A Nation In Distress

A Nation In Distress

Monday, February 28, 2011

FAIR Legislative Upate

From FAIR:

Saudi National on Student Visa Arrested in Terror Plot

On Wednesday, FBI agents arrested Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a Saudi Arabian national who was in the U.S. on a student visa (F visa) for attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. (NY Times, Feb. 25, 2011) The FBI began tracking Aldawsari February 1 after a chemical supplier became suspicious of him and called law enforcement authorities. The company reported that Aldwasari attempted to purchase phenol (a chemical used to create the explosive picric acid) by telling the supply company that he was connected to a university and planned on using the chemical for “off-campus personal research.” (Reuters, Feb. 24, 2011) The FBI discovered that Aldawsari had already obtained most of the other chemical ingredients and supplies such as nitric and sulfuric acids, a hazmat suit, wiring, and a smoldering iron kit, making the phenol the last key component of the plot. (Id.)

Authorities believe that Aldawsari’s plan to explode the devices at U.S. targets was years in the making. Aldawsari, a 20-year-old chemical engineering student, stated in journal entries that he sought a student visa three years ago so that he could carry out terrorist attacks in the U.S. (Id.) From October 2008 to August 2009 he attended Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN where he took English classes. (Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 2011) Then in August 2009 Aldawsari enrolled at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, TX as a chemical engineering student. (Id.) Authorities said he attended Texas Tech for a year and a half before transferring to nearby South Plains College because of poor grades about a month ago. (Id.; NY Times, Feb. 25, 2011)

Government officials say that Aldawsari wrote in his journal that he was inspired by Osama bin Laden and wanted to create “an Islamic group under the banner” of al-Qaeda. (Washington Post, Feb. 25, 2011) “I excelled in my studies in high school in order to take advantage of an opportunity for a scholarship to America,” he allegedly wrote. (Id.) “And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” (Id.) His list of targets included the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush, homes of three former military guards at Abu Graib Prison, several dams in California and Colorado, and various parts of New York City. (Id.)

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, argued lenient U.S. immigration law was a major factor in this case. “We shouldn’t be surprised that terrorists continue to enter the U.S. on visas when our immigration laws are so loosely enforced. The 9-11 hijackers entered the U.S. after obtaining visas. And the Christmas Day bomber was able to board a plane en route to Detroit because he too had a visa,” he said. (Rep. Lamar Smith Press Release, Feb. 24, 2011) “History is only repeating itself because we are letting it. We must do more to screen visa applicants to prevent terrorists from entering the U.S. in the first place.” (Id.)

Aldwasari appeared in federal court in Texas for the first time on Friday where he pled not guilty. His attorney declined to comment as he left the Texas courtroom; however, he issued a statement saying, the “eyes of the world are on this case” and how Aldawsari is treated. (Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 2011) “This is not ”Alice in Wonderland,“ where the Queen said ‘First the punishment then the trial,'” the statement read. (Id.) “This is America, where everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, due process, effective representation of counsel and a fair trial.” If convicted Aldawsari faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. (Id.)

Kansas Makes Move to Repeal In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens

Earlier last week, the Kansas House of Representatives voted to approve a measure which would repeal a 2004 Kansas Law granting illegal aliens in-state tuition at Kansas colleges and universities. (Kansas City Star, Feb. 21, 2011; K.S.A. § 76-731a) The Republican-controlled Kansas House passed the bill, HB 2006, by a vote of 72-50. (Kansas State Legislature)

The lenient in-state tuition allowance for illegal aliens was signed into law almost seven years ago by then-governor Kathleen Sebelius. (Kansas City Star, Feb. 8, 2011) According to the current law, illegal aliens are eligible for the discounted in-state tuition rates regardless of their immigration status if they attended a Kansas high school for three or more years and intend to become citizens. (Kansas City Star, Feb. 21, 2011; K.S.A. § 76-731a). Since its enactment, legislators have made attempts to repeal the law but did not have the votes until conservatives gained more seats in last year’s election. (Id.) Sources conflict on whether current Republican governor Sam Brownback supports the measure. (Kansas City Star, Feb. 8, 2011; Lawrence Journal World, Feb. 23, 2011)

Kansas is currently one of ten states who have preferential in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens. (See 110 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 305/7e-5; K.S.A. § 76-731a; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 85-502; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 21-1-4.6; N.Y. Educ. Law § 6301.5; Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §§ 54.052-54.053; Utah Code Ann. § 53B-8-106; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 28B.15.012; Wisc. Stat. § 36.27(2)(cr)) Oklahoma had a similar law, but the state has since voted to repeal it. (See 70 Okl. Stat. §§ 3242, 3243.2) Kansas State Representative Caryn Tyson, a sponsor of the bill to repeal the law, said her constituents have made clear that they oppose allowing in-state tuition rates to continue for illegal aliens. “Our constituents know what they want, and they want support of [HB 2006],” she said. (Kansas City Star, Feb. 21, 2011)

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach also spoke out to legislatures to support the new repeal measure. “If you’re breaking federal law, you’re eligible for in-state tuition, but if you follow federal law, too bad, you don’t get the benefit. To me that’s shocking,” Kobach stated. (The Wichita Eagle, Feb. 9, 2011)

After clearing the House, the bill will now face an uncertain future in the Kansas Senate. Last Wednesday, the measure was referred to the Kansas Senate’s Committee on Federal and State Affairs for consideration. (Kansas State Legislature)

Indiana Senate Passes Arizona-Style Immigration Bill

In Indiana last week, the state Senate passed an immigration bill similar Arizona’s SB 1070. (Reuters, Feb. 23, 2011) By a vote of 31-18, senators sent a bill to the state’s House of Representatives which generally requires state and local law enforcement to ask for proof of legal residency from individuals the officer has lawfully stopped or detained if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country unlawfully. (Id.; SB 590) The bill also mandates that state agencies and state contractors use E-verify and requires that only the English language be used in public meetings and public documents.

Advocates for the bill assert that it will protect Indiana from terrorists who sneak into the U.S. illegally; protect Indiana residents from job competition with illegal laborers who drive down wages; and rescue the state from the tax burden of illegal aliens’ usage of government services. (Indianapolis Star, Feb. 23, 2011) Sen. Michael Young stated that “this bill should not be called the Immigration Matters bill. It should be called the Indiana Security and Taxpayer Protection Act.” (Id.)

The bill will now move to the Indiana House of Representatives, where large business interests in the state have promised to vigorously lobby against passage of the measure. (Reuters, Feb. 23, 2011)

New Mexico Continues to License Illegal Aliens

New Mexico legislators last week rejected a bill which would have banned the state from issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens. (Alamogordo Daily News, Feb. 19, 2011) The bill, which was blocked by three state legislators from moving out of the House consumer and Public Affairs Committee last week, would have an individual to have a social security number or proper immigration documents to obtain a drivers license. (Id.)

Newly-elected Governor Susana Martinez strongly supported the bill, even using leftover campaign funds to promote the bill through a radio ad campaign. (KRQE News, Feb. 24, 2011) “New Mexico is attracting people from around the world – China, Poland and Brazil,” the ad said. “But they’re not coming [to New Mexico] to ski or for Balloon Fiesta. They’re illegal immigrants coming for drivers licenses.” (Id.) The Governor’s office also pointed out alarming details of New Mexico’s lenient drivers license applications, revealing that just last week five illegal aliens of East Indian descent were arrested in an attempt to get New Mexico licenses for other illegal immigrants at a charge of $6,000 a piece. (Alamogordo Daily News, Feb. 19, 2011)

As New Mexico is one of only three states—joined by Washington and Utah—that does not require proof of legal residency to obtain a drivers license, it is a destination spot for those looking to fraud the system. (AZ Central, Aug. 14, 2010) The state Motor Vehicle Division reports that about 83,000 foreign nationals have received New Mexico driver’s licenses, but it does not track how many are illegal aliens. (Alamogordo Daily News, Feb. 19, 2011) New Mexico is also home to the nation’s highest percentage of uninsured drivers, a fact that refutes the claim of the illegal alien lobby that giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens reduces uninsured rates. (Insurance Research Council, Jan. 21, 2009)

Congressman Carter Introduces Mandatory E-Verify Legislation

In an important step to eliminate the illegal immigration jobs magnet, Rep. John Carter (R-TX) introduced legislation last week that would make the use of E-Verify by all employers mandatory and permanent. Currently, the E-Verify program requires extensions by Congress and is mandatory only for certain federal contractors and subcontractors, and for businesses and agencies in a handful of states where the program is required by state law or executive order.

The bill (H.R.800) would require employers to verify the immigration status of both new hires and current employees using the free online E-Verify program. (§2(d)) However, the bill also provides for verification through a toll-free telephone line, stifling the open borders’ lobby argument that mandating the use of E-Verify would be overly burdensome on small or rural businesses without access to internet service. (§2(b); Washington Post, Feb. 10, 2011)

Additionally, the bill provides for the following key reforms:

Increases employer fines for employing illegal aliens—quadrupling the fine for employers discovered to have hired an illegal alien three or more times. (§5(a))

Prohibits employers from deducting wages paid to or on behalf of an illegal alien from their gross income. (§6(a))

Requires the IRS to disclose to the Social Security Commissioner and Homeland Security Secretary the taxpayer identity information of employers employing illegal aliens. (§6(d)(2))

Requires the Social Security Commissioner to notify an individual when his or her social security number is used more than twice to report wages to the IRS prior to crediting that individual with concurrent wages from more than one employer. (§4(a))

Despite a recent GAO report finding the program immediately verifies 97.4 percent of newly hired employees as work eligible, opponents of E-Verify continue to argue against making it mandatory. The ACLU argues: “E-Verify continues to burden employers, cost the government billions of taxpayer dollars, and deny Americans’ their right to work—all the while potentially subjecting them to discrimination....” (ACLU Statement to House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement; Feb. 10, 2011)

Nonetheless, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has sponsored H.R.800 support, including Reps. Heath Schuler (D-NC), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), and Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Upon introducing the bill, Rep. Carter said, “By the federal government’s lack of action on this issue, not only have we seen illegal immigration drive down wages and drive up unemployment, we have allowed a culture of identity theft to take root through the fraudulent use of Social Security and taxpayer id numbers. … With record unemployment we cannot continue to allow illegal immigrants to take up badly-needed jobs for legal workers.” (Rep. John Carter Press Release, Feb. 18, 2011)

Sunday, February 27, 2011

The Real Revolution Has Begun

From The American Thinker:

February 21, 2011

The Real Revolution Has Begun

By J. Robert Smith

How delicious is irony, how fickle fate?

Just a little more than two years ago, liberals were ecstatic about Barack Obama's election and Democrats' control of Congress. Liberal pundits were all atwitter about the brand new Democratic Era that voters had ushered in. America would finally become what America should have been years ago: a European-style social democracy.

Boy, did Democrats misread their mandate! With very little hindsight needed, it's apparent to all but ideologically-blinkered liberals that the Democrats' gross overreach isn't what voters wanted or expected. Voters wanted a redo of the Clinton years. Instead, in the person of Barack Obama, voters got an amalgam of FDR and LBJ with a dash of Neville Chamberlin thrown in.

But here's the real kicker. Two years of Obama-Reid-Pelosi overreach and excesses may have been the table-setter for the real revolution now unfolding. Voters and taxpayers first needed to see the irresponsibility and recklessness of unalloyed liberalism to appreciate that conservative government is far superior. Thank you, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.

Of course, the real revolution began last year with the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, the GOP made the largest gains in U.S. House seats since 1948. But the underappreciated story is that the GOP racked up huge gains in state legislative contests, and further down ballot, Republicans swept plenty of local offices. State legislatures control congressional redistricting. Republicans now dominate enough key statehouses to lock-in GOP congressional electoral advantages for a decade.

Had voters limited their ballots to throwing out the rascals in Congress, a fair argument could be made that 2010 was just a protest vote -- an attempt by voters to shake up the Democrats. But when voters drill down to change party control of legislatures, city halls, and county commissions, you can bet that they're thoroughly repudiating the party in power. The 2010 repudiation of Democrats was a clear expression of what voters did and didn't want from government.

Move now to the present time. Republicans are on the march in Congress. Late last week, House Republicans passed a budget bill containing $61 billion in cuts. It's not the $100 billion that conservatives aimed for, but it's substantial and can be considered a down payment. The House Republican proposal now goes to the Senate. The budget process wrangling is just in its first phase. Moving forward, the GOP will have multiple opportunities to push more cuts.

And look what else House Republicans are doing. They're using the budget process to hamstring Obamacare by denying it funding. Shutting down and then nixing ObamaCare would be an historic victory in the fight to end liberalism's nearly hundred-year dominance; it would be one of those critical turning points in history -- like Vicksburg and Gettysburg -- a momentum shifter that leads to other key victories, such as entitlements reform.

Also, Indiana Republican Mike Pence offered and passed an amendment cutting funding for the odious abortion mill called Planned Parenthood. Another amendment, offered by Oregon Republican Greg Walden, that passed, chokes off funds for the Federal Communications Commission's net-neutrality gambit. Net -neutrality would concentrate more power in the FCC's hands and stymie free speech across the internet. Net-neutrality could well have been made in China.

Of course, the revolution just beginning isn't confined to the Halls of Congress. Chris Christie, New Jersey's intrepid Republican governor, fired the first shots last year in the burgeoning struggle to bring sanity back to state affairs. Christie's efforts aren't limited to balancing state budgets and reining in taxes, important as those things are. Christie is working to limit government and expand the playing field for the private sector. As we're seeing, government without proper limits is a ruinous beast. California is a prime example.

Now newly elected Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is making headlines because he dares to say that his state is broke and that the public employees' gravy train needs to end. Governor Walker wants to end collective bargaining for public employees, excepting police and firefighters, on the simple, common sense premise that employees shouldn't be negotiating the hours they work, among other things.

In Ohio, Governor John Kasich is gearing up to slash budgets, rollback taxes, cut regulations, and confront the Buckeye State's public employee unions. There'll be fireworks aplenty in Columbus.

Thomas Jefferson is being proven right again. The states are the laboratories of democracy. Christie, Kasich, and Walker are seeking to demonstrate that limited, financially responsible government is best for economic and societal health. If successful -- and we should all have high confidence that these governors will succeed -- the lessons will not be lost on voters and politicians in other states. Revolutions are like that; it takes just a few courageous leaders to embolden others and for revolutions to spread.

A marvelous, if unintended, consequence of this burgeoning conservative revolution is what it's doing to liberalism. The budding conservative revolution is starting to place strains on liberalism; beginning to make liberals and their allies fight defensive battles in multiple -- and multiplying -- places. Call this a modified Cloward-Piven -- or Cloward-Piven turned on its masters.

Challenging liberal governance, and pressing limited government reforms, will help bring down liberalism across the nation. And that should be an indisputable aim of the new conservative revolution. Liberalism became a pox on the nation years ago. Marginalizing liberalism would be an incomparable service to generations to come -- and to those kids being lied to now by too many Wisconsin teachers.

"Change We Can Believe In." Mr. Obama's slogan always had a nice ring to it, but it was misapplied and a little ahead of its time. With the conservative revolution, change we can really believe in has arrived. How's that for rich irony?

FCC Chairman And President Obama--Saying Whatever It Takes, Doing Whatever they Want

From Big Government:

7:03 PM (3 minutes ago)FCC Chairman and President Obama–Saying Whatever It Takes, Doing Whatever They Wantfrom Big Government by Seton MotleyFederal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski has a bit of reputation for not liking conflict – and avoiding it whenever possible

An excellent way of attempting to do this is to say whatever it is each person with whom you engage wishes to hear – even if consecutive conversations require diametrically opposite assertions.

The people with whom you speak all walk away happy, each thinking you’re a swell guy. And you can continue doing exactly what it is you want to do.

Like, say, shoving through in unauthorized fashion overly oppressive Network Neutrality regulations.


As we have previously discussed, President Barack Obama does – and will be doing – this sort of double dealing all the time. (He’ll also repeatedly do it with his oath of office – as again demonstrated by his abdicating his responsibility to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.)

Let us now take a look at Chairman Genachowski’s recent public statements on the subject of Net Neutrality.

Starting with what should have been the end of this entire FCC power grab fiasco. In the October 3rd Washington Post, Genachowski said:

“…(W)e have a Communications Act that wasn’t written for broadband.”

Game over, one would think. The FCC can’t regulate anything unless and until Congress writes a law that says “Hey FCC – regulate this.” And here we have the Chairman of the FCC admitting that Congress has never done this on broadband.

The overwhelmingly Democrat Congress that was at that time convened agreed with Genachowski’s public admission – in large bipartisan fashion. 302 of them, in fact, expressed their opposition – including more than 80 of Genachowski’s fellow Democrats.

And then there was the D.C. Circuit Court, which last April unanimously ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to regulate broadband.

But why should all that opposition – including his own – stop Genachowski? In fact, it didn’t.

As a Christmas present to the Bigger Government world, Genachowski had his Democrat-majority FCC vote in 3-2 partisan fashion to impose broadband Net Neutrality regulations – in direct contravention of the Circuit Court and the 300+ Congressmen with whom he had so recently agreed.

Since then, Genachowski’s statements have been all over the place. Whatever needed to be said to whoever needed to hear it.

The pressure point was the February 16th Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing to investigate the Net Neutrality ruling – called by new Republican Chairman Greg Walden.

The American people had just handed the Republicans 60+ new House seats and the majority because they did not like the Democrats’ vast governmental overreaching – of the kind Chairman Genachowski executed this Yuletide season after said Smaller Government election.

In advance of the convening, the Chairman was scrambling.

FCC chair says net neutrality rules create jobs

FCC chairman: Regulations are ’slowing down broadband deployment’

No contradiction there – seeing as broader broadband deployment is the lynchpin to more Internet gigs and the Chairman just unilaterally imposed huge, undefined and indefinable new regulations.

Genachowski ready to debate Congress on net neutrality

He should start by debating himself

But at the Congressional hearing, Genachowski wasn’t in a debating mood. He was again all things to all people.

Let us look at but one answer he gave – to Illinois Republican Representative Michael Kinzinger, who asked the Chairman a very reasonable question. Why – when you and just about everyone else on Planet Earth said you didn’t have Congressional authority to impose Net Neutrality – did you impose Net Neutrality?

Genachowski’s answer was at once sycophantic and schizophrenic.

“We continue to be available as a resource to work with Congress on legislation that would provide certainty and address issues around broadband. So, that is our job and we look forward to being a resource to Congress.”

What an annoying and obnoxious answer this is.

Mister Chairman, you can’t “continue to be…a resource to work with Congress” if 302 members of a Democrat-majority Congress told you not to impose Net Neutrality – and you imposed Net Neutrality anyway. You weren’t “work(ing) with Congress” – you were working against them.

And you rushed the Christmas power grab vote to get it in before the new Republican-richer and even more opposed Congress was sworn in. Not very “resource”-ful of you.

By pretending to be amenable to legislation – which you aren’t, else you would have waited – “that would provide certainty” you are tacitly admitting your Web usurpation – which you absurdly asserted would provide certainty – did no such thing.

Two lawsuits (and counting) and multiple pieces of legislation seeking to undo the order – which you had to know were inevitable – provide chaos, not certainty – which you had to know was the inevitable outcome.

And if it is “certainty” and “light-touch regulation” you really want – why is the total Internet takeover Title II reclassification order still open?

Saying whatever whoever is in front of you wants to hear only works for so long. Eventually, a dossier is built – and the inconsistencies become increasingly glaring.

Then candidate-Obama successfully ran in 2008 as the “I’m Whoever You Want Me to Be” nominee. Two plus years in, we know who he really is – regardless of whatever he continues to say.

Likewise, Chairman Genachowski’s “Aw Shucks” façade has – as a result of his actions – fallen away, revealing a pronounced Bigger Government ideologue.

This is unquestionably the “Forget What We Say, Watch What We Do” Administration.

Obama's Socialism

From Big Government:

1:05 PM (5 hours ago)Obama’s Socialismfrom Big Government by Uncommon Knowledge

1 person liked thisPresident Obama’s cult of personality and feel-good message of “change” allowed him to sail through the 2008 campaign without being thoroughly vetted by the press. No one took the time to delve into his past and look at his influences, his actions, or his political theory. And when something did come up, the press allowed him to skate on by rather than press him for real information (Jeremiah Wright, anyone?).

Recent guest Stanley Kurtz decided to do what the press failed to do – take an honest look at Obama’s politics. His investigation resulted in Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. In this episode, Kurtz discusses the many socialist influences in Obama’s life, from his college years to his time as a community organizer, with men such as Bill Ayers, Frank Marshal Davis, and Jeremiah Wright.

In examining Obama’s main mentors, Kurtz begins to see a clear ideology that motivates the President’s disdain for the middle class, take-no-prisoners approach to passing socialized healthcare, reluctance to discuss political theory and desire for, ultimately, a socialist revolution.

Here is the full episode, you won’t want to miss it:


GOP Representative Paul Ryan Scolds Wisconsin Democrats Who Fled To Illinois

From Freedom's Lighthouse:

GOP Rep. Paul Ryan Scolds Wisconsin Democrats who Fled to Illinois – Video 2/26/11

Revolutionary Socialists, Marxists Lead MoveOne.org Pro-Union Rallies

from Gateway Pundit:

2:16 PM (4 hours ago)Figures. Revolutionary Socialist-Marxists Lead MoveOn.org Pro-Union Rallies (Video)from Gateway Pundit by Jim HoftFigures. A self-proclaimed Marxist-Revolutionary emceed MoveOn.org’s “Saving the American Dream” rally in Dallas… Because we all know that “Saving the American Dream” involves promoting Marxism.

Via RedWhiteBlueNews:

It’s all for the children.

Communists Van Jones and Medea Benjamin also led the MoveOn.org rally in Washington DC

Ohio State Senator Introduces Bill To Help Feds Enforce Immigration Laws

From The Ohio Republic:

3:08 PM (3 hours ago)Ohio Senator introduces bill to help feds enforce immigration lawsfrom The Ohio Republic by Harold ThomasMost Ohioans do not perceive illegal immigration to be a crisis in this state; so the pressure does not exist as it does in Arizona to take action on our own.

However, Ohioans want to see the laws enforced, so this may be a good approach to seeing that done. Following is the text of SB 98, introduced Feb. 23 by Sen. Jimmy Stewart (R-Albany):


To enact section 109.45 of the Revised Code to direct the Attorney General to pursue a memorandum of agreement that permits the enforcement of federal immigration laws in this state by law enforcement officers.


Section 1. That section 109.45 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 109.45. (A) The attorney general shall pursue a memorandum of agreement under the federal "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996," 110 Stat. 3009, 8 U.S.C. 1357(g), between the state of Ohio and the United States attorney general or the appropriate federal agency the United States attorney general designates, to permit the enforcement in this state of federal immigration laws, both criminal and civil, including the apprehension, detention, and investigation of illegal aliens located in this state.

(B) Any memorandum of agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall be signed on behalf of this state by the Ohio attorney general or as the memorandum otherwise requires.

(C)(1) The attorney general shall designate appropriate law enforcement officers to be trained in the enforcement of the relevant federal immigration laws as specified in the memorandum of agreement. Any law enforcement officer the attorney general designates to receive training shall be trained as specified in the memorandum.

(2) A law enforcement officer who is certified as trained in accordance with the memorandum of agreement shall enforce the federal immigration laws the memorandum specifies while performing within the scope of that law enforcement officer's authorized duties.

(3) No law enforcement officer shall enforce the federal immigration laws specified in the memorandum of agreement unless that law enforcement officer has received the training required in this section.

(D) The participation of any local law enforcement agency in a memorandum of agreement entered into by the attorney general is permissive.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

The Good Work of Planned Parenthood

From The American Thinker:

February 23, 2011

The 'Good Work' of Planned Parenthood

Jeannie DeAngelis

Fresh off professing his faith at the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama is taking a stand for the "good work" Planned Parenthood does. Despite undercover exposés of Planned Parenthood workers supporting everything from prostitution to underage sex trafficking, the President of the United States believes the clinic on the corner deserves American taxpayer support.

Much to Obama's dismay, the US House of Representatives recently voted to "completely de-fund Planned Parenthood," which receives about 1/3 of its $1 billion dollar annual budget from government grants.

With the money of hard-working Americans, including those morally opposed to abortion, at 820 locations across America Planned Parenthood pays the salaries of clinic workers who are so committed to providing confidential health services that they're willing to overlook pimps exploiting underage girls in the sex trade. Then, if a pubescent girl should happen to conceive, Planned Parenthood is also willing to maintain secrecy and, if need be, administer an abortion on a 13 year-old child.

In fairness, the "Good Workers" at Planned Parenthood, ever concerned for the well being of all their clientele, do speak on behalf of teenage sex workers by cautioning undercover pimps that to avoid infection after an abortion, little girls should spend time healing before returning to work.

Apparently Republicans with a conscience felt it was time to stop acting irresponsibly and discontinue being a party, through funding, to an organization unconcerned about illegal sex trafficking, statutory rape, prostitution, and abortion. Barack Obama disagrees.

"Pro-life politicians have often gone after the abortion provider, while pro-choice politicians like President Obama have rushed to [the] defense" of an organization that claims to keep children safe despite failing to report tragic incidents like the rape of an 11-year-old girl.

In a recent NBC12 interview, committed Christian/Planned Parenthood supporter Barack Obama was asked whether the most recent video by the conservative activist group LiveAction, exposing a "clinical supervisor" counseling a pimp on how to provide reproductive health services to 7th graders, "warranted a review of Planned Parenthood's funding?"

In the interview, when confronted with the damning evidence against Planned Parenthood, the President deflected the impact of the video sting. In an effort to "move the country forward," an "unyielding" Obama, America's most ardent abortion advocate, defended the organization by saying "I think sometimes these issues get manufactured."

Is Barack Obama willing to risk children's lives based on what he "thinks?" Doesn't "sometimes" mean only sometimes accusations are manufactured? What about the times they are not?

During the interview, master of redirection, Barack skillfully turned the focus to what he considers the real threat to America: the blogosphere. Obama's response to "allegedly damning" videotape proof of a Planned Parenthood supervisor vowing to cover up a crime was: "They get a lot of attention in the blogosphere."

Is the threat of the malicious blogosphere that vital a concern? Because evidently, children infected with STDs, being sold into sex slavery, being raped and impregnated and put under the knife in an abortion mill is not that big of a deal to Barack.

Focused like a laser and determined to not get "distracted with these issues" Barack Obama is encouraging America to concentrate on more pressing topics like saving jobs, including those of Planned Parenthood workers who may, on occasion, employ a rogue worker who offers helpful advice to sex traffickers.

Obama's defense of Planned Parenthood reveals a mindset that the President of the United States believes the organization should continue to be funded even though, on more than one occasion, clinicians have been caught doing the "good work" of assisting pimps in the exploitation of underage girls.

Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Posted at 08:22 AM

The Inflation Disaster Is Near

From The American Thinker:

February 23, 2011

The inflation disaster is near

Lee DeCovnick

Five dollar a gallon gas will shatter the Federal Reserve's tightly constrained lid on inflation and accelerate the other half our long anticipated "double dip" recession. Gas and diesel powers America's 141 million cars, 100 million pickups and SUV's, 8.8 million heavy trucks and 6.7 million motorcycles. Oil runs our harvesters, delivers our groceries, cooks our food, heats our houses, propels our jets, fuels our M-1A1 Abrams tanks, and lubricates our bicycles. American business can only absorb a few percentage points increase in oil prices before passing on their additional distribution costs to the consumer. Already the increases in food and clothing prices have been felt at the cash register. Disposable income will inevitably drop along with consumer demand for domestic cars and trucks, imported goods from China, and destination vacations to resorts in the United States, Mexico and the Caribbean. Don't even ask what this means to our already sluggish unemployment numbers.

So, how close are we to $5.00 a gallon gas? This photo was shot yesterday, February 22, 2011. We may look a back at these prices as the "good old days" of inexpensive energy costs.

In June of 2008, Congressman Roy Blunt released the following information about how the House members voted on energy issues. During this time Democrats were the majority party in both the House and Senate.

ANWR Exploration:

House Republicans: 91% Supported

House Democrats: 86% Opposed


House Republicans 97% Supported

House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration:

House Republicans: 90% Supported

House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration:

House Republicans: 81% Supported

House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery-Increased Capacity:

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 96% Opposed


91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas, while 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

In 2009, the United States still imported 51% of all its petroleum requirements, both crude and refined. This continues to be an unacceptably high number in our quest for energy independence. Gas prices remain hostage to the increasing hostile regimes that sell us oil. Our own Department of Energy has proudly halted off shore drilling. With the political unrest in so many oil producing nations, and the long-term obstruction of Democrats to domestic oil exploration and production, American families have begun to pay the steep price for our failed national energy policies. This current Administration has wasted tens of billions of stimulus dollars on solar panel factories and windmills rather than building new oil refineries and using new technologies to recover the oil buried in our own back yard.

Posted at 10:56 AM

American Bar Association, Like CAIR, Advocates For Sharia Law In U.S.

From Creeping Sharia:

American Bar Association, like CAIR, advocates for sharia law in US

Posted on February 25, 2011 by creeping

Another ‘whose side are you on’ alert from Pamela Geller aka Atlas Shrugs, The ABA Does Damage Control:

Tuesday, in an article called The ABA’s Jihad in The American Thinker, I exposed the Islamic supremacism taking root at the American Bar Association, breaking the story of the ABA’s support for Sharia law. I revealed the notice, circulated among ABA members, of an organized ABA campaign to oppose the anti-Sharia legislation that has been introduced in 14 state legislatures. Then on Wednesday the ABA issued a statement in response to my article, claiming that “the American Bar Association has taken no action in support of, or in opposition to, judges considering Islamic law or Sharia.”

How dishonest and disingenuous.

The ABA statement said that the organization has “nearly 400,000 members, many of whom volunteer with any of the ABA’s 2,200 entities. One of those 2,200 entities is the Section on International Law, which has elected to assemble a taskforce of several individuals to examine this issue.” The statement makes it sound as if this examination is completely neutral: “These individuals are examining whether the proposed changes to the law impact important constitutional questions. They are also considering implications for international commerce.”

Above all, the ABA claims that this taskforce has nothing to do with the organization itself: “The actions of a few interested members within one section are not and cannot be interpreted to be those of the entire American Bar Association. Claims to the contrary are erroneous.”

This is spin and damage control. In my Tuesday article I quoted the Section on International Law stating that the ABA’s Executive Counsel “has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming — in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced.”

There was no way this Task Force could be understood as neutral. Clearly it was dedicated to working against anti-Sharia legal initiatives. The Section on International Law document said: “The Section’s Executive Counsel [sic] has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced. The goal of the Task Force is to have a Report and Recommendation against such legislation as well as an informal set of ‘talking points’ that local opponents of these initiatives could use to make their case in each of these states.”

This should incite justifiable public outrage, and actually increase support for and awareness of the legislation among the grassroots electorate.

A source knowledgeable about the ABA has also informed me that the organization’s Middle East law committee recently began a lobbying campaign, which the ABA’s international law chair endorsed. It was a political act, not a neutral study. This source sent me ABA policy guidelines that make it clear that policies that are formulated by small committees or “entities” can and do become official ABA policy under certain circumstances, and those circumstances are present in the case of this pro-Sharia Task Force.

This puts the ABA on the spot: either its policy mechanism on Middle East law has been taken over by Middle East-based lawyer(s) with Islamic supremacist sympathies, or the Middle East law committee does represent the ABA’s actual positions.

Further, is there any ABA group or task force assigned to helping those who oppose Sharia to craft legislation to ban it? No. There is only an initiative to oppose those fighting the Sharia.

Particularly troubling is the non-democratic way in which the ABA made the decision to oppose the anti-Sharia initiatives of various states. A tiny minority of the ABA’s total membership steers its policies, which almost always are developed from the top down. The pro-Sharia initiative seems to have been pushed forward through what the ABA calls a “blanket approval” or even more rapid “technical comment” procedure, and seems to go beyond issuing mere statements to actively organizing lobbying to influence state legislation – a practice that is generally forbidden for tax-exempt organizations.

All this makes it obvious that the ABA’s statement disclaiming any support for Sharia was completely false and dishonest.

If the ABA continues to forward this deceitful rhetoric, I will expose even more information about its support for Sharia.

There is one way the ABA could make at least partial amends now: it’s time the ABA created a task force to help those of us who are fighting the introduction of Islamic law in America.

We’re waiting.

Are we living in an alternate reality? Please do expose them further. Each and every ABA individual who is pushing sharia law in the U.S

Should You Invest In "Junk Silver" And Other Precious Metals For Survival?

From The Survivalist Blog:

Should You Invest In “Junk Silver” and Other Precious Metals For Survival

Obama Signs Temporary Extension Of PATRIOT Act

From Yahoo News and Liberty Pulse:

Obama signs temporary extension of Patriot Act

– Fri Feb 25, 5:21 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has signed a three-month extension of key surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act.

The law extends two areas of the 2001 act. One provision allows law enforcement officials to set roving wiretaps to monitor multiple communication devices. The other allows them to ask a special court for access to business and library records that could be relevant to a terrorist threat.

A third provision gives the FBI court-approved rights for surveillance of non-American "lone wolf" suspects — those not known to be tied to specific terrorist groups.

Obama signed the three-month extension of the provisions Friday. They were to expire Monday.

Lawmakers will soon start debating a multiple-year extension of the provisions, which have drawn fire from defenders of privacy rights.

Texas Bill Would Allow Police To Turn Illegal Immigrants Over To Members Of Congress

From Homeland Security NewsWire:


Bill would allow police to turn illegal immigrants over to members of Congress

Published 24 February 2011

A new proposal from Texas state Rep. Lois Kolkhorst would allow law enforcement officials to drop off illegal immigrants at the offices of any U.S. senator or representative; the proposed bill only applies to illegal immigrants about to be released on bail or discharged after completing a sentence and does not detail what the U.S. senator or representative is supposed to do with them.

A Texas lawmaker wants to bring the illegal immigration problem directly to Congress. Literally.

A new proposal from Texas state Rep. Lois Kolkhorst would allow law enforcement officials to drop off illegal immigrants at the offices of any U.S. senator or representative.

The proposed bill only applies to illegal immigrants about to be released on bail or discharged after completing a sentence and does not detail what the U.S. senator or representative is supposed to do with them.

The bill merely authorizes law enforcement officers to release illegal immigrants to a congressional office, and to have an employee of that office sign a document acknowledging the transfer.

Fox News reports that according to 1200 WOAI in San Antonio, Kolkhorst described the proposal as a “cry for help” to Congress over border security. She said she intends to push for approval in the legislature.

The bill is one of several anti-illegal immigration bills introduced in Austin, prompting thousands to march on the capital in protest of the measures Tuesday.

Another bill would allow local law enforcement to arrest, without a warrant, people they believe to be in the country illegally and turn them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

House Republicans Slash Funds For Border Security, Immigration Enforcement

From Homeland Security NewsWire:

Border security money woes

House Republicans slash funds for border security, immigration enforcement

Published 24 February 2011

House Republicans voted to slash spending for border security and immigration enforcement for the remainder of this fiscal year by an estimated $600 million; the House budget allocates $350 million less for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology than Congress approved last year, and $124 million below what DHS requested; the bill also cuts an estimated $159 million over last year for Customs and Border Protection modernization and construction programs, and is $40 million less than the agency sought to get the job done

The U.S. House of Representatives voted mostly along party lines to slash spending by an estimated $600 million for border security and immigration enforcement for the remainder of this fiscal year, according to ABC News. The budget allocates $350 million less for border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology than Congress approved last year, and $124 million below what DHS requested.

Democrats argue the House bill would shrink the Border Patrol by 870 agents and cut $272 million in funds for surveillance systems to monitor the border with Mexico, according to the New York Times. They said those cuts would cancel gains from a bill adopted last August, with virtually unanimous bipartisan support, that increased border funding by $600 million, adding 1,000 new agents to the Border Patrol.

Security Director News reports that the bill also cuts an estimated $159 million over last year for Customs and Border Protection modernization and construction programs, and is $40 million less than the agency sought to get the job done.

Republican leaders said, however, that the House budget cuts did not undercut their border security goals. “Even with all the money in the world, the administration would not succeed in securing the border because they are not serious about it,” said Lamar Smith, the Republican from Texas who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The two sides must agree to a spending bill by 4 March to avoid a government shutdown.

Mexico's Descent Into Chaos: Mexican Gangs Kidnapped 11,000 Migrants During April-September 2010

From Homeland Security NewsWire:

Mexico: descent into chaos

Mexican gangs kidnapped 11,000 migrants during April-September 2010

Published 23 February 2011

More than 11,000 migrants crossing Mexico were kidnapped and either held for ransom or conscripted into criminal gangs during a six-month span -- April through September 2010; a previous study had found 9,758 migrants were kidnapped from September 2008 to February 2009; fellow migrants are sometimes used as informants by the gangs to help in kidnappings; the infiltrators mingle with other migrants to find out who has relatives in the United States able to pay ransom, and sometimes even lead groups of fellow migrants to points where they can be kidnapped

More than 11,000 migrants crossing Mexico were kidnapped and either held for ransom or conscripted into criminal gangs during a six-month span of last year, said Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission on Tuesday.

Forty-four percent of the migrants kidnapped during the period studied — April through September — were from Honduras, 16.2 percent from El Salvador, 11.2 percent from Guatemala, and 5 percent from Cuba.

Fox news reports that a previous study by the commission had found 9,758 migrants were kidnapped from September 2008 to February 2009, but it was not clear whether seasonal variations caused the increase seen in the latest study.

The commission said the cartels usually demand families pay from $1,000 to $5,000 to win the release of a migrant.

It also said fellow migrants are sometimes used as informants by the gangs to help in kidnappings.

“There are Central American migrants in the organized crime groups that kidnap migrants,” said commission president Raul Plascencia.

The infiltrators mingle with other migrants to find out who has relatives in the United States able to pay ransom, and sometimes even lead groups of fellow migrants to points where they can be kidnapped.

Migrants are often subjected to extortion, robbery, and other abuses as they cross Mexico trying to reach the United States.

Plascencia said Mexican authorities had taken some “isolated” actions to combat the kidnappings, but called for stronger efforts.

The kidnapping issue came to a head after seventy-two migrants from Central and South America were slain last August in a massacre in the northern Mexico state of Tamaulipas that authorities blamed on the Zetas drug cartel.

On Tuesday, Roman Catholic priest Tomás González Castillo reported that at least a dozen migrants had been kidnapped by an armed gang in the Gulf coast state of Tabasco late Saturday.

González Castillo heads a human rights group that defends migrants. He said he was told about the abduction by three migrants who escaped captivity and sought shelter in his parish.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Prepare For An Economic Meltdown

From Town Hall:

Matt Towery

Prepare for an Economic Meltdown

Email Matt Towery
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg

Sign-Up In 2006, I examined a series of surveys we conducted nationwide and then predicted a collapse of the housing market. Plenty others followed with similar forecasts and postmortems over the following months and years. But my column was among the first.

I've made predictions about other slowdowns in the American economy. I've been mostly correct, although in 2010, I suggested that the stock market ultimately would plunge. Turned out that it climbed instead of descending. The fact is that it's easier to predict the weather next month than to get an accurate read on the future of the stock market.

My timing was off in predicting a plummeting of the stock market, my but theory still stands. But the sobering news may extend beyond just that. A more immediate happening could be the sudden and silent rise in the cost of living for average Americans, thanks to continuing stagnant wages, plus unemployment that is higher than the official numbers. These numbers don't take into account the many who have fallen off the unemployment rolls or have simply given up looking for work.

It's true enough that some of those who predict oil prices may be overstating the severity and the extent of the unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. There is little question that the outcome of this broad geopolitical conflict probably won't be decided for at least months.

Observers should recall that when the pro-American monarch in Iran was overthrown in 1979, most foreign policy experts in the Jimmy Carter White House believed that university students, bureaucrats and the educated classes in Iran would form a loose coalition that would transform that country into some kind of democracy. Then the Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini entered the stage. Within a year, Americans had been taken hostage in the U.S. embassy in Iran.

Although jobless claims were down this week and some other economic indicators now look a bit better than they have, we now face the possibility of inflation spiking, and of a lack of quality jobs being created.

Until we see corporations and especially small businesses enjoying sustained expansions, we're going to keep chasing our tails in an ongoing circle of weak and weaker economic growth.

Now for a truly troublesome economic cocktail, throw in the instability in the Arab world. We can't know yet who will be in control of some of the region's immense oil reserves a year from now. The existence alone of this political instability may keep both the oil and stock markets in flux.

But the biggest economic moment of truth will be stateside. Corporations have squeezed their employees, their vendors and every other possible resource, all just to keep upping their profits year after year.

But all the blood already has been squeezed out of this ever-hardening rock. We are now seeing indications that, except for military outlays, capital expenditures are still lagging.

The big banks that enjoyed public bailouts are now recovering, but they are still hoarding too much cash. The result is a cutoff of capital flow. At some point, there will be an end to the benefits corporations have enjoyed from their rounds of cost-savings.

What this likely means is that in 2012, unemployment likely will stay above 8 percent. And that number won't include all those who have given up looking for a job. Some economic demographic groups may see overall job gains, especially the college-educated and women.

But even as they and maybe some others start to climb out of the misery of the past few years, corporations probably won't be able to keep pulling the white rabbits of continuing profits gains out of their hats. Profits will level off as quarters are compared to quarters a year previous. Fear and reflexive stinginess will again grip corporations and banks, and they will keep on with their boycotts of expansion. That could kick the economy back into another tailspin.

What to do? We could start by not taxing at high rates those who create jobs. The best temporary solution would be to eliminate capital gains taxes, or at least cut them drastically. That would free up capital and thus motivate corporations to use the new capital to expand their businesses and employ more people. Perhaps the only companies to get this tax break should be those that use the savings to expand.

Just a thought.

Matt Towery

Matt Towery is a former National Republican legislator of the year and author of Powerchicks: How Women Will Dominate America.

The Anti-Reform Party

From Town Hall:

Mona Charen

The Anti-Reform Party

Email Mona Charen
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 1diggdigg

Sign-Up It's hard to imagine the level of outrage that would be flowing in the direction of the Republican Party today if Republicans had behaved the way the Democrats have over the past week. Who can doubt that The New York Times, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the left-wing choir would be chorusing "anti-democratic," "obstructionist," and "radical"?

In early 2009, when the Democrats were triumphant in Washington, President Obama dismissed Republican objections to his stimulus bill (now estimated, by the way, to have cost $821 billion -- $34 billion more than initially projected) with a pithy "We won." Elections have consequences, he explained, and there were limits to his openness to ideas from the defeated opposition.

Fair enough. But Democrats seem to respect the results of elections only when they favor Democrats. In Wisconsin, 14 Democratic senators, a minority, fled to Illinois in order to deny the state senate a quorum of 20 for conducting business. The Republicans, who have a majority of 19 senators, cannot pass their legislation in the absence of a quorum.

What this amounts to, though no one is characterizing it this way, is a move to shut down the government if Democrats cannot get their way. What it says is that Democrats will not abide by the democratic process. If they win, it's majority rule. If they lose, they refuse to participate.

Where is Obama's timely reminder about the importance of elections -- or in fact, about fealty to the rule of law?

And if a Republican "activist" had impersonated a big Democratic donor, say, George Soros, in a phone call to a Democratic governor, wouldn't the chorus be demanding a criminal investigation of the fraud? Instead, Common Cause is demanding an investigation of Gov. Scott Walker for the things he said to an impostor. Amazing.

Now legislators in Indiana and Ohio are copying the Wisconsin playbook. All but three Democrats in the Indiana House fled their jobs and the jurisdiction in order to prevent a vote on legislation they oppose. According to the Indianapolis Star, "Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana."

John Schorg, a "media director" for the House Democrats, told an Indianapolis website that "I cannot confirm or deny any reports about where the members of the Democratic caucus are, because I don't know and I don't want to know." That's public service for you!

There's an opportunity here for an entrepreneurial type: a bus or train service for Democratic office holders. They could call it the Fleedom Train, or Project Run Away.

The Democrats in Indiana are not just opposing right-to-work legislation, but also a series of reforms that may just unfreeze the stale status quo in education. The Republicans, having achieved majorities in both houses as well as the governorship in Indiana, are proposing to expand charter schools, permit parents to use state funds to send their kids to private schools in some circumstances, link teacher pay to student performance, forbid contracts that reward seniority instead of effectiveness, and limit collective bargaining to wages and benefits.

Teacher quality, Gov. Mitch Daniels noted in his state of the state address, "is 20 times more important than any other factor, including poverty, in determining which kids succeed. Class size, by comparison, is virtually meaningless ... Today, the outstanding teacher ... whose kids are pushed and led to do their best, is treated no better than the worst teacher in the school."

Daniels is right about class size. It's a myth popularized by teachers' unions that small classes lead to better results. The unions push it because it requires the hiring of more teachers. But there's no evidence that it works. As the Mackinac Center for Public Policy summarized, "(P)upil-teacher ratios have shrunk nationally for at least the last six decades, yet there have been no quantifiable improvements to student achievement nationally or in individual states."

Democrats in Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere are lining up foursquare with public employee unions and against budget sanity and education reform. Not a bad tee up for 2012.

Mona Charen

Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist, political analyst and author of Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help .

Obama-Inspired Chaos

From Town Hall:

Oliver North

Obama-Inspired Chaos

Email Oliver North
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 1diggdigg

Sign-Up WASHINGTON -- According to Hillary Clinton, "the safety and well-being of Americans has to be our highest priority." Oh, really? That comment, proffered by our secretary of state Tuesday, is overshadowed by the serious jeopardy U.S. citizens now encounter thanks to the ideological blindness and national security incompetence of the Obama administration.

Since 2011 began, more than 20 Americans have been injured, killed or gone missing in the midst of violence in Lebanon, Tunisia, Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Mexico and the Indian Ocean. American citizens are being held by government authorities in Iran, Yemen and Pakistan -- and by pirates in Somalia. Our State Department says it is "concerned."

Last week, two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were ambushed in Mexico. Special Agent Jaime Zapata was killed, and his partner was grievously wounded. Mexican authorities now claim they have apprehended some of the perpetrators with "connections" to one or more drug cartels. The Obama administration, with its history of "slow rolling" counter-narcotics assistance to Mexico and doing next to nothing to protect our borders, is confronted now by news that a Saudi national has been apprehended in Texas with plans to attack sensitive U.S. infrastructure.

Last week, four Americans aboard the sailing vessel Quest were seized by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean. A U.S. warship was ordered to the scene as the seaborne terrorists headed for safe haven in Somalia. If past is prologue, it should have ended like previous armed rescue operations conducted by U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Marines, South Korean navy commandos and even Russian and French special operations units -- with the safe recovery of nearly all hostages.

But in this case, our ships were inexplicably ordered to simply tail the captured yacht while an FBI hostage negotiator conducted a parley with the pirates. During the negotiations, all four hostages were killed. The Obama administration now says it's bringing the 15 captured pirates to the U.S. to "face justice" in a U.S. courtroom. Count on a "circus maximus" resulting in more of the "catch-and-release" program for terrorists.

In Pakistan, Raymond Allen Davis, an officially credentialed American with diplomatic immunity, is being held on murder charges at a notorious and often deadly detention facility in Lahore. Unnamed "U.S. officials" are widely quoted in international media claiming Davis is variously a "CIA officer," a "CIA employee" or a "CIA contractor." Any of these sobriquets are a virtual extrajudicial death sentence for an American held by anybody in Pakistan.

According to news reports, Pakistani authorities have moved Davis to a "separate area of the prison" and disarmed his jailers to prevent them from killing him. The State Department has filed a "protest note" complaining that the government in Islamabad is not abiding by its international obligations and held a surreal media conference call with an unnamed government official to explain diplomatic immunity.

Meanwhile, U.S. Army Spc. Bowe Bergdahl, initially declared MIA in June 2009 and now in the hands of the Taliban, isn't even mentioned by the administration.

On Wednesday afternoon, after more than a week of violent protests and brutal suppression by Libyan despot Moammar Gadhafi, Obama finally broke his silence on the bloodshed and declared it to be "outrageous" and "unacceptable" -- without ever mentioning Gadhafi by name. He also said his crack national security team is exploring "the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis."

Unfortunately, his options in Libya are, perforce of other inept decisions, very limited. For the first time in more than three decades, Iranian warships are steaming to Syria, and we have no U.S. carrier battle group in the Mediterranean Sea.

Instead of sending a U.S. aircraft carrier to the coast of Libya to prevent members of the Libyan air force from bombing their countrymen, our commander in chief has dispatched Secretary of State Clinton to Geneva to confer with the absurdly impotent, anti-American United Nations Human Rights Council. Perhaps he has been too busy sending activists to protest in Wisconsin and ordering his Justice Department to "cease defending" the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act to have noticed that Gadhafi's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is a member of the UNHRC.

The Obama administration's flaccid and inept responses to the crises in Mexico, North Africa and the broader Middle East are putting American citizens and U.S. interests in grave jeopardy. The O-Team could have staked out the moral high ground in January, when Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, subverted the fragile democratically elected government in Lebanon -- and protests began in Tunisia. The administration had a second chance to take a principled stand for human rights and freedom of assembly when popular unrest erupted in Iran and Egypt.

Instead, Obama dithered. He eventually chose to ignore the Iranian students being bludgeoned in Tehran and ultimately supported a military coup to oust Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak.

Now -- with rebellion sweeping Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, which is the home of our 5th Fleet, and U.S. oil spiking at more than $100 per barrel, the highest it has been since 2008 -- his commitment to the "safety and well-being of Americans" rings more hollow by the minute. His weakness, incoherence and passivity have bred chaos that places us all at risk.

Oliver North

Oliver North is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, the author of American Heroes in Special Operations, and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

Obama Not Just Above The Law--He Is the Law

From Town Hall:

David Limbaugh

Obama Not Just Above the Law--He Is the Law

Email David Limbaugh
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg

Sign-Up President Obama's brazenly calculated move to unilaterally abandon the federal Defense of Marriage Act showcases his attitude that he is above the law.

DOMA defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of all federal laws, rules and regulations (Section 3). It specifies that no state shall be required to honor laws of other states that treat same-sex relationships as legal marriages -- effectively carving out an exception to the Constitution's full faith and credit clause (Section 2).

Congress passed this law by enormous majorities (Senate 85-14, House 342-67) in response to political pressure in some states to redefine marriage, especially a Hawaiian court's decision suggesting the Hawaii Constitution conferred the right to same-sex marriage. Congress was worried that, among other things, same-sex couples living in other states might go to Hawaii to marry and demand that their home states recognize their marriages.

It seems that in enacting this law, the federal government was quite scrupulous in deferring to the sovereignty of the states by pronouncing a federal standard for marriage applicable to federal laws but not presuming to encroach on states' authority to set their own standards. It affirmed the states' prerogative by providing that their marriage laws would not be abrogated or diminished by conflicting laws of other states but did not preclude them from honoring, if they so choose, laws of other states validating same-sex marriages.

During his presidential campaign, Obama stated that he did not support same-sex marriage but that he did believe that DOMA should be repealed. He gave no hint that he would take it upon himself to issue a presidential edict, without a congressional bill placed before him, forbidding the executive branch from enforcing the law. But that is precisely what he did this week.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama had concluded that the administration would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA. Holder acknowledged that the Justice Department had previously defended DOMA in court under a "rational basis standard." (It's interesting they chose Section 3, because many legal scholars believe Section 2 is more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.) But he said Obama now believes that "a more heightened standard of scrutiny" should be required for laws involving same-sex marriage -- the same standard that applies to "laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination."

To understand the magnitude of Obama's action, we must again consider the above-cited fact that both chambers of Congress passed DOMA by overwhelming majorities reflecting the will of the people that marriage be defined, for legal and policy purposes, as it always had been. Also, no federal appellate court has ruled the statute unconstitutional.

As he has in so many other areas (EPA, the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the authority of the other two coequal branches of government to make himself, in effect, not just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial authority.

Holder admitted in his statement that the Justice Department "has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," but not otherwise.

But it is preposterous to suggest there are no reasonable arguments to defend the statute when 5,000 years of human history and the express act of Congress fly in the face of that statement. According to professor John Yoo, "in the few cases that the Supreme Court has heard gay rights cases, it has never adopted (the standard Obama is applying)."

In announcing a new standard, Obama claims that the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since DOMA was passed. You know the drill: Society has "evolved." That's highly dubious in view of the fact that even people in some liberal states have expressed their preference for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Further, it is not Obama's place to make this determination, especially when the people have already done so in such emphatic terms through their duly elected congressmen. If the people want the law changed, they can lobby their congressmen to change it or marshal their lawyers to argue their position in actual cases before the courts.

In response to leftists arguing that President George W. Bush also declined to enforce a federal statute, Yoo says that Obama's action is distinguishable. Bush did so in cases in which he was resisting congressional intrusions into the executive's constitutional authorities in the area of national security. Here there are no alleged encroachments on executive authority; it's just that Obama has a different opinion than the American people and has decided to implement it unilaterally.

So now we have an imperial president who is refusing to enforce a law passed by powerful congressional majorities while persisting in enforcing a law (Obamacare) that two federal courts have already invalidated. The only common denominator is that Obama believes he is the law.

David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of new book Crimes Against Liberty, the definitive chronicle of Barack Obama's devastating term in office so far.

It's A Strategy, Not A Conspiracy

From Red State:

It’s a Strategy, Not a Conspiracy

The Obama Administration's energy policy is not evil, it's just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Posted by Steve Maley (Profile)

Thursday, February 24th at 8:52PM EST


As “Vladimir”, I’ve written at length about the destructive energy policies of the Left and of the Obama Administration. Specifically, their hostility toward domestic producers and the producing states will inevitably lead to higher unemployment and a stagnant economy in the near term; long term, they imperil our national security.

What could possibly motivate them?

Some say that Obama is merely the puppet of an evil conspiracy which is bent on our destruction.

Others say that Obama thinks he is acting in the country’s best interest, but that his perspective is limited and his worldview is skewed.

It is important for us to act as if it is the latter, and here’s why.

If we act as if we believe that world events are under the control of evil masterminds (whether it be the Illuminati, Zionists, the Trilateral Commission or George Soros), we do three things: 1) we invest the opposition with unassailable power; 2) we confine ourselves to a fringe movement; and, perhaps most significantly, 3) we excuse our own inaction, because, after all, we’re powerless.

Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation is usually the best one. If you have to connect too many dots, chances are you’re connecting them wrong. That’s where conspiracy theories usually fall apart.

We don’t need to figure out who Obama’s puppet master is, or if he has one. He has told us his strategy, and he is carrying it out.

•President Obama said we should expect energy to become more expensive, and it has.

•He said he would focus on green energy over conventional sources, and he has.

•He said he would propose increased taxes on conventional energy producers (who, by the way, supply 82% of our daily energy needs), and he has.

•He has used the opportunity afforded by the BP Spill to begin dismantling the infrastructure of the Gulf of Mexico, the source of 30% of domestic oil and 12% of natural gas.

•He has canceled two Gulf of Mexico Lease Sales. 2011 will be the first year since 1967 without a Lease Sale in the Gulf. Future sales depend on completion of environmental reviews; who knows when that may happen?

•He has unleashed the EPA on American industry.

•The Department of the Interior no longer has a charge to support energy development. The pace of onshore leasing of public lands has decreased markedly.

President Obama does none of these things with evil intent. He reveals himself to be a product of his background and education, no more, no less. He is an Ivory Tower elitist who chooses only Ivory Tower elitists to advise him. His Administration is devoid of experience outside of public policy and academia. He and his advisers don’t even know what they don’t know. They are informed only by Leftist dogma, Keynesian crackpot economics, and Chicago-style street-thug tactics. The arrogance of power is what makes them dangerous.

It’s also what makes them vulnerable.

Over nine million American jobs depend on oil and gas. The unemployment rate in North Dakota, one of the hottest oil drilling plays in the country, stands at 3.8%. Drilling booms in the Louisiana, South Texas and Pennsylvania prove the potential of the petroleum economic engine, if only we would unleash it.

Stay active. Stay engaged. Stay involved. Especially readers in the non-producing states, your representatives need to hear from you.

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog

Obama Regime's Diabolical Plan: Overwhelm The System To Destroy Capitalism And freedom

From Winds of Jihad and:

Obama’s Diabolical Plan: Overwhelm the System to Destroy Capitalism & Freedom

by sheikyermami on February 24, 2011

The Real Obama: Overwhelming the System to Destroy Capitalism and Freedom.

Wayne Allyn Root

Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of ‘83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

– Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

– Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”

– Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

– Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

– Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme – all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

Add to the above scheme:


Moonbattery: Comrade Obama Halts Offshore Drilling

Obama calls for $53B for high-speed railways

The leftist smear machine is totally in on it:

ABC’s Sawyer Publicizes Left-Wing Effort to Tar U.S. and Advocate for Another Entitlement: paid maternity leave

Prime Time CBS Drama ‘The Good Wife’ Impugns Tea Party as ‘Racist Organization’ Read More

The above article has been edited for length. The full article is here on Wayne Allyn Root’s blog