What is the Obama Administration doing to uncover home-grown terrorists?
From an editorial in Investor's Business Daily:
While the essential ingredient in these cases is militant Islam, we have to wonder if the left isn't making otherwise normal Americans vulnerable to such treasonous seductions. After all, the hate-America lobby — led by the American Civil Liberties Union and often cheered by the media — has comforted even the most guilty in the war on terror, including the 9/11 mastermind and other Gitmo detainees.
How can you not read a column that begins with this premise: "President Obama is presiding over one of the most corrupt administrations in American history."
Read Jeffrey T. Kuhner's latest at the link below:
The Wall Street Journal offers some insight into the real reason Sen. Evan Bayh has turned his back on Barack Obama and the far-left Congressional leadership that hijacked the Democratic Party.
From the WSJ:
The political retirement of Evan Bayh, at age 54, is being portrayed by various sages as a result of too much partisanship, or the Senate's dysfunction, or even the systemic breakdown of American governance. Most of this is rationalization. The real story, of which Mr. Bayh's frustration is merely the latest sign, is the failure once again of liberal governance.
For the fourth time since the 1960s, American voters in 2008 gave Democrats overwhelming control of both Congress and the White House. Republicans haven't had such large majorities since the 1920s. Yet once again, Democratic leaders have tried to govern the country from the left, only to find that their policies have hit a wall of practical and popular resistance.
Democrats failed in the latter half of the 1960s, as the twin burdens of the Great Society and Vietnam ended the Kennedy boom and split their party. They failed again after Watergate, as Congress dragged Jimmy Carter to the left and liberals had no answer for stagflation. They failed a third time in the first two Bill Clinton years, as tax increases and HillaryCare led to the Gingrich Congress before Mr. Clinton salvaged his Presidency by tacking to the center.
A fourth crackup is already well underway and is even more remarkable considering how Democrats were set up for success. Inheriting a recession amid GOP failures, Democrats had the chance to restore economic confidence and fix the financial system with modest reforms that would let them take credit for the inevitable recovery. Yet only 13 months later, Democrats are down in the polls, their agenda is stymied by Democratic opposition, and their House and Senate majorities are in peril as moderates like Mr. Bayh flee the scene of this political accident.
The signs of the Apocalypse are everywhere for the far left. A Republican wins Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Air America goes off the air. Gitmo is still open. Obamacare is on life-support. Democrats are about lose control of both houses of Congress. Mainstream media ratings are in the tank.
From Bill O'Reilly's latest column on the demise of the far left:
Just look at the polls, where 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. So you figure the far left is less than half of that. In addition, radical left-wing media outlets life MSNBC and Air America are failing. Yeah, Al Franken won in Minnesota, but that's was an anomaly. Today, he'd lose big.
If President Obama wants to avoid the fate of Jimmy Carter, he must move quickly to the center. He must be a tougher guy on terrorism, rethink the health care deal so Americans can understand it, and stimulate the economy by targeted tax cuts, not massive government spending.
With his power waning quickly, Mr. Obama has no time to lose.
It doesn't appear that Barack Obama's Muslim-heritage or his dazzling personality have won the U.S. many friends among the radical Islamic community.
Let's review what Obama has done in the past year to make life easier for Islamic radicals whose stated mission in life is to kill American citizens:
Obama has released dozens of terrorists from Guantanamo and plans to close the military prison entirely.
He intends to bring some of the world's most dangerous terrorists, captured on the battlefield, to United States soil for trial in civilian courtrooms.
He's traveled the world to apologize for U.S. foreign policy and has canceled major weapons system. The groveling hasn't worked, either.
The scheduled surrender in Afghanistan announced recently by our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president hasn't done the trick.
What's it going to take or how many Americans have to die before Barack Obama and his far-left cronies in the White House begin to take terrorism seriously?
From POLITICO:
The Nigerian man charged with the Christmas Day bombing attempt aboard Northwest Flight 253, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, reportedly spent time in Yemen after graduating from a London university in 2008. According to ABC News, Abdulmutallab has told authorities that, while in Yemen, Al Qaeda operatives crafted the explosive device which was sewn into Abdulmutallab's underwear.
"Yesterday just highlights the fact that sending this many people back — or any people back — to Yemen right now is a really bad idea," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. "It's just dumb… If you made a list of what the three dumbest countries would be to send people back to, Yemen would be on all the lists."
"I think it's a major mistake," Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said about prisoner releases to Yemen. "I don't think Guantanamo should be closed, but if we're going to close it I don't believe we should be sending people to Yemen where prisoners have managed to escape in the past… Obviously, if [Abdulmutallab] did get training and direction from Yemen, it just adds to what is already a dangerous situation."
Read the full story, "Xmas bomb bid complicates Gitmo plan," at POLITICO.com
Syndicated columnist and liberal icon Nat Hentoff plans to publish a three-part series on the many troubling aspects of Obamacare. Hentoff is scared to death about a government takeover of health care and says you should be too.
The highlights below are from his first column, "Be scared: Obamacare endangers Americans' lifespans"
Hentoff writes:
Much of the press coverage of the Democrats' health-care legislation, now fiercely embattled in Congress, focuses on the public option, the actual long-term costs and tax increases, and the amendment barring funding for abortions, but the cold heart of Obamacare is its overpowering of the doctor-patient relationship — eventually resulting in the premature ending of many Americans' lives for being too costly.
To call the dangers of this legislation "death panels" obscures the real-life consequences to Americans, not only the elderly, of a federal government-run health-care bureaucracy. In the Senate bill, for instance, Medicare doctors whose treatments of certain, mostly elderly, patients costs more than a set government figure each year, will be punished by losing part of their own incomes.
Is this what presidential candidate Barack Obama meant by "Change we can believe in?" Even if you voted for him, is this the change you will believe in if your doctor is overruled by the government in his or her treatment decisions about you?
Remember those federal bureaucrats recently ruling on breast cancer screening? Dr. James Thrall, chairman of the American College of Radiology and a Harvard Medical School professor, said the resulting furor of dissent by doctors showed (Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18) that rulings "based on costs and large group averages, not individuals" lead him to fear that, "we are entering an era of deliberate decisions where we choose to trade people’s lives for money."
Is there anything you want to say to your representatives in the House or Senate before the final vote is taken? If you don't act urgently now, you may become part of another collective statistic — American annual death rates.
I'm scared, and I do mean to scare you.
We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be. That decision is way above their pay grades.
The Washington Times is troubled by the Obama Justice Department's attempt to cover up obvious voter intimidation on the part of the Black Panthers.
From a Times' editorial:
Could it be that President Obama's legal team is imploding due to a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party? So many new developments regarding the Black Panther case occurred in the latter half of last week that it is hard keeping up with them all. But none of them look good for the Obama administration or for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Justice Department.
The case involves paramilitary-garbed Panthers caught on videotape (which was backed by copious testimony) engaged in what observers say were intimidating and racially charged activities outside a Philadelphia polling booth on presidential Election Day in 2008. Even though a judge was ready to enter a default judgment against the Black Panthers, based on a case brought by career attorneys at the Justice Department, the Obama administration suddenly decided last spring to drop three of the four cases and punish the final one with an incredibly weak injunction.
Read the full editorial, "Justice thwarts Black Panther subpoenas," at the newspaper's Web site.
Barack Obama recently left the country for an Asian trip, but the country left Obama months ago as he continues to push a left-wing agenda the majority of Americans don't want.
Most Republicans saw through Obama, but now independents have opened their eyes, with 47% of independent voters telling Rasmussen Reports they strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen warn that Obama must drastically change course or his presidency is doomed.
From their column:
The off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia were indeed a warning sign to Mr. Obama. While the presidents ratings aren't likely to dip much further by year's end — given the size and support of his base — by focusing exclusively on his base he could create lasting political problems that plague the remainder of his term.
Unless Mr. Obama changes his approach and starts governing in a more fiscally conservative, bipartisan manner, the independents that provided his margin of victory in 2008 and gave the Democrats control of Congress will likely swing back to the Republicans, putting Democratic control of Congress in real jeopardy.
The latest Rasmussen Reports give Obama little hope unless he starts listening to the people:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 66% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 20% Strongly Approve and 47% Strongly Disapprove.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve.
Overall, 50% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) now disapprove.
Law professor criticizes far left's use of race card
"The increasingly hysterical use of the the race card by liberal columnists, bloggers and politicians reflects the last gasps of people who, being unable to win an argument on the merits, seek to end the argument," writes William Jacobson, associate clinical professor of Law at Cornell Law School.
From a recent op-ed by Jacobson:
While the false accusation of racism is not a new tactic, it has been refined by Obama supporters into a toxic powder which is causing damage to the social fabric of the country by artificially injecting race into every political issue.
The American people, while they still mostly like Obama on a personal level, increasingly oppose his policies and plans. Democrats know that the debate on the merits of initiatives such as health care and cap-and-trade has been won on the merits by the opposition.
Not surprisingly, the pace of racial accusations has picked up as opposition has grown. Just in the past few days the usual and not-so-usual suspects have been seeking to out-do each other in making accusations of racism including Eugene Robinson, Maureen Dowd, Jimmy Carter, Rep. Hank Johnson, Chris Matthews, a wide range of Democratic politicians, and of course, almost all of the mainstream media.
The effect of these accusations is poisonous. Race is the most sensitive and inflammatory subject in this country. By turning every issue, even a discussion of health care policy, into an argument about race, liberals have created a politically explosive mixture in which the harder they seek to suppress opposing voices, the harder those voices seek to be heard.
A guest column from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Center on the hysterical left's use of race to shut down all criticism of the Obama administration.
Race Card: Sign of Desperation
By Tony Perkins
Yesterday, the House voted 240 to 179 to censure Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) for saying the President was lying about aspects of his health care reform plan. What was more telling than the vote was the rhetoric that surrounded it. Those pushing to publicly flog Wilson avoided the subject at hand, the health care reform plan and whether or not the President's statements were false.
Rather, House members like Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) used the opportunity to say Wilson 's actions were motivated by racial animus. In an interview with CNN, Johnson said "I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside, intimidating people. That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked." On ABC's World News, referring to Wilson's comments, Lee said "Hate speech can turn into hate crimes."
Working out of the Left's classic playbook, former President Jimmy Carter, interviewed on NBC Nightly News, chimed in not only on Wilson's comments but on the public opposition to the President's liberal plans saying, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."
This is a classic move by the Left when they can't win the policy debate; they try to marginalize their opponents by calling them racist.
PA GOP: Sen. Bob Casey has some explaining to do over support of ACORN
In light of continuing scandals involving the far-left advocacy group ACORN, the U.S. Senate voted 83-7 to deny federal funding to the troubled organization.
Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania inexplicably was one of the seven Senators to vote against the Senate resolution, cementing his reputation as a puppet of liberal extremists.
Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Rob Gleason issued a statement saying he was pleased that the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to deny federal housing funds to The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, ACORN. However, Gleason questioned U.S. Sen. Bob Casey's decision to join six of his colleagues in support of ACORN funding.
Gleason's statement:
"Sen. Bob Casey's blind support of this corrupt organization is questionable at best. ACORN continues to be exposed as a corrupt organization that should not be receiving federal funds under any circumstance. The recent videos depicting ACORN on a number of occasions giving out advice on how to cheat and lie on your taxes were appalling and further confirmed my suspicions about this questionable organization.
"With all things we have learned about ACORN, I cannot understand how Senator Casey could support ACORN. Sen. Casey owes it to our Commonwealth and his constituents to explain his vote."
On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly by an 83-7 vote in favor of an amendment that stripped out funding to ACORN in a housing and transportation bill. ("Senate Denies ACORN Funding," Politico, 9/14/09, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27153.html) U.S. Senator Bob Casey was one of the seven votes against the amendment.
As many suspected, liberal Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not believe the Second Amendment protects a citizen's right to own firearms.
From a press release issued by the Libertarian Party:
America's third largest party reiterated its opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of federal judge Sonia Sotomayor after the nominee refused to give a firm answer on whether individuals have the right of self-defense.
"Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" Sotomayor asked when questioned by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) whether or not the Constitution guaranteed him the right of self-defense. "I can't think of one. I could be wrong."
"Whether you agree with her position or not, Judge Sotomayor has had no problem stating that things not directly found in the Constitution are 'settled law.' That's why it's troubling that when confronted with a constitutionally-enshrined principle she disagrees with, the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of one’s rights, things are suddenly muddled and up for debate," said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
"The Libertarian Party is the only party that never compromises in its defense of our Second Amendment-guaranteed rights. That's why we have opposed Judge Sotomayor's nomination from the moment we reviewed her troubling anti-gun record. Judge Sotomayor's answers Wednesday further show she believes the law should flow from her own personal biases and not the literal wording of the Constitution," said Ferguson.
Judge Sotomayor is the latest in a long line of hardline anti-gun activists nominated by President Obama to government positions where they would have the power to infringe on gun rights. Libertarians also opposed the nominations of anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder and anti-gun State Department legal adviser Harold Koh.
"The Libertarian Party will hold accountable at the ballot box any senator who votes to confirm Judge Sotomayor. America's nearly 90 million gun owners come from all walks of life and political beliefs – and they decide their vote on this issue. Libertarians look forward to speaking with them about the LP's fundamental belief in gun rights, and their senator's voting record on it," said Ferguson.
As if Pennsylvania residents needed another reason not to re-elect Arlen Specter.
Despite her clear lack of a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution, Sonia Sotomayor will be the first 'wise Latina' confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, a Democrat, issued the following statement today on the nomination of Sotomayor to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States:
"Judge Sonia Sotomayor brought to the Judiciary Committee hearings an outstanding record academically, as a prosecutor and as a commercial lawyer plus 17 distinguished years as a federal judge. At the hearings she displayed intellect, restraint and judicial demeanor. As the third woman and the first Hispanic, she will add needed diversity to the Supreme Court."
"I intend to vote for her and urge my colleagues to do the same."
From the Whispers column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN? Specter's new Democrat colleagues certainly are being generous to his re-election campaign.
House Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont each have donated $10,000 to Specter, as has Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
Pitching in $5,000 each were Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan wrote a $4,000 check and Sens. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico each ponied up $2,000.
The Hill, a Washington, D.C.-based newspaper, speculated that the generous donations might be an attempt to make up for the considerable sum Specter lost by defecting from the GOP.
He has refunded more than $100,000 to irate contributors who assumed they were giving their money to a Republican -- right up until the moment Specter turned turncoat.
Given Specter's atrocious polling numbers, we're thinking a less reckless way for his fellow senators to have spent their money would have been to toss it from the top of the Washington Monument.
Read the rest of the column at the newspaper's Web site.
The Supreme Court today overturned a lower court ruling written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor establishing racial quotas in a case involving New Haven, Conn., firefighters.
The top court ruled 5-4 that racial quotas are unconstitutional and sent the case back to the appeals court.
The ruling shows clearly what an intellectual lightweight Sotomayor is and also exposes her lack of basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution. That might explain why Barack Obama picked her for the court. Peas in a Pod.
Sotomayor will still get confirmed by the intellectual lightweights in the U.S. Senate, but at least the pretense of her qualification for the Supreme Court is no longer in question.
We now understand she was nominated because she's a Hispanic woman ... and not the most qualified person for the job. Isn't that filling a racial quota?
The problem with liberals is that they're stuck in the 1960s and 1970s. Time has passed them by.
Legal scholar: Sotomayor an intellectual lightweight
Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley has read 30 written opinions by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and says she is an intellectual lightweight. Kinda like the president who appointed her?
Americans United for Life: Obama Nominates Avowed Judicial Activist Judge Who Undermines Common Ground
Americans United for Life (AUL) President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest on Sonia Sotomayor:
"A vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice is a vote to strip Americans of the ability to choose for themselves how to regulate abortion. Our recent polling data speaks to this point of judicial activism: 69% of the American people believe that 'some federal judges have gone too far by doing more than just interpreting the law and instead are making new law.'
Barack Obama has found the perfect Supreme Court nominee in Sonia Sotomayor.
Far-left radical. Check.
Judicial Activist. Check.
Female. Check.
Minority. Check.
Those appear to be Sotomayor's chief qualifications for serving on the Supreme Court.
This is a woman who has said publicly that "empathy" is as important as the law when considering cases. From The Washington Post: Sotomayor "has stirred controversy by saying that judges' legal findings are informed by their own life experiences as well as their legal research."
This is a woman has has stated publicly (it's on tape) that judges have a policy-making role. And I thought the Constitution reserved that right for the Legislative branch. Has Sotomayor ever read the Constitution?
This is a woman who believes in racial quotas and supports partial-birth abortion.
This is the country's worst nightmare in electing Barack Obama last November. The radicals will take over the Supreme Court and will change this country by decree.
It's clear that the Sotomayor nomination is payback to the far-left loons who helped Obama get elected. Obama did not pick the most qualified person for the job, just someone who fit the liberal stereotype of a judge.
From The New Republic:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."
On his second day in office, Barack Obama signed an executive order to close the Guantanamo terrorist prison camp in Cuba and bring some of the most dangerous men in the world to the continental United States.
It was an ill-advised move to pander to the far-left, card-carrying ACLU crowd that could care less if American lives are placed in danger.
No so fast, says the U.S. Senate, including most of its Democratic members.
From The Washington Post:
The Senate voted overwhelmingly today to deny funding for President Obama's plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, and lawmakers in both parties vowed to withhold federal dollars until Obama decides the fate of the facility's 240 detainees.
The 90-6 vote represented a potentially serious setback for Obama, who as a presidential candidate vowed to close Guantanamo and who signed an executive order beginning the process soon after he took office. But although most Democrats agree that the facility should be closed, they have grown increasingly wary of the consequences if terrorist suspects are moved to the United States.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller warned Congress today that if Guantanamo detainees are released in the United States, they could pose a domestic threat. Mueller raised the concerns in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee a day after Senate Democrats, under pressure from Republicans, announced they would not release federal funds until Obama produced an acceptable plan.
South Dakota Sen. John Thune expressed the feeling of many of his Senate colleagues: "The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods. The American people don't want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their backyard, either."
And this from U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas: "No good purpose is served by allowing known terrorists, who trained at terrorist training camps, to come to the U.S. and live among us. Guantanamo Bay was never meant to be an Ellis Island."
Mueller echoed concerns during his testimony: "The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States."
From a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano from David K. Rehbein, National Commander, The American Legion:
Your report states that "Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages." Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as "Right Wing extremists"?
In spite of this incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased report, The American Legion and the Department of Homeland Security share many common and crucial interests, such as the Citizen Corps and disaster preparedness. Since you are a graduate of New Mexico Girls State, I trust that you are very familiar with The American Legion. I would be happy to meet with you at a time of mutual convenience to discuss issues such as border security and the war on terrorism. I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are.
You can read the full letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano from David K. Rehbein, National Commander, The American Legion, at this link.
If you believe the U.S. must do more to stem the flow of illegal aliens ...
If you oppose abortion-on-demand ...
If you protest high taxation and out-of-control government spending ...
You are a potential domestic terrorist, according to a new assessment released by the Obama Department of Homeland Security.
This would be the same Homeland Security Department that has banned the use of the word "terrorist" to describe Islamic extremists who want to kill Americans.
Now that we are living in the Obama-nation, the word "terrorist" is reserved for Americans with conservative beliefs.
And you wonder why gun sales are at an all-time high in the United States? It's only a matter of time before the liberal fascists move against Americans who believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spent Thursday morning making the rounds on the morning news shows to defend the Obama Administration's latest assault on conservative Americans.
From The Associated Press:
Napolitano described the report, issued last week, as part of the department's routine of analyzing intelligence information to give law enforcement agencies guidance on possible security threats.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, assailed Napolitano's department for the report and pressed the agency to apologize to veterans.
"To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," Boehner said.
The Obama Administration is turning to ACORN, the radical group responsible for injecting voter fraud into the 2008 election, to help out with conducting the 2010 Census.
What can possibly go wrong?
Plenty, according to Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Rob Gleason, who issued the following statement:
"ACORN's actions last year certainly did little to earn the public's trust and I am sure that most Americans are concerned about this group's ability to deliver an accurate count," Gleason said. "News first broke that the President wanted to move the U.S. census into the White House, now he is enlisting the help of ACORN, a group that is widely believed to be consistently breaking the law. President Obama is trying to interject politics into the 2010 U.S. census, hoping to increase the reach of his Party throughout the country. It will be tough to trust ACORN's counts or any data they submit.
"With the economy in decline it is sad to see that the President is so concerned about the 2010 census. I also find it even more troubling that the Census Bureau wouldn't be willing to offer these jobs to the many hard-working men and women already looking for a job, rather than do political favors for groups that helped elect our current president."
Read more about the controversy, read "Obama blamed for ACORN's role in census" by Mike Wereschagin, in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released the following statement on the Democrats' politicizing the U.S. Census:
"It is disappointing that President Obama would make the Census about politics rather than an accurate count of the American people by taking control of the process away from career professionals at the Department of Commerce and putting the most partisan chief of staff since H.R. Haldeman in the Nixon Administration in charge."
Columnist: Obama wants to rig Census Bureau to create permanent Democratic majority
William Warren, writing at GetLiberty.org, says the Obama administration is attempting to pull off one of the most nefarious power grabs since the Watergate era.
Obama is moving the Census Bureau out of the Commerce Department and into control of the White House in a blatant attempt to politicize the counting of Americans.
Why should you be concerned? Because the Democrats, who helped carry out the biggest voter fraud campaign in U.S. history in the November 2008 election, will now attempt to redraw Congressional districts to ensure a permanent Democratic Party majority.
From Warren's column:
If controlling the executive branch and maintaining a majority in both houses of Congress was not already enough power, President Obama is now poised to expand his sphere of authority to engulf the Census Bureau as well.
According to a recent article in CQ Politics, President Obama’s administration will be keeping the as-yet-unnamed director of the Census Bureau on a tight leash and under a watchful eye. Adding an extra layer of significance to this is the fact that the next national head-counting—performed every 10 years—is scheduled for 2010.
As the article explains, a senior White House official stated last Thursday that the director will "work closely with" the Obama administration—rather than reporting solely to the Commerce Secretary.
This story comes on the heels of an even more troubling report the previous day that the Census Bureau director would "report directly to" the Obama administration and completely bypass the Commerce Secretary. Apparently, the White House officials toned down the rhetoric after Republicans "accused the White House of attempting to gain advantage in the politically delicate process of counting Americans and of violating the law by circumventing the Commerce secretary."
Warren cautions about allowing the Obama power-grab to succeed.
There is no question that the Census process should be firmly off-limits to politics. The firewall of separation that has guarded the delicate head-counting process from potential corruption must not be breached at this time.
Barack Obama has promised transparency time and time again. Allowing him and Rahm Emanuel to dictate the activities of the Census Bureau would equate to nothing less than a veiled totalitarian power-grab and be yet another step away from the "hope and change" the Obama campaign so misleadingly promised the American people.
Read the full column, "Resisting the Politicization of the National Census," at GetLiberty.org
More than 700,000 people have watched the ad online, but NBC, the low-rated TV network that now caters to the far-left, won't allow the pro-life spot to be telecast during the Super Bowl.
Why would a corporation turned down money during these economic times?
The real reason NBC won't show the ad: It finally settles the abortion debate.
In an obvious concession to the far-left, President Barack Obama has taken the first step to closing the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
Closing Gitmo "would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice," read the draft executive order, a copy of which was leaked to The Associated Press.
The most obvious question is what will happen to the 245 al-Qaida and Taliban members capture on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Will Obama release them so they can kill more Americans? Will he bring them back to the continental United States? Where will they be housed?
And the broader question Obama has failed to answer: How does the closing make America safer?
"Guantanamo and the incarceration and interrogation of its inhabitants have saved thousands of American lives and untold tragedy," Investor's Business Daily wrote in a recent editorial. "While it has existed, America's enemies have had a harder time plying their trade."
I haven't heard too many members of Congress volunteer to accept the terrorists in their home states once Gitmo is closed.
I have a couple of suggestions for where to move the 245 terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
My first option would be the Yucca Mountain salt mines the government spent billions of dollars tunneling out to store spent nuclear fuel rods. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has blocked the use of Yucca Mountain for its intended purposes. How could Reid object to housing terrorists in Nevada? It's safer than nuclear waste, right Harry?
Another possibility is California, preferably the home district of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who owns vast vineyards. Pelosi could sponsor a work-release program putting the terrorists to work picking grapes.
As for housing them, I'm sure the Hollywood community would embrace their al-Qaida and Taliban brethren. Sean Penn, Barbra Steisand, Tim Robbins and the rest of the Hollywood left could take in the Gitmo prisoners.
If those two options don't suit Obama and the Democrats, how about turning the terrorists loose in the Chicago area? Obama spoke of shared sacrifice in his inaugural address. He can do his part.
Newspaper: McCain can blunt 'dangerous left-wing Congress'
There are plenty of reasons to elect John McCain, but perhaps one of the most urgent is to prevent a liberal takeover of U.S government.
From The Wall Street Journal:
Perhaps the best case for the McCain candidacy -- apart from national security -- is that he would be a check on what is likely to be an emboldened and dangerous left-wing Congress. He would surely work with Democrats on some things -- for the better perhaps on immigration, for the worse on energy "cap and trade" regulation. However, unlike President Bush, Mr. McCain wouldn't wait four years to use his veto pen.
In this difficult year, Mr. McCain has had the harder sale to make. His admirable personal tenacity has been better than his variable political argument. We'll find out Tuesday if biography trumps hope.
In response to recent comments by U.S. Congressman John Murtha that his constituents are racists and/or rednecks if they don't vote for Barack Obama, radio host and political commentator Doug Giles offers his own guide to Pennsylvania voters.
From Giles' column:
I have a question for my readers: Do you think Murtha works on being consistently ridiculous or does it come naturally? I think it's a natural gifting that's right up there with Gary Busey's brilliance.
Look, if not buying Barack's gobbledygook makes one a redneck then all I have to say is ... Yee-frickin'-haw! Slap some Charlie Daniels on the CD player, boil some crawdads and pass the moonshine, Jedediah, because I too ain't buying what he's a sellin'.
Here's a sampling from Giles designed to help Pennsylvania voters decided where they stand.
* If you think "socialism" when you hear Barack say "change," then you might be a redneck.
* If you think there's nothing about San Francisco that a rise in the ocean level could not cure, then you might be a redneck.
* If you think slick politicians who rise from a political dung heap like Chicago might not be the fresh breeze they purport to be, then you might be a redneck.
* If you think Michael Moore is John Murtha and Joy Behar's love child, then you might be a redneck.
* If you actually believe Obama's close buddy Bill Ayers when he says he's an anarchist, a Marxist and is unashamed of bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol building, then you might be a redneck.
* If you think Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, is more unhinged than a spider monkey that just had turpentine poured on its butt, then you might be a redneck.
Read the full list, "Pennsylvanian Voters: You Might Be a Redneck If ..." at Gile's Web site, http://clashradio.com/
Despite opening in more than 2,000 theaters, Oliver Stone's "W" tanked at the box-office, raking in $10.5 million over the weekend. The movie cost $30 million to make.
And most movies take in half of their opening gross the following weekend and continue to slide. That means "W" will not even recover its production costs in theaters.
Critics hated the movie and American film-goers decided to stay away in droves.
Oliver Stone makes really good movies ("Platoon," "Wall Street," "JFK") or he makes really bad movies ("Natural Born Killers," "The Doors," "Alexander).
Tony Phyrillas is the city editor and political columnist for The Mercury, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning daily newspaper in Pottstown, Pa. Phyrillas has won several national and state awards for his columns. Phyrillas has been featured on National Public Radio (NPR) and in The New York Times and is a frequent commentator on radio and television programs. He co-hosted "Talking Politics with Tony Phyrillas & Mike Pincus" on WPAZ 1370 AM.
RSS
Links to this post
