."

Only six NATO nations have planes running strikes on the Libyan army, and the French and British, who are doing most of the bombing, are running out of laser-guided munitions. And their planes are not equipped to handle U.S. smart bombs.

NATO air attacks are thus becoming less precise and lethal, as Gadhafi is pounding Misrata, the last rebel-held city in the west, and his army is again contesting Ajdabiya, the gateway to Benghazi.
In short, the war is not going well. Where does this leave us?

If the United States does not get back on the field, the Libyan army will likely crush resistance in Misrata and push the rebels back to Benghazi and Tobruk.

As the rebels lack the soldiering experience or organization to conduct an offensive, and their NATO air arm is weakening, the best they can probably hope for in the near term is to hold on to what they have in the east. Which means a stalemate -- a no-win war.

Can Obama accept such an outcome to a war he started, at the outset of which he declared Gadhafi must go? Can he go into 2012 with Republicans mocking him for picking a fight with Gadhafi, then losing it for the United States? Can Obama leave Gadhafi in Tripoli knowing he is plotting terror attacks against America in reprisal?

If Gadhafi survives, does Obama survive?

Can he tell the beleaguered British and French we are not going to double down on our folly of having started this war?

In an op-ed last week in The New York Times, Obama, along with Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, wrote:

"Our duty and our mandate is ... not to remove Gadhafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadhafi in power. ... It is unthinkable that someone who tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government."

But if it is "unthinkable" and "impossible" for Gadhafi to remain in power, who is going to remove him?

Absent celestial intervention, it is Uncle Sam, or no one.

If regime change is now the unstated NATO mission, who but the United States can ensure the mission is accomplished?

The Post story about Britain and France, the leading military powers of NATO Europe, depleting their smart-bomb supply in a one-month clash with an African nation of 6 million, and begging the Yanks to come back and win the war for them, raises a major question.

Is the most successful alliance in history, which kept the Red Army of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev from smashing through the Fulda Gap and reaching the Channel, a hollow shell?
Is NATO, without America, a paper tiger?

On the eve of World War I, the German foreign minister, after visiting the aged Emperor Franz Josef in Austria, reported back to the Kaiser, "Sire, we are allied to a corpse."

Are we?

In the 1990s, we had to pull the British and French chestnuts out of the Bosnian fire. When Serbs fought for their cradle province of Kosovo, America had to break Belgrade with 78 days of bombing.
NATO Europe couldn't handle a fight in its own backyard.

Though we are still in Iraq, NATO is gone. There are NATO units in Afghanistan, but some have pulled out and others won't fight.

What benefit does America receive from membership in NATO to justify the cost of maintaining tens of thousands of troops, air and naval bases, ships and planes defending a rich and populous continent that chronically refuses to provide the arms and men to defend itself?

Why are Americans still defending Europe 66 years after World War II ended and a generation after the Soviet Union disappeared?

Isn't it time we kicked them out of the nest?

Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .



Monday, April 18, 2011


Very rarely do I post a link to The New York Times.  Because very rarely do they publish anything worth reading.
But this column is excellent.


Every sense Donald Trump asked to see Obama's birth certificate, the questions surrounding Obama's eligibility have been spreading like wildfire.  And it appears as though “the Donald” will not back down on the issue. He even went so far as to say, "There is something on it that he (Obama) doesn't like."

As expected, Whoopie Goldberg, (on The View) tried to blame racism for the all the concern over why Obama refuses to show the American people absolute proof of where he was born; as well as all the rest of the pertinent information that would reveal details about his birth, upbringing, college years etc.

Why would someone with nothing to hide seal all of his records?? 

Why would someone with nothing to hide shell out 2 million dollars in lawyer fees to keep the case out of the courts?


Saturday, April 16, 2011

Patriot Action Network

The so called “birther biil” in Arizona

 By Darla Dawald,  Friday, April 15, 2011
Thursday night, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill requiring credible proof that Presidential Candidates are American Citizens. Of course, the spin by the left is that this bill is a ‘birther bill’.

According to a statement published by Fox News, Democratic Rep. Daniel Patterson of Tucson stated, this is a ‘fringe issue’ and people are going to look at Arizona again and say what’s all this craziness?

It is important to note that this so called ‘birther bill” is not about opposition to Obama but rather an attempt to insure clean, legal elections. Arizona has been a leader, this past year, in passing the controversial sb1070 immigration law. Although, the courts have taken the guts out of this bill, it is currently awaiting trial with the Supreme Court.

Arizona is to be championed for their stance on legal candidates, legal immigration and legal elections! State Senator, Russell Pearce, author of sb1070 and Governor Brewer have taken a stand that many other states are lining up to follow. As a matter of fact, the Georgia State Senate passed their immigration law mirroring Arizona’s last night and it’s on its way to GA Governor, Nathan Deal to be signed into law.

This most certainly is not a ‘birther issue’ and it’s not a ‘fringe issue,’ this is an American Elections issue. The State of Arizona is simply doing the job the US government has refused to do. As a leader in the Tea Party movement, and as an Arizonan, I am proud to reside in a state that stands on the US Constitution and the State Constitution. We have a major war on our borders, within our border states, and across America, with a high insurgence of illegals that are bankrupting our states.  It’s about time that someone recognized the complexity of this issue and has taken measures to correct it. Unfortunately, our federal government isn’t.

According to a statement by Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix (author of the bill), “the bill is not about opposition to Obama the bill is about the integrity of our elections,” Seel said. The state of Arizona is again, leading the charge by passing a bill that requires irrefutable proof of eligibility. This is, in my opinion, a sign of great leadership and a legislature that is truly concerned about America’s future. 

Darla Dawald, National Director
Patriot Action Network

Thursday, April 14, 2011


To Drill Here and Drill Now

It’s truly an outrage how the Obama administration has not only failed to address the problem of rising gasoline prices, but actually spent the last two years making the problem worse.

In 2008, with a federal offshore drilling ban in place and a Congress that cared little for allowing more domestic energy production, gasoline prices began to spike toward $4 per gallon. With billions of barrels available for development offshore, our government’s decision to keep those resources under lock and key received the justified scorn of Americans who suddenly had to work longer just so they could afford to drive to and from work.

With the entire country holding their feet to the fire, then candidate Obama reversed his position on offshore drilling and Congress finally lifted the offshore moratorium in September 2008.  So what did Obama do when he became president? He and his administration spent two years recreating the same web of regulations and bans that led to record-high gasoline prices in the first place.

Upon taking office, the Obama administration, led by Ken Salazar, began taking deliberate steps to reduce domestic drilling.  From canceling oil and gas leases throughout the American West to banning offshore production to refusing to issue deep water drilling permits, the Obama administration has imposed virtually the same regulatory agenda that Americans soundly rejected in 2008.

The result of these policies is also the same as last time. Oil prices above $100 per barrel for the first time since 2008. Two years ago the Energy Information Administration predicted a 9% increase in domestic production for 2011, but because of the Obama administration’s bans and delays on offshore drilling, EIA now projects a decline of 220,000 barrels per day in 2011. Several drilling rigs have left the Gulf, and at least one major drilling company, Seahawk Drilling, was forced to file for bankruptcy after “an unprecedented decline in the issuance of offshore drilling permits,” according to Seahawk’s CEO.

Meanwhile, gasoline is getting very close to $4 per gallon and is already there in many states, and some experts are predicting $5 per gallon gas before the end of the summer. Recent unrest in the Middle East has intensified the situation and caused prices to spike even further.

What is the White House doing in response to these rising costs?  Apparently nothing. President Obama thinks Americans should just “ride out” the situation and hope that prices will stabilize.  He says we all need to downsize to a more fuel efficient vehicle.  He cracked jokes about “tough guys” that drive “big trucks”.  Apparently he’s too dim witted to realize that hundreds of thousands of families depend on those “big trucks” for their livelihood.

The deputy secretary of energy says OPEC has “ample supplies” of oil, and the administration’s position is to hope that foreign dictators “will continue to support our economic recovery.” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says consumers just shouldn’t worry about higher prices, while White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee miraculously claims that high gasoline prices won’t hurt the economy. In fact, the president’s latest budget actually includes billions of dollars in new taxes on American oil production, which will further increase gas and diesel prices, kill more American jobs, and increase our dependence on overseas energy.

New taxes won’t create more American energy, and Americans deserve a better response than being lectured with “don’t worry, be happy” or “get a smaller vehicle.”

We have more than 80 billion barrels of oil offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, more than 10 billion barrels in one small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and an astounding 800 billion barrels – three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia — in shale oil deposits in parts of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah.

All of these resources represent opportunities to lower prices at the pump and boost the American economy. A recent study, for example, found that offshore drilling in Alaska could create 50,000 new American jobs every year and generate $160 billion in new federal revenues. Additional offshore and onshore drilling could create hundreds of thousands of additional jobs and generate even greater revenues, which could be used to reduce the massive federal deficit.  But all of these resources are also off limits due to Obama administration policies.

For the past two years America has been transformed back into a grand laboratory for the anti-drilling ideology that defined our energy policy for three decades. It didn’t work then, it’s not working now, and it won’t work in the future.

It’s time to end the senseless bans on oil and gas drilling so we can permanently lower gasoline prices, create more American jobs, and lessen our dependence on foreign dictators for our energy supplies.

It’s time to move forward with responsible American energy production.
It’s time to drill here and drill now.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011


It’s almost income tax deadline.
In recognition of this momentous occasion, I offer this anonymous poem.
Tax his land, tax his bed,
Tax the table at which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes are the rule.

Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirt,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco, tax his drink.
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his cigars, tax his beers,
If he cries, then tax his tears.

Tax his car, tax his gas,
Find other ways to tax his ass.
Tax all he has, then let him know
You won't be done 'till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Tax him some more.
Tax him 'till he's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, tax his grave.
Tax the sod in which he's laid.

Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom."

When he's gone, do not relax.
It's time to apply the inheritance tax.

You Show Me Yours

And I’ll Show You Mine

Bill O’Reilly is Full of it

He is as “full of crap” as a Woodstock Outhouse.
Does he actually think everyone will just forget about Obama’s birth certificate just because he says it’s OK?  Not going to happen Mr. O. 

Considering what little we do know of Obama’s past, and the type of people he has surrounded himself with, both before and during his Presidency, you would have to be brain dead to not be somewhat concerned about his credentials.  “We the people” are fully aware that we have been lied to and duped by the arrogant political elites and the leftist news and entertainment media.

The Constitution stipulates that only a “natural born citizen” can be President i.e. someone born in the US of citizen parents at the time of birth.

According to that definition, Obama, whose father was Kenyan, has never been eligible. 

Every US President at the time of his election or assumption to power was either proven to be or believed to be a natural born citizen.

Even Senator John McCain, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, was obliged to release his long-form birth certificate. His eligibility was subjected to public scrutiny and a Senate resolution was passed as a confirmation that he met the requirements of natural born citizenship.

It has always been known that Obama did not meet the same requirements. Yet he was never challenged by anyone in the Congress, by any prominent Democrat or Republican or by the main stream media. 

Why was Obama exempt from even the most rudimentary examination of his credentials for office? And why are these same people denying that the Constitution has been violated? And why are they trying to bury the issue and denouncing anyone who speaks of it?  Could it be because anyone daring to bring it up is immediately accused of racism? 

The American people are waiting for the truth, not just the usual displays of elitist arrogance or feigned ignorance. There is clearly a conspiracy of silence. Is there also ethical or criminal liability?

It is no accident that Donald Trump has catapulted in the polls. The American people are rewarding him for having the courage to ask a question that is considered heresy by the ruling class. And how do these effete elites respond? With cries of racism and lunacy, the last resort of scoundrels.