Tuesday, May 29, 2012





Here’s an interesting article I found on the internet.   

It makes me wonder.


Is this Barack Obama’s Brain on Drugs?

By Selwyn Duke

We all know the difference between normal mistakes and those that hint at a deeper, more frightening problem, such as Alzheimer’s or another brain condition.  In light of this, how do you interpret a shocking mistake recently made by Barack Obama?

  Writes Terry Jeffrey of CNS News:
In two campaign speeches over the last two days, President Barack Obama has twice mistakenly mentioned “my sons” when defending his administration’s regulation requiring virtually all health-care plans in the United States to provide women, without any fees or co-pay, with sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.

Given that Obama has, ostensibly, only daughters, where does such a mistake come from?  And how do you make it twice on two different occasions without correcting yourself?  Then again, how can an American president say, “I’ve now been in 57 states, I think – one left to go” without correcting himself?  Yes, Obama’s most recent bizarre slip of the mind makes me think of that older, equally bizarre one.  I mean, there are mistakes.
Then there are mistakes.

After all, it’s ingrained in every American child when extremely little that our nation has 50 states.  Fifty states, fifty states, fifty states, fifty states….  It should just roll off the tongue – in just the way the word “daughters” should when girls are all you’ve ever had.

Of course, this invites the quip – and it’s a good example of how there’s some truth behind every joke – that “American child” never described Obama, at least not in spirit.  But another possibility suggests itself:
Is Barack Obama brain-damaged?
I’m not just being a wise-guy.  With the president’s admitted past drug use and the recent revelations about how he was a member of the “Choom Gang” in high school, is it hard to imagine that he might have damaged his mind through the abuse of recreational drugs?

“Choom,” by the way, is slang for smoking marijuana.  And it seems that this gang activity was Obama’s favorite extra-curricular option in high school.  Writes ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:
In his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father,” Obama writes about smoking pot almost like Dr. Seuss wrote about eating green eggs and ham.  As a high school kid, Obama wrote, he would smoke “in a white classmate’s sparkling new van,” he would smoke “in the dorm room of some brother” and he would smoke “on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids.”
He would smoke it here and there.  He would smoke it anywhere.

Yes, I do like it, Uncle Scam I am.  In fact, as the Choom Gang story goes, Obama was a veritable Nikola Tesla of weed use who would actually start “pot-smoking trends.”  Add to this a diversity in drug inclinations that led him to dabble also in hard drugs, and perhaps it explains the soft head.
Of course, as for calling girls “sons,” there are other explanations.  Perhaps Obama is like those parents who don’t want to sex stereotype their children and thus are very pleased when their son dresses as a girl; maybe he’ll now refer to Malia and Sasha as sons half the time.  Perhaps he subscribes to the fashionable LBGT idea that “gender” is all a matter of perception.  Heck, apparently he already believes that one’s ideology and economic model needn’t have a relationship to reality.

Then, American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson theorizes that the explanation may be that Obama is hiding more than just a sordid past, writing:
It has never occurred to me that Barack Obama might have a second secret family, as Charles Kurault did, hidden from his first family (pardon the pun) and the general public.  I still find this hard to believe.
But what kind of brain freeze or derangement leads someone to refer to my sons, when two daughters are the only fruit of conception one has created?

Perhaps the freeze symptomatic of a fried brain?

Then again, Dr. Lifson could be right.  Maybe Obama had more of a reason than we think to say that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.

All joking aside, the only thing we can know for sure about Obama is that he’s a very bizarre man.  He had an absentee father, and, in his high-school yearbook, he acknowledged a drug dealer but not his quasi-absentee mother.  He seems to have received more ideology than love, as he was mentored by communist-party member Frank Marshall Davis, was drawn to Marxist professors in college and was a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s.  And when you consider this, it’s not surprising that he turned to drugs during adolescence: it’s what kids with troubled upbringings often do.

As to this, C.S. Lewis once wrote something very profound about the significance of upbringing:
No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous.  Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism.  I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite skeptical about ethics, but bred to believe that “a gentleman does not cheat”, than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharpers.

It’s hard to know for sure how scarred, in mind and soul, Obama is as a result of his bizarre youth.  But should we continue to take the chance of letting him play America’s hand?

Monday, May 28, 2012



Just when you thought that nothing new from socialist Obama could shock you; he again makes a move towards the Left.

This time, he has embraced the advances towards a

And here is what he is about to order via his Executive Order---Mr. Obama wants to transfer some quadrants of the oceans now under United States control directly to the United Nations! Signed...sealed...delivered!

NO Congress---NO treaty---NO vote by Americans---NO National Discussions---SOLELY BY HIS "POWER" OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS!

His sinister plan is still in draft form. But we must fight this tooth and nail. We cannot let the president just give away hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean at his whim. Your faxes must REVERSE this outrageous act!

Obama wants to cede parts of
United States oceans to United Nations-based international law. An international body, the United Nations, would have control and REGULATE much of the oceans that the United states now has jurisdiction over!

Obama's draft calls for an Executive Order for a "National Ocean Policy." This policy is yet another over-reach of the federal government in relationship to the eco-system that will be regulated by the federal government;
AND---turn over part of the ocean's quadrant to the regulations set forth by the United Nations.

That, in itself, is very frightening. However, it is just the tip of the iceberg as to the extent that Mr. Obama is leaning towards a

Let us explain.....

The original "ocean initiative" was the pet project of Leon Panetta, now our current Defense Secretary. Before Panetta's
CIA Director appointment in 2009, he co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a partner of CITIZENS FOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (CGS). CGS is a strong supporter (and a Member organization) of the World Federalist Movement. Without reservation or apology, their literature openly states they support a One-World Government!

The CGS is considered by the World Federalist Movement to be its branch in the
United States! Incidentally, their offices are within blocks of the United Nations' headquarters in New York City and also right near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Coincidence? Not on your life! One must continually "connect the dots" to see the pattern of how Mr. Obama has brought America to the very brink of participating in a One World Government!

This National Ocean Policy is a result of the Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce, also created by an Obama Executive Order in 2010. This taskforce has released a 78-page report which caters to the alleged effects of "global warming." The report proposes that the
United States join the United Nations' "Law of the Sea Convention."

This Law of the Sea Convention is used as a legal instrument to GOVERN activities under, over and on the world's oceans.

By becoming a part of this, to embrace the additional guidelines formed in this devastating report, would further ERODE our national security, by being under the desires and whims of the United Nations when it comes to ocean regulations. Obama's supposed selling point: to help the world's environment!

That may sound nice to the Leftists at election time, but not to true, patriotic Americans. I know you do not want to give away large portions of the oceans that we control to a One World Government!

This supposed bipartisan ocean initiative says that its purpose is to "accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform."

"Working together to build the political will in the
United States" to reach this worldwide vision is what CGS wants to accomplish.

This is a very, very dangerous draft moving towards another disastrous Executive Order. Here is what this EO will accomplish:
  • An outright giving away of parts of the oceans controlled by the United States
  • A giant first-step towards a One World Government
  • Give the United Nations even more power OVER the United States, while we pay the "lion's share" of their bills
  • A tremendous over-reach by our federal government
  • Be one of the worst Executive Orders ever promulgated by a president

Yet, Barack Obama continues to go forward in this "opportunist measure" to give away parts of OUR oceans to the UN world body!

And George Soros is effectually behind this measure also.

The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council also comprises of John Podesta, former co-chairman of the Obama presidential transition team. Podesta is the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress which advises Obama on various policies. This organization is funded by George Soros.  http://cyberpolyticks.blogspot.com/2012/05/public-enemy-number-one.html

The taskforce proposes to the president a well-devised, but dangerous "plan" to obtain the objective of: "an
America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of present and future generations."

The United Nations' regulation of our oceans is not right at all.

It gives away our sovereign rights.

And, more importantly, pushes us towards a One World Government.

But, this is "par for the course" of Barack Obama.


I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read this. 
This is legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee.  It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about irony.)

His Imperial Majesty, a Former Constitutional Law Lecturer, makes up Constitutional Quotes during
State of the Union (SOTU) Address.

Consider this:

1. President
Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer".  He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.  A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license.  No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The
University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the
University of Chicago School of Law.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ;

7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the
U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence .. not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video:
9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.

10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them
unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the
Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony and a liar, it's hard to keep facts straight.

If you do not vote AGAINST this phony liar, (who is not eligible nor qualified to be President) then YOU are part of the problem.



Against the globalistas   
 By John R. Bolton

Global governance, the next new thing in trendy international thought, has been typically portrayed as the nearly inevitable evolution upward from the primitive nation-state and its antiquated notions of constitutionalism and popular sovereignty.

Not “world government,” wildly unpopular among knuckle-draggers in America, but a rebranded alternative, more nuanced and sophisticated, would creep in on little cat feet before the Neanderthals knew what was up.

American exceptionalism was on its way to the ash heap. Terms like shared and pooled sovereignty were bandied about like new types of cell phones rather than fundamental shifts in the relationship between citizens and state. Multilateral treaties on an astounding array of issues were in prospect—not just the usual subjects of international relations, but matters heretofore quintessentially decided by nation-states: gun control, abortion, the death penalty, among others.

Although George W. Bush’s troublesome flag-waving tenure represented an unwelcome bump on the road, Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration was surely the high point of global governance’s advance. Here was a president who saw global warming as the threat it was, promising to stop the seas from rising. This self-proclaimed “citizen of the world” rejected U.S. unilateralism, took the United Nations seriously, and understood that European Union-style institutions were the real future. Not only would America have social democracy domestically, but it would join its like-minded confreres worldwide to celebrate global governance’s emerging transcendence. What could go wrong?

Fortunately, while globalista academics, their handmaidens in the political commentariat, leftist think tanks, and non-governmental organizations were hard at work, others, in the late ’90s, were awakening to the consequences of all that buzz. Sometimes derided as “new sovereigntists” by the multilateralist chorus, these analysts and practitioners began examining both the precepts and the implications of the global-governance agenda.

Prominent among them was John Fonte, then at the American Enterprise Institute, now at the Hudson Institute. His latest effort, Sovereignty or Submission, has as its subtitle the sobering question: Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? That is, indeed, the question.

Fonte warns against the “globalista” technique of international norm setting, whereby self-selected, transnational elites fashion rules of conduct through multilateral negotiations, which are then carried down to the nation-state level to be rubber-stamped by pliant parliaments. This model is actually not far from current European Union (E.U.) governance practices. U.K. Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and David Cameron, for example, have both estimated that approximately 50% of significant parliamentary actions involving economic policy simply ratify, without possibility of amending or rejecting, what E.U. bureaucrats or diplomats in Brussels have already decided.

These are not choices by officials actually elected by real people, the only legitimate basis for the state’s monopoly of coercive power. We are not considering here authoritarian or less-developed countries where free expression and representative government are absent or inadequate. One could argue in such cases that international norm setting might provide standards or models from which emerging free governments could pick and choose. (Of course, one could also argue that the United States provides a perfectly acceptable model all on its own, which emerging democracies can emulate or not, without any need for America to “multilateralize” its uniqueness.)

Ironically, however, the global governance advocates focus less on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea than on the United States. There is a reason for this skewed focus. The United States is the main threat to global governance, with its antiquated attachment to its Constitution rather than to multilateral human rights treaties and institutions. Fonte explains the philosophical development of this antagonism toward the United States (and others holding similar views elsewhere), and poses his own alternative, which he labels “Philadelphian sovereignty,” in contrast to the more familiar term, “Westphalian sovereignty.”

The point is more than semantic, because Fonte is not simply defending national sovereignty in the abstract (and indeed the concept has a plethora of sometimes contradictory definitions). Instead, he is defending how America has developed the concept, resting on the Constitution’s opening phrase, “We the People.”

For Americans, sovereignty is not an abstract concept of international law and politics, nor was it ever rooted in an actual “sovereign” as head of state. Starting with the Revolution, we rejected sovereignty and legitimacy outside of a constitutional framework of representative government. “No taxation without representation” was one early formulation, and “We the People” the most famous and broadly influential. Americans see themselves as personally vested with sovereignty, an ineluctable attribute of citizenship, and they therefore react with appropriate concern when globalistas insist that “pooled” or “shared” sovereignty will actually benefit them. Since most Americans already believe they have too little control over government, the notion of giving up any authority to unfamiliar peoples and governments whose tangible interests likely bear little relation to our own is decidedly unappealing.
Moreover, for those watching recent E.U. developments, events there are a source ofconsiderable concern rather than admiration. Euroskeptics (or Eurorealists, as they prefer) have repeatedly highlighted the E.U.’s “democratic deficit,” a phrase often associated with Margaret Thatcher’s E.U. critique. Not only are E.U. institutions and processes remote, opaque, and unaccountable but also, as a consequence, they lack the legitimacy so fundamental to acceptable governance. The euro’s unfolding debacle only underlines this point.

Fonte provides several case studies of the global-governance philosophy at work, including international efforts to direct U.S. domestic policy; transmogrifying the laws of war to constrain U.S. options and practices; the International Criminal Court (ICC); isolating and delegitimizing Israel; and international migration and assimilation policies. The globalista agenda is lengthy, including major issues such as climate change, but Fonte’s examples certainly rank among their top priorities.

In describing the intrusion of foreign actors into U.S. domestic policy, Fonte uses a phrase of former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, “global domestic politics,” which neatly captures the problem. In the globalista view, there is no room for national variation from their norms, or tolerance for contrary majorities in different countries. This attitude explains the ongoing efforts to homogenize E.U. member states, and the growing tendency to second-guess what have been seen historically as entirely domestic issues. Fonte focuses primarily on how various seemingly innocuous international “human rights” conventions, and numerous U.N. bodies (such as the United Nations Human Rights Council), have been used to criticize and harass the United States in recent years.

Fonte does considerable original thinking about how America has assimilated immigrants, cutting through much of the current debate about illegal immigration and how to deal with it. By stressing the longstanding importance of Americanizing newcomers to the United States, an approach directly contrary to the “multicultural” view now embraced by the international Left, Fonte explains why the globalistas are so irritated by our adherence to the Constitution and our other basic values. The debate here is not about enforcement versus amnesty or any of the other hot buttons, but what to do with people who are in this country and almost certainly staying.

During the height of immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, our ancestors had no hesitancy in tossing millions of new arrivals straight into the melting pot, and no one was embarrassed by Americanization. Because the melting pot directly forms the shared values of citizens who see themselves as “We the People,” when assimilation is disrupted or frustrated, the unifying bonds of citizenship are similarly weakened. These are critical issues regardless of one’s views on the broader question of who should be let in and who excluded.

In considering traditional foreign affairs issues, the laws of war, the ICC, and the isolation of Israel are all excellent examples of the globalist approach. They seek to exploit both international law and domestic U.S. law to limit, constrain, and intimidate the United States and its political and military leaders from robustly defending our national interests abroad. One should begin here with skepticism for the very idea of international law, a skepticism now increasingly justified by a torrent of wide-ranging scholarship. Jeremy Rabkin, John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith, Eric Posner, and many others have dealt the globalists setback after setback, precluding even the Obama Administration from following its basic proclivities.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the proponents of “lawfare” have used this strategy successfully against Israel, and increasingly against the United States. By threatening U.S. officials with prosecution for alleged war crimes or human rights abuses, asserting jurisdiction over them when they travel abroad, for example, the globalistas seek to impose their version of international law over our own constitutional authorities. The American response should be that we recognize no higher earthly authority than the Constitution, which no valid treaty can supersede or diminish. And we certainly do not accept that “customary international law” which we do not voluntarily follow can bind us, especially today’s variety, formed not by actual custom but by leftist academics who hardly have our best interests at heart.

John Fonte deserves our thanks and praise for wading through the morass of globalista writings, conference papers and speeches, U.N. resolutions and reports, and the panoply of studies written over decades while many in the United States proceeded blithely on their way, unaware of the mounting challenges to “Philadelphian sovereignty.”

The struggle to preserve our constitutional system of liberty and representative government is a great unfolding political war, and the outcome is far from certain. Those armed with Fonte’s analysis, however, will be well-armed and heavily armored for the battles ahead.

John R. Bolton, a former U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Sunday, May 27, 2012



I bet her Mama is ticked off about this one.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Sharia Law in U.S.

15,000 gather to apply Sharia Law in U.S.

From World Net Daily

Shariah law is famous for making headlines in the West over its penalties, such as beheadings and amputations; its treatment of women and the violence that is allowed, and its relegation to those who follow other faiths to a subservient status.

Now, it seems, there’s a new move to expand its influence in the United States, with a weekend conference in Hartford, Conn., on “Understanding Shariah” and “how to apply Shariah in a society where most people are not of the same faith.”

The conference is being assembled by the Islamic Circle of North America, which earlier was revealed through a campaign by Stop Islamization of Nations, to be trying to “mainstream Shariah.”

Officials say they expect some 15,000 to attend the events at the 37th annual ICNA convention.
“Muslims need to be educated about Shariah,” said Naeem Baig, the organization’s vice president for public affairs, in announcing the events.

“There’s a need for the community to better understand what Shariah means to us, and how to apply Shariah in a society where most people are not of the same faith,” he said.

Get a hands-on instruction book on how to stop the advance of Shariah in your city, in “Stop the Islamization of America.”

The conflict between Shariah and Western justice, which was outlined nearly a millennium ago in the Magna Carta and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, has been on the rise recently.

The result has been a move among states, including Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee and Kansas, to make statements that would prevent American jurisprudence from taking a back seat to the dictates of the Islamic religious law in American courts.

Baig called the concern “a deep-down hatred of Muslims” and said, “They don’t want to see Muslims in America.”

See what people should be doing in the battle, in “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide To The Resistance.”

ICNA said many of the convention programs focus on educating Muslims about Shariah, and the “myths” about Shariah.

But the Stop Islamization of Nations campaign is buying ad space for a billboard calling on Americans to learn the dark side of Islamic law.

The effort’s leader, Pamela Geller, says her group has one real purpose – to counter the impact of the pro-Shariah billboard campaign of the Islamic Circle of North America, an alleged Muslim Brotherhood front organization.

Geller pointed out that captured internal documents indicated ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group.
“Muslim Brotherhood groups in America are trying to … mainstream Shariah,” Geller warned.
The billboard will lead people to the Refuge from Islam site.

“The Muslim Brotherhood group ICNA needs to lie to Americans about Shariah and advance a false narrative about the most extreme and radical ideology on the face of the earth. Period,” Geller said.
“They don’t want Americans to know the truth that the gendercide of honor killings, the clitorectomies, the stonings, and the 1,400 years of cultural annihilations and enslavements (that) are all Shariah-mandated,” Geller said.

“We need to counter this campaign publicly. We must educate America and arm freedom lovers with facts,” Geller said.

Geller said Muslims have to take a bold step to truly become Americans.

“The U.S. should be calling upon Muslim groups in America to renounce and reject Shariah if they want to be American citizens,” Geller said.

It was ICNA’s Kansas City pro-Shariah billboard that suggested the response. The Shariah promotion says,”Shariah: Got questions? Get answers? Call 1-855-Shariah.”

Jihad Watch publisher and Islam analyst Robert Spencer said the ICNA campaign is an effort to muddy the waters on Islam.

“ICNA is trying to whitewash Shariah, to hoodwink Americans into thinking that concerns about it are all due to ‘misconceptions’ that can easily be cleared up,” Spencer said.

Spencer added that any inquiries about Shariah’s darker side will receive soft replies.

“I expect that if any inquirers asked about stonings, amputations, the denial of the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women and non-Muslims, they’ll be told that none of that is really part of Shariah,” Spencer said.

“ICNA’s goal is to foster complacency and ignorance about Shariah on the part of Americans,” Spencer said.

The very idea of Shariah is antithetical to the freedoms on which America was based, many have concluded. WND columnist Diana West was writing about a new book, “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me.”

For that book, Geert Wilders unearthed some statements revealing the Founding Fathers’ perspective on Islam. She wrote:
“In 1916, Roosevelt observed: ‘Wherever the Mohammedans have had a complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.’
“Roosevelt rejected as ‘na├»ve’ the notion that ‘all religions are the same.’ Some religions, he explained, ‘give a higher value to each human life, and some religions and belief systems give a lower value.’”

And, she noted, “John Quincy Adams wrote that Muhammad ‘poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.’”

Explained West, “The capital letters are Adams’, by the way, and the source Wilders draws from is ‘The American Annual Register of 1827-28-29,’ where Adams published unsigned essays in 1830 (listed in Lynn H. Parsons’ annotated bibliography of Adams’ works) in between his tenure as president and his return to Congress.”


In 2010 the people of Oklahoma overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment banning the use of Sharia Law. It was signed into law by their Governor.

CAIR sued the sate in Federal Court and Judge  Vicky Miles LaGrange overturned the will of the people.

The 10th district Federal Court of Appeals upheld the
Lower Court Ruling.
The Kansas Governor just yesterday signed into law a similar measure. CAIR already promised to fight it.

Our problem in this country is, we have a Muslim in the White House.  Even if you disagree with me about him being a Muslim, you must agree that he is a Muslim sympathizer.  In either case, he is making every attempt to subvert the US and the west as a whole while he can.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Obama event sponsored by socialist group

1996 ad: Obama event sponsored by socialist group

A 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper shows President Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.

Buzzfeed.com reporter Andrew Kaczynski posted on his Twitter account an image of the Hyde Park Herald ad for the Feb. 25, 1996, DSA event, billed as “the first townhall meeting on economic insecurity.”

WND first reported on the event in 2008.

Obama has shown evidence of a larger relationship with the DSA.

The panelists at the 1996 DSA event included Obama, then a candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; William Julius Wilson, a longtime DSA activist from the Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson from the University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, a member of DSA’s National Political Committee.

According to the archive of the DSA’s March-April 1996 newsletter, New Ground, reviewed by WND, Obama reportedly addressed a crowd of over 300 people, discussing a theme from his campaign, “What does it take to create productive communities?”

Obama reportedly outlined how government can play “constructive” roles in bettering society.
Reported the DSA newsletter:
One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign is ’what does it take to create productive communities,’ not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first is ’human capital development.’ By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a ‘workforce preparation strategy.’ Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also true that the status quo is not tenable.

A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the ‘social wage’ approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By ‘workforce preparation strategy,’ Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.

Working within Democratic Party
The DSA is a member of the Socialist International, the world’s largest socialist group.
As WND was first to report the DSA has been closely linked to the Democratic Party, in particular to the party’s Progressive Caucus.

Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress.

Ad for socialist event featuring Barack Obama

The Democratic Socialists of America’s chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to “socialism” in the eyes of most Americans.

“Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work,” explains an organizing document of the DSA. “The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals.”

Nevertheless, as WND reported, the goal of the DSA has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring “The Internationale,” the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism.

Another song on the site was “Red Revolution,” sung to the tune of “Red Robin.” The lyrics went: “When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there’ll be no more lootin’ when we start shootin’ that Wall Street throng.”

Another song removed after WND’s expose was “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?” The lyrics went: “Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, we’ll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.”

Obama connected to socialist group
Top Democratic Socialists of America members have been closely linked for years to Obama.
Quentin Young, considered the father of the U.S. single-payer health-care movement, is a longtime Democratic Socialists of America activist. Young has had a relationship with Obama, particularly in the 1990s, when he reportedly advised Obama on health care.

Young was reportedly present at a 1995 meeting at the home of former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, who was said to have launched Obama’s political career.

Young has been active in Chicago socialist circles and was previously accused of membership in a communist group. In 1992, Chicago’s branch of the Democratic Socialists of America awarded Young, a member, with their highest honor, the Debs Award.

In a 2008 article in the official Communist Party USA magazine, Young noted Obama previously expressed support for a single-payer universal health-care program, although he later waffled when asked about his position.

As an Illinois state senator representing a mostly black district on the South Side of Chicago, Obama publicly supported universal health care. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin Amendment, which did not pass but would have amended the Illinois state Constitution to add health care to the list of basic rights for residents.

Meanwhile, Obama spoke at the March 29, 1998, memorial service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America member Saul Mendelson.

Timuel Black, a member activist, mediated political disputes on behalf of Obama in the 1990s and was reportedly involved in Obama’s campaign committee during his successful 2004 Senate race.
Longtime member and activist Arnold Wolf was a member of “Rabbis for Obama” and has held fundraisers in his home for Obama, including a function in 1995 that was aimed at introducing Obama to the Hyde Park activist community.

Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, has been honored by Democratic Socialists of America. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina served on Obama’s National Latino Advisory Council.

WND reported Medina, speaking at a 2009 Washington, D.C., conference, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the progressive electorate and help ensure a progressive governing coalition for the long term.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Sunday, May 20, 2012


 About three weeks ago I posted a blog entitled “brainwashed”.   
 It was about a Washington Post article ridiculing Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, for saying there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. ”
Well, I know there are SOME Communist in the Democratic Party.  The only question is “how many.    Thinking about that post and about Rep. West’s remarks prompted me to write this post.  I guess you could call it a follow-up post.

On January 10, 1963, Florida US Representative Albert Sydney Herlong, Jr gave a speech outlining what he believed to be the 45 methods communist were using to take over America.

Just to put things in perspective, this was a mere three months after the infamous Cuban Missile Crises which took place in October of 1962.  I remember that series of events quite well because I was serving in the Air Force at the time, and was stationed at Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico.

Here is that list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963.  As you read this list, 49 years later, I think you will be shocked by the number of them that have been accomplished.

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike. 

Now, I am not saying that the U.S. is now under Communist control, but don’t you find it kind of spooky that of the 45 issues listed, nearly all of them have come to pass.  Remember this was in January 1963.
The question that comes to mind is “why and how did so many come to pass”.  American's have enjoyed great prosperity over the past 40 or so years to be sure, but we have also lost our moral compass and direction.  I was very much of out of touch with what was happening in this country for four years beginning around February of 1960.  I lived in Puerto Rico for the first three of those years, and at a very isolated Air Force base near Limestone Main for the final year.

When I returned to “civilization” in early 1964, I could hardly believe the moral and social decline that had occurred, and was if fact still occurring in this country.

Just to refresh your memory: There was the “Bay of Pigs” incident, and of course The Cuban missile crisis which I have already mentioned.

In 1963 the news media showed women burning their bras as the women's liberation movement took off.  Martin Luther King was jailed in April and civil unrest was being brought to the forefront.  On August 28th the media brought us live coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous "I had a dream" speech.  

In November of 1963 President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and our nation mourned.
So you see, while long since forgotten, the early sixties could very well have been, the most important years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States.  This brings me to one final and extremely important decision that was made during this period.   On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.

Certainly, one would have to agree that all of these events have had a profound impact on the way our current social structure has been changed. Personally, if I had to choose one specific event that has demonstrated the demoralization of our country, it would have to be the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in June of 1963.

I’m sure I don’t have to remind anyone of the long haired, flea infested, pot smoking, war protesting Hippies of the Viet Nam war years.  The only difference between them and the OWS protesters of today is, the OWS protesters don’t seem to have a clue what they are protesting.   Most of them are just there for the sex and drugs and handouts.

Now, do you still think Rep. West is a nut-job.

Saturday, May 19, 2012


Why is it so important WHERE Obama was born? 
According to the Constitution of the United States, if a person was NOT born in the United States, then BOTH parents MUST be U.S. citizens for that person to be a “natural born citizen”.  Obama’s father was not a citizen.  That fact is not disputed, so place of birth determines if Obama is eligible to be President.   
So far, the only documents that “prove” he was born in the U.S. have been proven to be forgeries.  That is why the following information is so important. 

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White—which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

Also, I would like to add that this agency asked authors to write their own bios.  Why would he say he was born in Kenya if he was not?

Of course, a Kenyan birth would preclude his becoming president, but in 1991, Obama was not thinking that far ahead.

There also was an internal bulletin from the Kenyan National Security Intelligence Service, or NSIS, that states that the Kenyan government in 2009 commissioned a cultural museum in the Obama home village of Kogelo to honor the “birthplace of President Barack Obama” and rededicate the tomb of his father, Barack Obama Sr.

The 2009 NSIS bulletin report said:
The ministry of national heritage this month hosted a cultural festival in Kogelo and commissioned a cultural museum on a plot donated by a member of the Kogelo community. The cultural festival was attended by the minister for national heritage, William ole Ntimama and U.S. ambassador, Michael Ranneberger.

This was to honour the birthplace of President Obama and re-dedicate the tomb of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., the president’s late father. But the project had been delayed because of ownership wrangles surrounding the plot.

According to an article in the Kenyan Daily Nation newspaper July 5, 2010, the Kenyan government’s plans to build a 112 million Kenyan Schilling ($1.3 million) cultural center at Kogelo was locked in a dispute over who should donate land to the government for the project.

The Daily Nation, which published an artist’s sketch of the proposed Kogelo cultural center, referred to it as Obama’s “ancestral home.”

The NSIS memo suggests the Kenyan intelligence agency kept a close watch on the Obama family in Africa.

It noted the Kenyan government provided assistance to Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, in the form of additional security and a government stipend of 50,000 Kenyan Schillings ($575) per month.

A Kenyan blog, “Jaluo,” reported that Grandmother Sarah caused family conflict when she visited Moammar Gadhafi in Libya “to the surprise and chagrins of the White House in Washington, D.C.,” and “without a proper delegation and approval of the entire family.”

The NSIS bulletin echoed the concern that Sarah Obama was visiting Muslim countries on her own initiative, commenting, “Mama Sarah had requested government assistance to travel to Mecca, Saudi Arabia for Hajj pilgrimage,” but “the Saudi Arabia government through its Nairobi embassy has come to her aid” by announcing “she will be a state guest in Saudi Arabia during her time there.”
WND also reported Kenyan MP James Orengo at one point asked the nation’s parliament, “How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”

On the day after Obama’s election, MP Boni Khalwale asked fellow members, “Could we allow … a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA?”

In addition, a number of media sources – including National Public Radio – reported Obama’s birthplace as Kenya prior to his election as president.

Another reference was made in 2008 in the Nigerian Observer.
Under a Washington dateline, Solomon Asowata wrote, “Americans will today go to the polls to elect their next president with Democratic Party candidate, Senator Barack Obama largely favoured to win. The Kenyan-born Senator will, however, face a stiff competition from his Republican counterpart.”

An African Travel Magazine once reported, “As Kenyan born U.S. Senator Barack Obama jets into Kenya today as part of his African tour, concerns have once again been raised on the security preparations for other visitors and residents.”

An article in the Sunday Standard in Kenya begins, “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”

The article is credited to the wire service Associated Press. However, it could not be found either in the AP archives online or the African newspaper’s website.

Also, an African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster referred to President Obama’s birthplace as being outside of the United States.

A report by Modern Ghana posted in advance of the president’s visit stated his birthplace was on the continent of Africa.

“For Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth,” the report said.

AND, how about this.

Thursday, May 17, 2012


About That Obama Enemies List

  • Alec MacGillis
  • May 16, 2012
One of the rewards of being a loyal Wall Street Journal subscriber is that one gets to read things one might not see anywhere else. For instance, in Wednesday's paper there was a chilling front-page scoop about the fact that it was an American drone that had tipped off the Turkish military to a suspected caravan of Kurdish militants near the Turkey-Iraq border last year—a caravan that turned out to be nothing but local penny-ante smugglers carrying gasoline and other goods, a fact that was discovered only after Turkish planes killed 34 of the 38 of the men.

Or one might read, in the paper's opinion pages, about the “enemies list” that Barack Obama has drawn up, to sic his allies on those who would dare challenge him, a la Richard Nixon. What, you haven't heard about the enemies list? Well, that's because whatever lib'rul-media outlet you depend on has not deigned to acknowledge this monstrosity. But here is the fearless Kimberly Strassel bringing us the word in her op-ed column:
Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

Got that? Identifying on a campaign Web site the people who are giving to the opponent's super PAC in six and seven-figure increments is the equivalent of Nixon's enemies list, which, as John Dean explained it at the time, was designed to “screw” targeted individuals via “grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, etc.” 

OK, that seems a bit of a stretch. But Strassel has more. She reported a few days later that someone has been doing research into one of the people identified on the campaign Web site—Vandersloot, the CEO of the skin-care products company Melaleuca, who has given Romney's Super PAC $1 million.
About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee. Mr. Wolf sent a fax to the clerk's office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a private cellphone number.

Some digging revealed that Mr. Wolf was, until a few months ago, a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He's found new work. The ID written out at the top of his faxes identified them as coming from "Glenn Simpson." That's the name of a former Wall Street Journal reporter who in 2009 founded a D.C. company that performs private investigative work. The website for that company, Fusion GPS, describes itself as providing "strategic intelligence," with expertise in areas like "politics." That's a polite way of saying "opposition research."

Oooh, now this is getting good. Good enough for the other branch of Murdochia, Fox News, to fly into a tizzy. Someone was looking into VanderSloot's past! Wait, that sounds kind of familiar. Is it what Nixon did with his enemies? No, it's ... what I do as a reporter! I have no idea what Mssrs. Wolf and Simpson are up to in Idaho, other than looking into publicly-available court documents as anyone is entitled to do. But I know that a few months ago, I spent several weeks trying to learn as much as possible about some other big donors, the hedge fund managers who have shifted their giving from the Democrats to the Republicans. I called their rivals and ex-business partners, I called their college professors, I may even have looked up some court records! And I remember that there were a few people I called who asked me why I was trying to learn about these men and their political views—wasn't it their own business? And I remember saying something like, well, sure, everyone's views are their personal views, but when you start cutting checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars and giving them to super PACs, you are bringing your personal views into the public realm in a rather significant way, and the people who's job it is to report on this whole democracy thing of ours are going to take a closer look at you and your views.

But that's not how the Journal editorial board sees it. It weighed in after Strassel's columns with a thunderclap of disapproval, and a suggestion:
All of this is also a reason to reconsider rules that require the disclosure of political donations. This sounds appealing in theory, the Supreme Court has ruled that disclosure is Constitutional, and these columns have supported it as part of a political compromise that would allow unlimited donations. But it's increasingly clear that the real point of these disclosure laws is not to inform voters but to get donor names in order to intimidate them from participating in politics. The goal is to dispatch hired guns like Mr. Simpson on political opponents to trash their reputations.

Democrats and their left-wing allies should understand that Republicans and Mormons will not be the only targets. If Democrats think it is "legitimate" to prowl and publish the divorce records of Romney donors, no one should feign shock if some right-wing investigator is soon doing the same to Mr. Obama's bundlers and super PAC donors. A President who claims to want "civility" in political discourse will reap what he sows if he plays by Nixonian rules.

I'll grant the Journal this much: it's likely that more and more mega-donors indeed are going to seek out ways to give that are undisclosed—it is the reason why Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS group is raising so much, because, as a group that focuses on “issues,” not “elections,” it does not have to name its donors. But this shift is a travesty, not a solution, and it's why anti-disclosure loopholes like the “issues” groups need to be closed. Simply put: When you are giving on the level that Citizens United and related rulings allow you to give, you not only invite scrutiny, you demand it. When you are giving at levels hundreds of times larger than the $2,500 maximum for a regular donation to a campaign, or thousands of times larger than the size checks regular people send to candidates, then you are setting yourself apart. And the only thing that the rest of the citizenry has left to right the balance even slightly is to give you some added scrutiny—to see what personal interests, biases, you name it, might be prompting you to influence the political system in such an outsized way. It's all we've got, really—the Internet, the phone call, the visit to the courthouse. And yes, this applies to everyone. Why does everyone on the right know so much about George Soros? Because they were outraged at the scale of his giving in 2004 and 2006 and dug up everything they could on him. As is only right and proper. And now people are going to look into Frank VanderSloot, Harold Simmons and Paul Singer and the rest of Romney's million-dollar club.

For more on this, see David Weigel, who got to it a day before me and, as usual, nailed it. Also, be sure to check out the deeply-reported investigative piece by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones looking into Melaleuca and the other “multilevel marketing” companies whose owners (often Mormon, as it happens, though not in the case of Amway) are contributing huge amounts to Romney's campaign and Super-PAC. It's a disconcerting piece. Or, as Strassel and the Journal would probably have it, the equivalent of the Watergate break-in.