Duplicitous Maneuvers

DUPLICITOUS MANEUVERS

It was probably the most damning morning of television ever broadcast...but was anyone paying attention? PJTV broadcast the testimony of Christopher Coates, the former voting chief for the Department Of Justice's Civil Rights Division. Coates was testifying in spite of the fact that his bosses in the Department of Justice had issued instructions for him to ignore the subpoena requesting his appearance. After his testimony it became quite clear why his superiors in the Justice Department wanted to maintain his silence.

Christopher Coates was testifying before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. This commission is tasked with investigating complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. Coates was subpoenaed to testify in regards to the ongoing investigation into the alleged New Black Panther voter intimidation that occurred in the 2008 election. His testimony given on September 24 just may have destroyed the presidency of Barack H. Obama. Can testimony this damning be suppressed for long?

"President Barack Obama’s handpicked U.S. Justice Department officials are ignoring civil rights cases in which the alleged victims are whites and they abandoned a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party that resulted in a “travesty of justice.” -Christopher Coates

Coates is alleging that Department Of Justice officials dismissed the intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers for political reasons. The New Black Panthers were videotaped outside a Philadelphia voting precinct dressed in military-style uniforms and one was brandishing a nightstick and hurling racial slurs. He was emphatic that the dismissal of the Case against the New Black Panthers "was ordered because the people calling the shots in May 2009 were angry at the filing of the Noxubee case and angry at our filing of the New Black Panther Party case." But it gets worse...

"In the spring of 2009, Ms. (Loretta) King, who had by then been appointed Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the Voting Rights Act. Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA and had been highly critical of the filing and prosecution of the Ike Brown case." -Christopher Coates

Why did Coates feel compelled to ask whether job applicants could enforce the law in a race-neutral manner? The question became necessary because of a lack of enthusiasm among the career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division for enforcing the law when it resulted in African-American defendants rather than victims. This was an attitude that Coates said he first encountered during the administration of George W. Bush:

"Opposition within the Voting Section was widespread to taking actions under the Voting Rights Act on behalf of white voters in Noxubee County, MS, the jurisdiction in which Ike Brown was and is the Chairman of the local Democratic Executive Committee. In 2003, white voters and candidates complained to the Voting Section that elections had been administered in a racially discriminatory manner and asked that federal observers be sent to the primary run-off elections. Career attorneys in the Voting Section recommended that we not even go to Noxubee County for the primary run-off to do election coverage, but that opposition to going to Noxubee was overridden by the Bush Administration’s Civil Rights Division Front Office. I went on the coverage and while traveling to Mississippi, the Deputy Chief who was leading that election coverage asked me, “can you believe that we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?” What I observed on that election coverage was some of the most outrageous and blatant racially discriminatory behavior at the polls committed by Ike Brown and his allies that I have seen or had reported to me in my thirty-three plus years as a voting rights litigator." -Christopher Coates

A judge agreed with Coates assessment of the case and the Department Of Justice won an injunction against Ike Brown and the Democrat Executive Committee which subsequently was upheld on appeal. That was the first time in the history of the Department Of Justice that it pursued a prosecution of an African-American defendant under the Voting Rights Act. Apparently it did NOT sit well with many within the Civil Rights Division who did not have any desire to prosecute non-traditional voting rights violations. In other words, they only wanted to prosecute white people. I suppose you could file this among those foolish claims that black people cannot be racists.

When Coates was promoted to head the Civil Rights Division, he began asking the offending question in job interviews as to whether applicants could pursue cases in a race -neutral manner in the future. This is what led Loretta King, an Obama political appointee, to order him to stop asking the question.

Coates testimony was confirmation of earlier testimony by former Department Of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams who left the department in protest after the dismissal of the New Black Panther case. Coates himself was ordered not to testify before the commission and was transfered to the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina, a move that was designed to get Coates out of sight and out of mind...it obviously failed. Now the Obama administration, which was once promoted as the first post-racial presidency, now finds itself an enabler in the worst sort of racial discrimination.

However bad the blatant discrimination within the Department Of Justice may be, according to Christopher Coates there is something else afoot which could directly affect the upcoming election with regard to the potential for voter fraud on a massive scale:

"In June 2009, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) issued its bi-annual report concerning which states appeared not to be complying with Section 8's list maintenance requirements. The report identified eight states that appeared to be the worst in terms of their non-compliance with the list maintenance requirements of Section 8 [of the Voting Rights Act]. These were states that reported that no voters had been removed from any of their voters’ list in the last two years. Obviously this is a good indication that something is not right with the list maintenance practice in that state. As Chief of the Voting Section, I assigned attorneys to work on this matter, and in September 2009, I forwarded a memorandum to the CRD Front Office asking for approval to go forward with Section 8 list maintenance investigations in these states."

"During the time that I was Chief, no approval was given to this project, and my understanding that approval has never been given for that Section 8 list maintenance project to date. That means that we have entered the 2010 election cycle with eight states appearing to be in major noncompliance with the list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA, and yet the Voting Section which has the responsibility to enforce that law has yet to take any action." -Christopher Coates

Apparently the weeds that ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) planted in the last election are not going to be pulled, but instead will be fertilized and harvested...and the harvest is coming fast! Voter rolls that are not properly maintained are ripe with the deceased, illegal aliens and duplicate registrations. All have the potential for showing up and illegally influencing the outcome of elections. However this is of no concern to the Department Of Justice. Don't be surprised to find out that our elections are being manipulated...they have been for quite some time!

Christopher Coates specifically mentioned Missouri's Robin Carnahan during his testimony. He told the commission that Mrs. Carnahan, acting in her current position as Missouri's Secretary of State, has refused to remove deceased people from Missouri's voter rolls. Carnahan was entitled to this special mention because she is currently running for the office of U.S. Senate against republican Roy Blunt. Wouldn't everyone running for public office love to be in a position to influence the outcome of their own election by collecting a stash of dead voters and have them "vote" as needed? Democrats rationalize these kind of shenanigans by calling it "leveling the playing field." This is how a dangerous freedom-hating minority seizes power. They can not win elections by telling the truth or pursuing fair voting practices...and they know it.

This is not an issue that will go away. You can expect every closely contested race in this November's election to be challenged by Democrats who will be able to "find" all sorts of "extra" ballots for their candidates on the recounts they subsequently demand. They perfected this method of operation in the close 2008 race for the U. S. Senate in Minnesota. As you will recall, republican Norm Coleman had a slim lead going into the recount but Al Franken ended up with the lead after many new votes were "discovered." Some of these votes were "discovered" in the most ridiculous places...like the trunk of a poll workers car! Don't be fooled. Ill maintained voter lists are the vines that bear the fruit of election fraud. When votes are needed, they will be found...count on it. As the old axiom states: It's not the voters that decide the outcome of elections, it's the counters.

Hopefully a Republican wave is going to be strong enough to overcome these difficulties and allow them to retake control of the House of Representatives. Once that happens, they will be in a position to launch serious official investigations into the corruption within the Department Of Injustice's Uncivil Wrongs Division.

A Reflection Of God?

A REFLECTION OF GOD?

In the world of shocking headlines this one comes as a real snoozer:

POLL: 1 in 5 thinks Obama is a Muslim

These results were derived from a Pew Research survey that was taken BEFORE the President stepped into the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque in New York City. One can only assume that it would have been a lot higher had the survey been conducted after Obama unsurprisingly affirmed his support for the project.

A growing number of Americans now believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim while the number of people who believe he is a Christian is declining. Perhaps more impressively, a size-able segment of the public is unwilling to commit Obama's religious conscience to any particular religion...at all!.

A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center. -Pew Research Center

Unsurprisingly, White House officials are expressing dismay over these results. Did you know that the president has an official "faith adviser?" Well he does. His name is Joshua Dubois and he apparently blames this state of affairs on "misinformation campaigns" by the president's opponents.

"While the president has been diligent and personally committed to his own Christian faith, there's certainly folks who are intent on spreading falsehoods about the president and his values and beliefs." -Joshua Dubois

Dubois went on to claim that the president's Christian faith plays an important part in his daily life. He referred to six speeches that the president has given in which he talks about those beliefs. However true it may be that the president has made references to some alleged allegiance to Christianity, the fact is that he has no one to blame but himself for the public's refusal to perceive him as a Christian.

When Barack Obama became president, he promised to try and change the relationship between Islam and the West. He said his goal was to build bridges, lessen hostility, create trust, and generally reduce the volume level in the conversation between the two cultures. Shortly after becoming President he gave his first formal interview to to Al Arabiya. That was followed by the now infamous speech he gave to the Muslim world in Cairo. Obama’s speech was laced with references to the Qur'an and his own "Muslim roots.”

And just what are these "Muslim roots?" Obama's grandfather was a Muslim. His father was raised a Muslim before becoming, by Obama’s account, “a confirmed atheist.” Obama’s stepfather was a Muslim. His half-sister Maya told the New York Times that her “whole family was Muslim.” Obama spent two years in a Muslim school in Indonesia and later, in a conversation with the New York Times, described the Arabic call to prayer “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” Given all that, it is entirely accurate and fair to describe Obama as having Muslim roots.

But it doesn't end there. Since becoming president his policies have turned decidedly against Israel. His administration came out against Benjamin Netanyahu's government after it announced a new expansion of a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. He likewise insists on dithering with the Iranians almost as though he WANTS to provide them the time necessary to develop an atomic weapon and, perhaps strangest of all, he instructed NASA chief, Charles Bolden, that NASA’s “foremost” mission is Muslim outreach. With all of this public affection being demonstrated toward the Islamic world, and yet again affirmed by his coming out in support of the controversial Ground Zero Mosque, is it any wonder that someone with his acknowledged "Muslim roots" might be perceived to be, in fact, a Muslim?

Strangely, some evangelicals have come out in defense of President Obama. Television pastor T.D. Jakes and Kirbyjon Caldwell, a spiritual adviser to George W. Bush, have released a letter condemning "misrepresentations" of President Obama's faith.

"We are deeply troubled by the recent questioning of President Obama's faith. We understand that these are contentious times, but the personal faith of our leaders should not be up for public debate. Obama has been unwavering in confessing Christ as Lord and has spoken often about the importance of his Christian faith. Many of the signees on this letter have prayed and worshipped with this President. We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far."

Too far? Absolutely NOT! The fact that the president claims to be a Christian means absolutely nothing. No politician would dare to claim otherwise if he holds any serious ambition to be elected to high office. This letter, signed by more than 70 pastors and other Christian leaders, calls on the media and other public officials to offer "no further airtime" or attention to those who suggest Obama is a Muslim, not a Christian. That's right, when in doubt shout down the opposition and tell them to shut up. Did you really expect this from supposedly Christian pastors? Now you can see, in the open, what I was referring to on the Babylon Mystery Orchestra record "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity." Not every church with a cross hanging on it is a tool of God. These pastors have come to the defense of their Lord.

It amazes me how quickly some people will turn to a god when they can find his influence useful, likewise, this president's religious convictions are merely a matter of political expediency. He joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church not out of any appreciation for Christian ideology but for its political philosophy known as Black Liberation Theology." This brand of "Satanic" Christianity teaches the lie of "collective" salvation among others. People like Obama who appreciate the redistributionist ideology of Marxism turn to such churches to get their ears "tickled." Whereas true Christianity convicts the heart of sin, Liberation Theology justifies revenge for those who comfort themselves by claiming oppression. Does that sound like the Jesus of your Bible?

The most impressive information revealed in Pew Survey, however, is not the rising number of people who suspect the president is a Muslim. It is the number of people who say they do not know what religion claims the president's true allegiance. These people, in their confusion, have actually arrived at the correct conclusion..."none of the above." Apparently the American people can see that the president's religious views are as flexible as any given situation requires of them.

This president is not a mystery. He often reveals his true religious convictions in such statements as this one made to a group of Rabbis in August of 2009:

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death." - President Barack Obama

Absolutely NO Christian could, would or should describe their relationship with God as a partnership. The president was, once again, trying to utilize religion as a tool to further his own agenda. In this case it was the monstrosity he called Health Care Reform. This is the kind of language used by someone with an ambition that knows no limits...and we have heard it before...

ISAIAH 14: 13-14 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Even as our president shows his impatience and contempt for the people who foolishly elected him, he has his sights set on something greater. He has already established a "partnership" with God. Obviously he perceives the presidency as a job that is undeserving of his unique talents. The penultimate narcissist has made it clear that he will not be bound by constitution or country.

"We are the ones we have been waiting for." -Senator Barack H. Obama

Well what did we expect? He was at least honest with us. There is no need to waste time concerning ourselves with President Obama's religious affiliations. People who are capable of saying "we are the ones we have been waiting for" find their gods in their mirrors.

Mourn Not For General McChrystal

MOURN NOT FOR GENERAL McCHRYSTAL

The liberal-progressive dominated media is praising President Obama's firing of General Stanley A. McChrystal and the subsequent choice of Iraq War hero General David Petraeus as his replacement as a brilliant decision. Considering the debacle that is the Obama administration, a decision that pretty much made itself in a manner that the president couldn't screw up probably does qualify as brilliant. After all, Obama keeps setting the bar lower with each passing day. Still one has to question how firing someone that he hired qualifies as anything other than further proof of his incompetence and ineptitude.

Just over a year ago General McChrystal replaced General David McKiernan as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan with much fanfare and praise. The media wet itself in excitement over this new president's excellent choice to replace what was essentially a holdover from the Bush administration. Poor David McKiernan was never really given a chance to be anything other than a steppingstone for the new strategy that was to be implemented by a bold new president.

McChrystal for his part appeared eminently qualified. This was the man who as Commander of Joint Special Operations Command was responsible for the capture of Saddam Hussein and the later killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. There is nothing to indicate that he was anything less than a stellar soldier. However, everyone must inevitably succumb to the one law of nature that ultimately rules our society...The Peter Principle.

And just what is the Peter Principle? I'm glad you asked. The Peter Principle is the principle that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. In other words, you will get promoted until you finally reach a job you cannot do and there you will stay. If there is anything "brilliant" in Obama's decision to accept General McChrystal's resignation it is that the General will be put out of our misery faster than normal.

General McChrystal achieved his level of incompetence by giving an interview to Rolling Stone magazine in which he and his staff made some disparaging remarks about the president and some of the civilian leaders assigned to work in the Afghanistan theater. This was the moment that brought the general's incompetence to light, however, he had long been hard at work trying to get there. You see, the problem with McChrystal has been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that result in the deaths of American and coalition forces. The Rolling Stone interview was particularly damning:

The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.” - Rolling Stone

These rules of engagement were entirely the work of General McChrystal himself...but why? On September 4, 2009 there was an international uproar after an American F-15E Strike Eagle bombed a group of Taliban fighters who had apprehended two tanker fuel trucks. The trucks, naturally, exploded, and the Taliban fighters were killed along with several civilians. General McChrystal was angry over the civilian deaths and determined to tighten the American force's already-too-strict rules of engagement still further to avoid them in the future. When the general met with local leaders in Kunduz, a few days after the bombing he fully expected to get an earful of criticism. He got an earful alright...but not an earful of what he expected. What he got was a totally unanticipated sort of criticism:

McChrystal began expressing sympathy "for anyone who has been hurt or killed."

The council chairman, Ahmadullah Wardak, cut him off. He wanted to talk about the deteriorating security situation in Kunduz, where Taliban activity has increased significantly in recent months. NATO forces in the area, he told the fact-finding team before McChrystal arrived, need to be acting "more strongly" in the area.

His concern is shared by some officials at the NATO mission headquarters, who contend that German troops in Kunduz have not been confronting the rise in Taliban activity with enough ground patrols and comprehensive counterinsurgency tactics.

"If we do three more operations like was done the other night, stability will come to Kunduz," Wardak told McChrystal. "If people do not want to live in peace and harmony, that's not our fault." McChrystal seemed to be caught off guard. "We've been too nice to the thugs," Wardak continued. - Washington Post

Instead of receiving an angry lecture on America's disregard for Afghan life, the general received an angry lecture on America's hesitance to kill the enemy. Wow! How many of you knew that Afghan leaders were actually upset that the Americans are too passive in their pursuit of the war? That is not the way the war has been portrayed in the American press and for good reason: It doesn't fit their agenda...and that is General McChrystal's problem...he does fit their agenda.

There have been a lot of foolish comparisons of his dismissal to that of General Douglas MacArthur by Harry Truman or even General George McClellan back in the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln. The better comparison is the later firings of both Ambrose Burnside and Joseph Hooker by President Lincoln. Both of these were Generals who allowed politics to interfere with the prosecution of their battles largely because they received their commissions based upon...political connections. They were both subsequently routed by General Robert E. Lee who possessed a smaller, ill-equipped army. A political agenda is a liability to any commander. That, unfortunately, seems to be a weakness that General McChrystal likewise possessed.

Now it can be told. The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really. This puts to rest another false rumor: that McChrystal deliberately precipitated his firing because he wants to run for President. - The Atlantic

And now you know why President Barack Obama chose General Stanley McChrystal as his commander in Afghanistan. He chose one of his own kind. Can you say...political connections? It was only a matter of time before this political alliance led to disaster. That time has arrived. How brilliant does the president's firing of HIS own man look to you now? Even worse, he has been forced to turn to Bush's man, General David Petraeus, to salvage his Afghanistan strategy...a man he essentially called a liar back in September of 2007.

This was General McChrystal's incompetence: He brought his liberal politics to the battlefield. To be sure he was a well loved and respected general...but so were many generals in the past that failed. There was no excuse for announcing to the world who you voted for in an election. Particularly when a majority of the military backed the other guy. However the worst thing he did was to author rules of engagement that reflected his political views over the practical realities of the fight. This is especially inexcusable when you learn that the Afghan leaders themselves were encouraging him to be more aggressive and not to worry so much about civilian casualties. He willingly chose to put the interests of Afghan civilians, many of whom by their proximity to the targets were likely Taliban allies, over the safety of the soldiers under his command...and the soldiers didn't like it.

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force," the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any f-king sense?" Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop a f-king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?" -Rolling Stone

The soldiers know...they ALWAYS know.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword but he who lives by liberalism is always betrayed by it. General McChrystal allowed the ultra-liberal music magazine, Rolling Stone, to have full access to him and his staff for this interview. Any soldier in their right mind would know not to let this military-hating magazine anywhere near them, but since he too is a liberal like them he thought everything would be OK. Fool. They don't even like the KISS Army. How could they pass up the opportunity to embarrass the United States Army? They couldn't.

Nurturing A Crisis

NURTURING A CRISIS

"We were stepping on the neck of BP to do everything we can do. Our job is keep our boot on the neck of British Petroleum and make sure they live up to their responsibilities." -Ken Salazar, Interior Secretary

President Barack Obama and his bureaucratic henchmen proudly boast that they intend to keep their boot on the neck of a major corporation even as they are entirely dependent on their intended victim to stifle the escalating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It would almost seem an idiotic statement were it not coming from a president who promised that "change is coming to America." Rest assured, the apparent incompetence of the Obama administration is far more nefarious than the "Keystone Cops" illusion that they are gleefully promoting to the American public.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" -Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief Of Staff

No, a crisis must be nurtured and cultivated to fruition. The Obama administration's animosity toward capitalism and big corporations has found the perfect vehicle with which to attack the United States economy. Just as surely as the allied bombers of World War 2 destroyed Germany's ability to survive by killing its fuel supply, so too do today's social engineers intend to cripple our economy by professionally mis-managing both the spill and its subsequent cleanup.

No one could fairly argue that President Obama could have in any way prevented the accident that has led to this disaster. Likewise, no one can suggest that anything within the president's or the federal government's power can realistically alter the situation at the point of the oil leak. This is simply something outside of their area of expertise. Therefore when it comes to containing the leak 5000 feet underwater they are entirely at the mercy of British Petroleum. Lest we be too hard on the unfortunate company, we should all realize that there is no reason that BP should want to prolong the uncontrolled release of the valuable crude into the Gulf. Every day the oil flows represents hundreds of millions of dollars in loss. Bottom line: If they could stop it they would...and they will stop it as fast as they can.

Yet, in an attempt to appear as though it is in command of the situation, the Obama administration announced that it intends to open criminal investigations into the disaster before it has either plugged the leak or made significant efforts to begin cleaning the massive spill.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in New Orleans that he planned to “prosecute to the fullest extent of the law” any person or entity that the Justice Department determines has broken the law in connection with the oil spill. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 120 points shortly after Mr. Holder’s announcement as energy stocks tumbled on expectations of the federal investigations. BP lost 15 percent of its market value during the day’s trading. - New York Times

Only an ideologically puritanical leftist could see the logic in rushing in a bunch of lawyers while the well is still spewing. You can always count on this administration to cultivate as much harm to the business climate as possible. Various elements of the American left have even gone so far as to suggest that the administration should seize British Petroleum's American assets. Considering the fact that they have already nationalized General Motors, Chrysler, AIG and the entire student loan business this is certainly not an unreasonable possibility. However even this administration, in spite of all its bumbling, is not foolish enough to seize the company until after the leak is stopped. If they did that then Obama truly would own a hole in the ground. But once the leak is plugged...BP should take the threat of seizure seriously.

The damage to the Gulf Coast economy was apparently not disastrous enough to suit the Obama administration, therefore they cleverly decided to make matters worse as fast as possible. With the seafood and tourist industry reeling from the effects of the spill the administration moved in for the kill by issuing a moratorium on new offshore drilling in the Gulf. This moratorium immediately affects 33 rigs and places a still greater burden on the flailing economy of the Gulf Coast states.

First, there are the immediate consequences as tens of thousands of oil industry workers are instantly put out of work by the moratorium. But then, there are the far more sinister long term consequences:

Brazil could benefit from the BP Gulf of Mexico spill as a U.S. moratorium on offshore drilling boosts available rigs for the country’s deep water oil exploration program. Even as an ecological catastrophe makes the future of U.S. offshore drilling less certain, Brazil is plowing ahead with a $220 billion five-year plan to tap oil fields even deeper than BP’s ill-fated Gulf well, which is still leaking crude.

With an estimated 35 rigs idled in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil is already receiving inquiries from companies looking to move their rigs here, where vast discoveries in recent years may soon turn the country into a major crude exporter. “What is bad for some may be good for others,” said Fernando Martins, Latin America Vice President for GE Oil and Gas, which provides services to drillers in Brazil.

“Since operators are shutting down at least temporarily in the U.S. Gulf, some companies are planning to move their rigs to Brazil now,” he said, without offering details. - Reuters

These consequences are sinister in that the Obama administration is well aware that once these oil operations are moved away from U.S. waters...they won't be coming back. In his attempt to give the appearance of doing SOMETHING (anything?), this administration is further enabling our country's dependence on foreign sources of oil. Is it likewise another coincidence that the democratically controlled U.S. Senate is currently pushing to pass the presidents cap and trade energy bill?

Many others in the conservative media seem puzzled and perplexed at the environmentalists who have apparently given the president a pass on this "mother of all environmental disasters." After all, how can they be silent? If this were a republican president they would be spraying oil all over innocent bystanders at the capitol. What gives? Perhaps they are rejoicing over the fact that those operations currently shut down will be leaving for good...and with them goes the last of the "drill baby drill" crowd's political momentum...or so they believe.

Though this may be the hope of the environmentalists, this will not ultimately lead to the defeat of the "drill baby drill" movement. If you will recall, this movement came about in 2008 when gas prices at the pump were pushing $5.00 a gallon nationwide. The country may very well be lenient on Obama for his inability to stop the leaking oil but if gas prices surge again it will be as a direct result of HIS actions. He is very aware of that fact. He has other motives. It should be noted that all five Gulf Coast states have republican governors and four of the five voted for McCain in the presidential election. Coincidence?

If the president is powerless to stop the leaking oil then he should be focusing on that which his power can have an influence: containing and cleaning the oil that has escaped. This is where president Obama "appears" to be at his most incompetent. Governors from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have been clamoring for more floating oil containment booms from the very beginning of this catastrophe. These devices, in sufficient numbers, would have been able to protect the beaches and the marshes from the oil that is now ruining them. Inexplicably these booms have not been forthcoming. For some reason, the Obama administration would like for us to believe there is a shortage of these devices as this exchange with Admiral Thad Allen, the man in charge of the administration's cleanup operations, demonstrates:

Jake Tapper, ABC: I talked to a guy who runs a company in Maine that offers boom, and he has — he says — the ability to make 90,000 feet of boom a day. High quality. BP came there 2 weeks ago, looked at it, they are doing another audit today. He is very frustrated, he says he has a lot of high quality boom to go and it is taking a long time for BP to get its act together. Don’t you need this boom right now?

Admiral Thad Allen: Oh we need all the boom wherever we can get it. If you give me the information off camera I’ll be glad to follow up.

Hmm... I hate to come down on a serviceman, but his answer is particularly disingenuous. There was no need for the admiral to ask for the information from Jake Tapper. It’s contained in a letter that has been sitting on the admiral’s desk since May 21st. Copies of letter were also sent to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and to NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. The letter proudly touts the Auburn, Maine company Packgen and its capability of supplying the necessary boom and was written and signed by both Maine senators, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Unfortunately for the Obama administration this letter is widely available to the public.

Apparently Packgen has miles of floating oil containment boom in warehouse right now and they say they can make lots more on short notice. Packgen owner John Lapoint said his company is ramping up production to make 90,000 feet of oil boom per day. Packgen first alerted the government 4 WEEKS AGO that they can produce more boom than anyone in the US and abroad. And yet the governors of the Gulf states have been denied these resources even as the oil was encroaching ever closer to their shores. Did I mention that all five Gulf states have republican governors and four out of five of them voted for McCain?

Florida's state Senator, Bill Nelson, worries about yet another problem that is not being adequately addressed by the Obama administration. State emergency officials say there are not enough skimmers out in the Gulf catching oil.

“Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help. It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.
The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.” - Houston Chronicle

Now, after over 50 days of oil flowing freely into the gulf, the question must be asked: Why do effective and proven foreign clean-up ships remain unused and their offers to help unaccepted? Could it have something to do with the Obama administration’s close relationship with labor unions?

Suspicion revolves around the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, sometimes referred to as the Jones Act. The Act requires that ships that do business within the US be staffed with at least 75% American Citizens. In addition, ships that operate within U.S. waters have heavy restrictions placed on foreign manufacture. In its day, the law was made in order to protect American seamen. Today it has become a nuisance to the effort to clean up the oil spill. There are skimmer boats that wish to help clean up the oil, but the problem is they aren’t owned and operated in the United States. Therefore, under the Jones Act, they cannot work.

This is a big deal to the unions. They see it as protecting jobs. Or, more to the point, protecting UNION jobs. They don't like it when the Jones Act gets waived, and they take revenge on the politicians that do it. So is the Obama administration placating the unions and not doing everything he can to advance the cleanup of the spill? The administration continues to say that no one has requested a waiver of the Jones act. Perhaps it is simply because all foreigners and most Americans are simply unaware of the need to request a waiver. It should be noted that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina President Bush granted a general waiver of the act so that all help that was available could be utilized...regardless of the source. But G.W. was not beholden to the unions. It should also be noted that the Obama administration has never acted against the wishes of the labor unions. The trend continues.

And then there is this...

Pursuant to 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(1) temporary flight restrictions are in effect for deepwater horizon/mississippi canyon (mc252) incident cleanup and reconstitution operations an area bounded by: 290500n/0904000w or the leeville /lev/ vortac 258 degree radial at 30.1 NM to 300000n/0890000w or the gulfport /gpt/ vortac 169 degree radial at 24.7 NM to 300000n/0870000w or the crestview /cew/ vortac 196 degree radial at 52.2 NM to 280000n/0870000w or the panama city /pfn/ vortac 208 degree radial at 149.6 NM to 280000n/0904000w or the leeville /lev/ vortac 201 degree radial at 76.3 NM to the point of beginning at and below 3000 feet AGL excluding the airspace outside of 12 nautical miles from the us coastline.

All aircraft operations are prohibited except those flights authorized by ATC, routine flights supporting offshore oil operations; federal, state, local and military flight operations supporting oil spill recovery and reconstitution efforts; and air medical and law enforcement operations.

That's right, The Federal Aviation Administration has banned all flights over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. After all, some of those flights could lead to nasty photos and more bad press for the thinned skinned Obama. The president has nurtured this catastrophe to make sure it grew to calamitous proportions...but he doesn't need for us to see a photograph of it lest we become fully aware of what he has done.

"In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come." - President Barack Obama

By comparing this disaster to the 9/11 attacks he is telling you that he fully intends to use this opportunity to push his already discredited climate/energy plan. The infamous cap and trade bill has been sitting lifeless in the senate for a year. His plans for placing huge cost increases on energy have not went away just because they are unpopular with the American people. This crisis is not going to go to waste!

America is now coming to understand that this president’s sense of identification lies not in American exceptionalism but in a belief that America is a force of evil in the world that needs to be destroyed. He never sounds convincingly like the leader of a great nation, because he is, in his heart, the product of his ideological upbringing. If you were at war with America, you could hardly do better than he has done.
He has increased the federal debt by more than all of his predecessors...COMBINED! He has coddled America's enemies even as he is undermining the alliance with our two best allies, Great Britain and Israel. He has attacked American capitalism by nationalizing companies and passing a stimulus bill that took 800 billion dollars away from the private economy and used it to bail out government unions...and he has had the audacity to ask the congress for another 50 billion to bail them out again!

By exploiting the Gulf oil disaster to promote his own, and his benefactors, political agenda he has placed the United States further into the clutches of dependence on foreign oil. If you were out to destroy America you could hardly do better than he has in just 18 months. Obama promised to change America. He never implied he had the slightest interest in running it. Destruction is change. And did I mention that the five states directly affected by his intentional mis-management of this crisis all have republican governors?

I Just Love It When A Plan Comes Together

I JUST LOVE IT WHEN A PLAN COMES TOGETHER

Who says President Obama doesn't believe in free enterprise? As it turns out, the opposite may be true. If by "free" you mean working without compensation and by "enterprise" you are willing to accept the government as your project. Our president is so committed to the concept of volunteerism and its resultant "free" labor that he is out to undercut the private sector's ability to make use of it in favor of a government monopoly. No, No I am not talking about a return to indentured servitude or slavery. I'm talking about interns.

That's right, as Iran is arming with nuclear weapons and Russia is deluding us into disarming ours, as health care reform grows more unpopular and a Supreme Court Justice needs to be replaced...our president has more important matters with which to contend. In the continuing spirit of nationalizing private industry, he is coming after your interns.

From the middle ages until very recently, apprenticeship was the primary method of gaining entry into a professional field. Its modern equivalent, especially in the business community, is the internship. A young person comes to work with and learn from experienced people and in the process acquires practical, real-world experience. The arrangement is often done in exchange for office space, housing or tools of the trade, but usually not for monetary compensation. The experience itself is seen as the most valuable commodity to the intern.

It is an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to both parties. The employer gets an opportunity to inexpensively observe a potential new employee, and the intern gains necessary experience and a possible job offer. Even if the intern does not end up accepting a job with their internship employer he or she will acquire valuable contacts and a letter of recommendation. Who could possibly have a problem with that?

Well, in the unicorn infested world of progressivism and its subordinate politics, internship has been reduced to an unfair relationship that simply provides greedy capitalists with free labor. It's the prevailing view of those with an inflated appreciation of their own "union approved" educations that simply sitting at a desk for 16-17 years is preparation worthy of significant compensation. For you see, they place considerable value on that wonderful "union approved" education they bring to the job.

The unemployment rate for those aged 20-29 is 25% and rising. This is more than twice the national average. There is a reason for this situation. The cost of hiring a new worker fresh out of school is greater than the value they bring to their companies. Internship is a way for these young and inexperienced workers to off-set this disadvantage. If companies are forced, through government regulation, to pay these interns then many of these companies will be forced to give fewer of these young and inexperienced workers a chance.

The mutual benefits to all parties that internships provide have resulted in its increased usage in almost every professional field. The National Association of Colleges and Employers found that 83% of graduating students had taken advantage of internships as of two years ago. In 1992 only 9% had utilized internships. Perhaps it is this very visible and open success that has brought it to the attention of this current meddling administration.

Now, the government is claiming that all this is illegal:

"If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law.” - Nancy J. Leppink, acting director of the department’s wage and hour division

Last year, as New York's Labor Commissioner, M. Patricia Smith led a crackdown on internships. Now, as a federal Labor Department enforcer, she is pressing her attack on a national level. The assertion is that many internships violate the minimum-wage law among others. Could this be true? If so, why has it gone uncontested for so long? The government has criteria for determining whether someone is legally a trainee or an employee.

1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction;
2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees;
3. The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer's operations may actually be impeded;
5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and
6. The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training. -EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

By this standard of measurement not only would most internships be classified as illegal, they would likewise be undesirable from the employer's perspective...not that this administration would ever show any concern for an employer's perspective. Therefore if an intern were to be legal he or she would:

1. Have to be essentially doing something the intern had already been acclimated to in school.
2. The training must not be of any benefit to the employer.
3. The intern must do work that does not need to be done.
4. The intern must provide nothing of value for the company and essentially do useless and worthless tasks.

It is obvious that these rules were designed to prohibit internships. This is the sort of thing that only makes sense when looking at it from the point of view of labor unions. They always find it to be in their interest to restrict the supply of labor. This president is nothing if not consistent in his anti-business policies. However in this instance he is also standing athwart one of his most loyal voting blocs: the educated young. Unfortunately, though they may be dependable democratic voters, being unemployed makes them unlikely donors to a candidates campaign war-chest. Unions, on the other hand, donate heavily. It's not a hard choice for a politician to make.

Obama is not standing up for the right of interns to receive compensation. Make no mistake about it, companies are not going to choose to pay their interns...they are going to choose to discontinue the programs and that will mean fewer opportunities and more unemployment for college graduates. Welcome to the real world college kids. It's the change YOU believed in and the change YOU voted for. Now you can either live with it or learn from it.

And yet, if that was all there was to the story I would not have been motivated to write this piece. With this president there is always more. I find it quite amusing that even as his administration is trying to create the illusion of the poorly treated unpaid intern that is being mercilessly exploited by greedy capitalists, that his own organization, Organizing For America, offered internships to help elect him during his presidential campaign...and they are still offering unpaid internships to this day! The summer organizing program does not even offer food, housing or transportation stipends!

From their websites FAQ section:

Is this a paid position?
This is an unpaid position.

Are stipends available to cover food, transportation and housing?
Stipends for food, transportation and housing are not available.

Well, certainly they will not work them too many hours so they can get a paying job to work on the side...right?

How many hours a week will I be working?
Summer Organizers will be required to work 40 hours a week.

Ahh, Democrats. You gotta love 'em. Choosing to work for free is unacceptable when you are only selfishly benefiting a private sector employer and yourself. However it becomes noble to work for free when your employer is the government. Of course when enough people fail to volunteer, as is always inevitable in these schemes, they might do something like force students to work without compensation to repay their student loans. You know, the ones that the federal government just nationalized as a little mentioned part of the health care reform law. It could go a long way to easing the labor shortages that health care reform will create. Don't worry, I am sure it is all just a coincidence and that the government won't be instituting a draft of all these poor college kids who now have no choice but to get their loans from the government.

Did I say draft? Nahh, just call it "redistribution of labor." It'll make you feel better. Isn't it another one of those ironic coincidences that this draft will consist entirely of college students? You will remember that in the last draft it was the college students who were granted deferments. The revenge of the 1960s will soon be complete!

I JUST LOVE IT WHEN A PLAN COMES TOGETHER

HELL NO WE WON'T GO, WE WON'T WORK FOR MR. "O"

Giggles and Spite

GIGGLES AND SPITE

I envy the Byzantines. The death of their empire was spectacular. Muslims under the command of Sultan Mehmed II came storming through the gates of Constantinople on Tuesday, May 29, 1453 and promptly began butchering every man, woman and child in sight as they likewise looted the city's extensive wealth. When the crescent was lifted over the newly named Istanbul, every survivor of the the once glorious Byzantine Empire was left with no doubt that their world, and all they knew, was over.

Whether or not the United States died on Sunday, March 21, 2010, may still be an open question. There remain many battles to be fought. However the sacking of Washington that we witnessed on our televisions as the damnable Health Care Reform Bill was passed into law was far less noble than that of Constantinople. What we observed, as democrats bribed and intimidated their own members into passing this monstrosity, would make Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall seem like a Baptist bake sale. At least Tweed and his cronies were bribed with private money.

Nancy Pelosi took up where Harry Reid left off and opened the federal treasury to accomplish the President's goal of passing a Health Care Reform bill that places the Federal Government and 16,000 new IRS officers in charge of administering and enforcing the health care for the entire country. She was somewhat telling the truth when she said we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. We will be uncovering hidden treachery, as well as more of the special deals and bribes necessary to persuade our congressmen to vote for it, for weeks to come. You want an early example?

One provision states that programs with “a record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or from a rural or disadvantaged background” will be given priority for government money. This is only one of several such provisions. Programs and medical institutions that practice racial preferences will be moved further up the money queue than programs and medical institutions that disregard race. - American Civil Right Institute

By the way, the Civil Rights Act prohibits government racial discrimination and preferences. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the provisions racially discriminatory and sent President Barack Obama and Congress letters warning them about these provisions. The democrats, of course, ignored the warning. Every sentence in every law reduces somebody's freedom. This 2700 page legislation is going to deprive us of most of ours. Believe it.

Perhaps even worse than the bribery was the spectre of Andy Stern's SEIU union thugs roaming the halls of congress intimidating weak legislators with threats of withheld campaign contributions and primary opponents. Threats that were designed to keep vacillating democrats in line. Even as the public demonstrated in the tens of thousands, Pelosi kept her subjects sequestered in a lock-down to prevent voters from having any influence on their, I mean HER, congressmen. Representative government is dead when a bill that over two thirds of the country opposes is ramrodded into law "by any means necessary."

And "by any means necessary" is exactly what it took. Reconciliation was a devious tactic to avoid a conference committee between the House and Senate to resolve the differences in their bills. It's easy to win when you move the goal line closer when it's your turn to carry the ball. But what do you expect when a rules committee meeting results in this candid remark:

"There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ‘em up as we go along." - Representative Alcee Hasting (D-FL)

This coming from a former federal judge who was kicked off the bench in 1989 following his impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate on bribery charges. This is the kind of guy they put on the rules committee!

If bribery with taxpayer dollars isn't enough to turn your stomach what are we to make of representatives Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa who were once "no" votes. Then, coincidentally I'm sure, the federal government announces through the U.S. Department of Interior that it is increasing water allocations for the valley area in their district, a valley that has been choked of water by Obama's EPA. Suddenly without any other explanation, Cardoza and Costa became "yes" votes for health care. Do they understand that a government powerful enough to withhold water from its people is also a government powerful enough to ration health care from its people? Do they care? Now, any time the President needs to intimidate them for any future votes he only needs to point to a water faucet. They'll get the message. For 25% more of the water that rightfully belonged to them in the first place they gave Obama 100% of his health care bill. That's "courage" for ya.

And then there is Bart Stupak. This man strung us along trying to convince us he was a man of principle who would not support this bill because it failed to prevent federal funds for abortion. Lo and behold he sold out for a meaningless executive order that won't survive the first court challenge. An fifth grader knows that a legislative statute trumps an executive order. I guess Bart isn't smarter than a fifth grader. The announcement that three airports in his district will receive federal grant money is absolutely no evidence that the airport funds are related to Stupak's vote now is it? Another coincidence I'm sure. In fact, Stupak's entire coalition of pro life supporters turned out not to be as "principled" as they were "opportunistic."

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the “Stupak 11″ released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion–an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money this week than they did a year ago: Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio. …

Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. - Sunlight Foundation

Coincidences all, I'm sure.

Obama himself, faced with the possibility of failing to accomplish his dream of "fundamentally transforming America," proceeded to resort to some of the most atrocious tactics ever employed by a president:

One caucus member told POLITICO that Obama won him over by “essentially [saying] that the fate of his presidency” hinged on this week’s health reform vote in the House. The member, who requested anonymity, likened Obama’s remarks to an earlier meeting with progressives when the president said a victory was necessary to keep him “strong” for the next three years of his term.

The Narcissist in Chief is only in this for himself. Not a word about his country or what is best for it. No, he is only concerned with the Obama legacy. After the victory on Sunday the President actually had the audacity to claim that his victory was achieved without the influence of any "special interests."

And what of this victory? In order to have a victory somebody has to be defeated. Who? It was the American people who were defeated as Obama and the Democrats could not care less about the country's overwhelming disapproval of this bill. He failed in his primary objective to win over the public. Every time President Obama opened his mouth on the subject, approval of his Health Care Reform Bill sank. So he, Pelosi and Reid conspired to cheat. Pure and simple. He didn't win anything. Its time to wake up to the fact that our government is lawless.

So why did Obama and the Democrats press on with this unpopular legislation? Before you can understand WHO you are dealing with you have to understand just WHAT they are.

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -- miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke

Children have exacted vengeance on a nation that failed to acknowledge their fantasies as reality. To see them as intellectually anything more than undisciplined children is simply foolish. Do you think the Democrats actually believed in this bill? Of course they don't. They know that their CBO estimated costs were a wild fabrication. They were well aware that this bill is a budget busting fraud that will destroy this country. They didn't care. They don't care. It was all about defeating us, their enemies, and laughing in our faces.

These pampered children claim (falsely) that their actions are noble and that they are acting on behalf of victims of the American Health Care system and therefore are entitled to seek this retribution. They demonized the health insurance industry and now have effectively made it a utility for the government administration of health care. The insurance companies have been transformed into the "public option" of so many democrats dreams. Now the executive branch of the federal government will decide who gets health care, what health care they will get and when they will get it. That will, in time, create a very compliant and obedient citizenry. Everyone either needs or loves someone who needs health care. Such people will be reluctant to resist or criticize their new masters. In the eyes of the arrogant, power hungry progressives, Obama has conquered.

Yea, Constantinople had it easy. Our conquerors, however, require their defeated victims to remain as an enslaved audience to fulfill their fantasy that they have taught us a lesson. It's important to them that we see and hear them celebrate. Whereas the Muslims smashing into Constantinople destroyed and scattered their enemies, these would be conquerors of America made the mistake of leaving their conquered victims...alive. They have unmasked their intentions and displayed themselves as an army of godless, treasonous parasites. The time has come for us to be merciless.

The next fight against this bill is in the courts where 14 states have immediately filed suit against the implementation of this bill alleging its unconstitutionality. The argument that the individual mandate is unconstitutional appears to have a decent shot. Though congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, it does not have the right to generate it. Likewise, the imposing of fines and jail sentences on those who fail to comply is hardly what one could reasonably call a tax. The states are also rejecting the notion that the federal government can create a massive new program that requires the states to reconfigure their financial infrastructure to fund these new mandates. Essentially, Obamacare commandeers state legislatures for federal purposes. The Constitution does not authorize the congress to regulate the state governments. We should prevail...but then we should have prevailed when this was in the hands of congress.

There is also the matter of those people who have been exempted from participation. Oh, you expected that congress would create a special exemption for themselves but they also exempted their staff's in an arrangement that could affect thousands. Unequal treatment under the law should certainly be an issue in this matter as well as the way certain union benefits were selectively protected from taxation that non-union workers will be required to pay. There are a lot of potential problems with this bill and one can only hope the Robert's Court will strike it down in its entirety. After all, it was the democrats idea to make the bill a COMPREHENSIVE one with so many inter-related parts. Hopefully that will take the entire beast with one blow.

BUT...we now KNOW we are dealing with a lawless government. Anyone who would openly and flagrantly intimidate and bribe congressmen would not hesitate to exert that same influence on members of the court. We, the public, have been very tolerant as we attempt to play within what used to be the rules of the game. I am not too sure that will continue if we see any evidence of tampering with the court. I am not too sure it should.

Remember, I have been telling you that if they passed the Health Care Reform Bill there could very well be no elections in November. Now Rush Limbaugh is saying the same thing. (Its good to be way ahead of him on something!) After the lawlessness of this past weekend we can no longer take free and fair elections for granted. Remember its not the voters that determine the outcome of elections...it's the counters. If the democrats press ahead with their plans to grant amnesty to 13 million illegal voters or override state laws and add 4 million felons onto the voter rolls you can rest assured those votes will be counted whether they were cast or not. If there is even the slightest perception of tampering with either the election or the Supreme Court's decision I fear the republic will be brought to violence.

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." - Saul Alinsky

You see, this too is no problem for Obama and his sycophants. They don't have any desire to do what's best for anybody. If the country is destroyed, it is only to be seen as part of their master plan. They will rebuild it in their own image. You have often heard the saying the "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." Actually he recited poetry in the fire of 64 AD. Many historians believe Nero was actually responsible for the fires. You see, he wanted to rebuild the city according to his own designs and desires. Neroville? Once again we see there is nothing progressive in progressivism. The abuse of power is as old as man.

After the display they put on in passing this Health Care Reform bill the democrats really have no option but to be as ruthless and criminal as necessary. They have committed themselves to the destruction of the republic. If they succeed, they can be the masters of the new Socialist States of America. If they fail, they just might end up on a meat hook like Mussolini and his supporters. Make no mistake, it is going to get rough. So be it.

We are on the road to Utopia. Strange how much it looks like Cuba and Venezuela. We are at the mercy of a coalition of carnivorous special interests, minorities and parasites that believe they have grievances against us. They believe it is their right to impose their morality, or lack thereof, and their "social justice" even as they loot our treasury and reward themselves for their insolence. They are so convinced of their own perfection and righteousness that they cannot tolerate our freedom. It matters not what harm befalls them or their country. They only know they hate us.

Do you hear laughter? Not the laughter of conquering kings but the laughter of children; bitter, undisciplined...and in control.

GIGGLES

& SPITE

An Army Of One: Saul Alinski

AN ARMY OF ONE: SAUL ALINSKI

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." -Saul Alinsky

The social engineer masquerading as the President of the United States is at it again. With a bold, and perhaps tactically wise, move he has decided to push ahead with his socialist program to distribute his ideological perception of “fairness” as part of his ongoing attempt to “fundamentally transform America.”

Disregarding the public’s demand that he refrain from pursuing his left wing agenda to remake the country into something more acceptable to him and his kind and concentrate on resolving the problems of the one he was elected to govern, the president has decided to re-open another Clinton era debacle and seek to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. Apparently the Health Care Reform disaster was not sufficient enough of a hat tip to previous democratic administration blunders. This is just another attempt to distract the public away from the dismal performance of the economy under his watch. He knows that by bringing this issue back into the spotlight it will re-ignite the fiery political passion on both sides and keep meddling eyes away from a couple of dangerous issues concerning the economy and the debt.

Is it a coincidence that the president has decided to go forward with the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy at at the same time as revised numbers on unemployment in 2009 have been released? It was announced that, in fact, the Obama administration under-reported the unemployment numbers by 827,000 jobs! Was this an “error” or an act of manipulation? Were there manipulations in the numbers that allowed for the unexpected drop in the unemployment rate down to 9.7%? Perhaps they were counting temporary census worker hires? Did the administration reduce the number of available jobs from 136 million to 129 million? This would explain how unemployment went down even though job losses continue to increase. Such questions are not being asked because all the discussions are focusing on homosexuals serving in the military.

Also announced this week was another fact that likewise received little notice. The new Federal debt ceiling, that was just raised by congress, will be exceeded before the end of this month (February). Hmm…You reckon that had anything to do with the proposed budget President Obama recently submitted to the congress? The largest budget in the history of the world!. Unfortunately it is a budget that just happens to include deficit spending in excess of one and a half TRILLION dollars! A good way to distract the public away from the ever expanding federal debt is to get them fighting over the always controversial subject of homosexuals serving in the military. Congratulations Mr. President it worked! We are going to waste our time talking about homosexuals…again.

Homosexual activists have been pursuing open service in the military for a long time…and for a good reason: it is a shortcut to acceptance of the entire homosexual agenda in this country. Homosexuals have insisted that they are a minority group that is being deprived of their “civil rights.” They have long tried to associate their “demand” for acceptance of their lifestyle and behavior as being equal to the African-American Civil Rights movement. This has had the effect of placing a wedge between themselves and the African American community who, rightly, resents this nonsense. This also explains why California’s 2008 attempt to legalize homosexual marriage failed. The election, with Barack Obama on the ballot, brought out a very large turnout in the African-American community. They overwhelmingly rejected homosexual marriage. Good for them.

However, that will not alter the tunnel vision nor deter the selfish single-mindedness of homosexual activists. They are very well schooled in the history and successes of the African-American civil rights movement and are adept at adapting those tactics to their situation. They know that the catalyst to all of the success of the civil rights movement occurred on July 26, 1948 when President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981. This order brought an end to racial segregation within the ranks of the United States military. This had such a positive effect on race relations in this country that it paved the way for the civil rights movement to gain the popular support it needed to succeed. This is what homosexuals are attempting to replicate by pressing President Obama to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.

The trouble is, of course, it won’t work. Discrimination against African-Americans was based entirely on something that can be instantly and easily observed: the color of their skin. It had nothing to do with their abilities, intelligence, behavior or character. It was depriving them of the basic constitutional elements of social interaction reflected in such areas as education and equal treatment under the law. As such, fair minded people of intelligence can see such prejudices were built upon irrational and unfair presumptions that could, and have been, proven false. Discrimination against African-Americans was depriving and harming the country as a whole as much as it was depriving and harming them. Also, rectifying this discrimination did not require our society to re-orient its definitions of what is and what is not acceptable behavior.

Discrimination (and yes it is exactly that) against homosexuals is not even close to being the same thing. Homosexuality is defined by the actions and behavior of homosexuals. This is not a definition pressed upon them unfairly from outsiders. No, this is something they willingly and aggressively do themselves and force those outside their community to accept. Homosexual activists intend to alter the definition of acceptable behavior in this country. We have every right to resist them!

Most Americans, and I consider myself among them, do not wish to persecute anyone for personal and private relationships between consenting adults. But this is where the problem lies. The average heterosexual does not consider his sexual “orientation” a primary defining characteristic of his being. Homosexuals, as evidenced by their need to aggressively assert their “orientation” publicly, do. Their desire to overturn the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is a manifestation of the homosexual's tendency to assert his sexuality as his primary defining characteristic. The homosexual wants to be known as a homosexual first and foremost…at least that is what homosexual activists would have us believe.

In the years since 1993, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was initiated, there have been around 10,000 people discharged from active duty service for being openly homosexual. Yet, the military’s own numbers confirm that upwards of 65,000 homosexuals are currently serving. Obviously something must be working. I fail to see the “unfairness” of this policy. The policy was established by congress based on these findings:

U.S. CODE TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Homosexuality is, and always will be, a morally contested behavior that, like all sexual behavior, should be kept private. As you can see by the U.S. code of law, service men and women agree to the loss of a certain amount of privacy when they accept military service. There is no room for open or blatant sexuality…particularly of the morally contested variety. This is a volunteer military. These stipulations are agreed to voluntarily.

Will the country be better served by seeing homosexuals kiss and embrace as they return from dangerous overseas deployments? If we allow open homosexuality in the military this is exactly what we will have. Not only this, but we also invite the spectre of real life “Corporal Klingers” and other further sexual deviances becoming tolerated factors in our military. This is exactly what the homosexual activists wish to inflict upon us all!

Unfortunately, it is also what our “Social Engineer in Chief” wishes to inflict upon us. To him it is another theatre to redistribute his vision of “social justice” and fairness. But alas, fairness, particularly this progressive interpretation of it, is a concept best kept out of our military. We ask a lot of our military. They put themselves through years of sacrifice and training to prepare themselves to kill or be killed on our behalf. We do not wish for them ever to be involved in a “fair” fight. No sir. We insist that a fight with our military be entirely unfair! Our technology and machines of war are the envy of the earth. However, our “ace in the hole” is our people themselves. The training, devotion and character of our soldiers is what has made the United States military the most dominant fighting force the world has ever known. Fighting against them has always been a fool’s errand.

The ideals of our military reflect those common at the time of our country’s founding. It is the principle that although all men are created equal, there are better men than others. What better men could you wish for than a volunteer military willing to put their lives on the line not only to defend their own country, but to fight and die for the freedom of others. What other military in the history of the world has been responsible for giving so many other nations the opportunities for freedom that ours has selflessly provided? It is into this bastion of unimpeachable integrity that our President wishes to inject the selfish demands of homosexual activists. Also, considering the number of homosexuals serving in the military verses the number that have been removed for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it is not clear that the homosexual activists pursuing this agenda actually reflect the views of the vast majority of homosexuals in the military.

Our “Social Engineer in Chief” does not like our military. He never has. That is not the constituency that voted him into office…and he knows it! People who volunteer for the military swear an oath to defend the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Our President considers that archaic document to be an impediment to his “fundamental transformation of America.” His agenda IS an attack on the U.S. Constitution and his attempt to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military is an attack on the military. He IS a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution!

Even Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has stated that repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will cause disruption in the military services:

"My personal belief is that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do. I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.

"I also believe the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change, but I do not know this for a fact. I will not deny that during a time of two wars, such a major policy change will cause some disruption in the force. It also seems plausible that there will be legal, social, and perhaps even infrastructure changes to be made. These are some of the issues our review will address.

"But we would do well to remember that this is not an issue for the military leadership to decide. The current law and policy came from the American people through their elected officials. We will continue to obey that law, and we will obey whatever legislative and executive decisions come out of this debate.

This, of course, excites our “Social Engineer in Chief,” but do you know why? Because such disruptions are a necessary ingredient for a “fundamental transformation of America.” They have been schooled in this philosophy well!

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." -Saul Alinsky

You see, it’s a win-win situation for the president. He gets to inflict his vision of progressive “social justice” on a military he has never liked even as he continues to disrupt and disorganize the United States as we have known and loved it. Do you really think this President cares about the economy, unemployment or the deficit? He has made it abundantly clear he cares more about the rights of terrorists than the security of the American people. Now he would dare to put the American people at an even greater risk by injecting this poisonous policy into our primary means of defense.

By insisting on the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy he is also making it clear he views the military as nothing more than a tool for implementing foolish progressive social engineering schemes to undermine the country he was elected to defend. That is how you "fundamentally transform America." He is disorganizing America so that he might reorganize it when it crumbles. And he has the “audacity” to claim he is not an idealogue…yea right.

Intolerable Acts

INTOLERABLE ACTS

"Friends! Brethren! Countrymen!--That worst of plagues, the detested tea, shipped for this port by the East India Company, is now arrived in the harbor." -Boston, November 29, 1773

Intolerable Acts. The very sound of such words reeks of a tyrannical villainy that exceeds the "run of the mill" oppression normally associated with a bloated, out of control government. However, it also reeks of something else: A people who believe they deserve better and are unwilling to tolerate the tyranny, regardless of the ramifications of resistance. Despite the insistence from our president otherwise, we descend from a good, decent and independent people. However, our government, unable and unwilling to acknowledge this fact, is re-instituting a policy of Intolerable Acts, and we need only consult our wise ancestors in order to discern the remedy.

In colonial times, an arrogant English monarchy, its' treasury having been depleted by the French and Indian War, decided it could recoup its' losses by levying a series of new taxes on their American colonies. The Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Act of 1767 along with the infamous Boston Massacre agitated the colonists, but when the Crown decided to tax tea, the colonists revolted. They refused to pay the taxes required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation. Parliament then retracted the taxes with the exception of the tax on tea, this remained as a demonstration of Parliament's right and willingness to tax the colonies.

In concocting a scheme not unlike the political shenanigans of modern times, they gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Parliament then reduced the tax the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The scheme would actually allow Americans to get their tea at a cheaper price than before. However, if the colonies paid the tax on the imported tea, they would be acknowledging the English Parliament's right to tax them. It was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deprive themselves of their tea. It was a big mis-calculation. Our ancestors were not so easily deceived by Parliamentary trickery.

In Boston, the arrival of three ships loaded with tea ignited a furious reaction. On December 16, 1773 as many as 7,000 agitated locals gathered about the wharf where the ships were docked. The colonists demanded the ships leave...without paying the tea taxes. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without paying the tea taxes. A stalemate? No, our ancestors had a surprise for the English Crown. 200 men, many disguised as Indians, marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters. This was the first, and most famous tea party...but by no means, the last.

In early 2009, within the first month of the presidency of Barack Obama, his administration sought, and acquired, the single biggest booty in the history of theft, when the newly elected Democratic majority pilfered the United States Treasury for 787 billion dollars under the guise of an economic stimulus. The fact that the United States did not have 787 Billion dollars was not an impediment, they simply borrowed and printed the money. The public, having just voted out a republican president and majorities in congress for, among other things, excessive spending, reacted with hostility to this intolerable action. Suddenly, taxpayer tea-parties started popping up all across the country. The movement led to a massive display of over a million people at a demonstration in Washington DC on September 12, 2009. Millions more were participating in similar events nationwide. This government was put on notice that it has our attention, and it has earned our contempt.

However, the Obama administration, like King George's before him, does not handle criticism well. If you will recall your history, the English Crown responded to the Boston Tea Party by imposing a series of laws sponsored by British Prime Minister Lord North in 1774. These laws, known as the "Intolerable Acts," were the harshest laws ever imposed by Parliament against the colonies. They included:

1. QUARTERING ACT: Allowed British troops to stay in houses or empty buildings if barracks were not available.

2. QUEBEC ACT: Granted civil government and religious freedom to Catholics living in Quebec. This was a direct insult to Americans in the colonies, who had been denied the same sorts of rights that the Quebec residents were being granted.

3. MASSACHUSETTS BAY REGULATING ACT: Made all law officers subject to appointment by the royal governor and banned all town meetings that didn't have approval of the royal governor.

4. BOSTON PORT ACT: Closed the port of Boston until the price of the destroyed tea was recovered, moved the capital of Massachusetts to Salem, and made Marblehead the official port of entry for the Massachusetts colony.

5. IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT: This allowed the royal governor of a colony to move trials to other colonies or even to England if he feared that juries in those colonies wouldn't judge a case fairly.

Whether it be through arrogance or ignorance our current president has revived the spirit of the "Intolerable Acts." In fact, when comparing the policies and initiatives of the Obama administration and his congressional democrat catspaws, to that of the British Crown's colonial impositions, there is an eerie similarity. It would appear, however, that the modern version is exponentially more...intolerable! Let's have a look at them.

1. HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT: For some reason I see this as having considerable similarity to the 1774 Quartering Act in that it has the potential to be the most intrusive trespass of government into our lives. Almost every aspect of your life can be controlled through government administered and regulated Health Care. Everything from what you eat to where you live can be evaluated to determine your health risk. By rendering the health care system a slave of government regulation, it will come to pass that government bureaucrats will have a say in EVERY aspect of your behavior. Behavior viewed as risky, such as eating at fast food restaurants, consuming soft drinks or even sexual behavior, will be vulnerable to regulation with just this act alone. Privacy and freedom be damned! They might as well be living with you in your house, just as the British soldiers who were being quartered in our ancestors homes, against their wishes.

If you think I'm exaggerating, consider this example: The United States Department of Health and Human Services has already conducted a study to determine the health risks of firearms. Once the Health Care Reform Act becomes law, the U.S. Constitution will not be able to stop government bureaucrats from issuing a finding of "endangerment" and then, by fiat, they will restrict or deny you the right to possess or own firearms in the name of reducing health care costs. Why do you think progressives are salivating at the prospects of passing this damnable law? In one stroke, they can assume dictatorial control over EVERYONE'S life.

The Health Care Reform Act is not the product of a limited constitutional government, but instead is an attempt at limiting freedom. The president claims passage of this would be an historic achievement on behalf of the American people. This colossal invasion of a centralized "command and control" apparatus into the health care system will unleash a tyranny that will ultimately destroy the doctor-patient relationship, ration health care and stifle medical innovation. Do you believe this is being done for YOUR benefit?

TOLERANCE ACT: As with the Quebec Act of 1774, this intolerable act involves recognizing "rights" or status for certain groups at the expense of others. This is best displayed with the recent signing into law of Hate Crimes legislation that, among other things, allows for homosexual victims of crimes to be classified as a protected class of citizen and therefore crimes against them are subject to greater punishment than crimes against others not listed as a protected class. This atrocity is an offense to the idea of equal justice under the law. Worse, is the fact that someone who criticizes the homosexual lifestyle on religious grounds can find themselves charged with a Hate Crime should any harm come to a homosexual, in spite of the fact that the religious speaker wasn't involved in the crime. This effectively invalidates free speech protections. It appears that some people are now more equal than others to the point that they are legally beyond criticism.

But it doesn't stop there. Equality engineering is also at the heart of the homosexual marriage agenda that is poisoning our political discourse. Homosexuals insist they are being discriminated against because their "relationships" are not recognized as a marriage. They see only their individual rights where marriage is supposed to be defined as a union. When two homosexuals combine 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2. Yet when a man and a woman combine in a relationship 1+1 equals a lot more. Not just in the children created, but in the mutual sacrifice of the couple in raising new citizens. Every successful society throughout history has recognized this marriage based family model as the centerpiece of its civilization. How can homosexuals claim their relationships are equal to that? Their demand to reduce marriage into nothing more than two individuals' self-interests is not only selfish, but evil and intolerable.

But the Tolerance Act just keeps on giving. This myth of equality is the centerpiece of the Obama administration's war on American exceptionalism. Obama, always trying to level the playing field, would deny the United States its' role as sole superpower to instead have us be just one nation among the cooperative of world nations. Obama is also trying to destroy the relationship between excellence and reward in our own country. Achievement is, in his sight, a sign of inequality and unfairness that requires correction. Community organizing and pandering to parasites super-cedes constitutional protections for individual rights and freedom. As the schoolchildren sing: all are equal in HIS sight. Therefore, he justifies granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, tolerance of Islamo-fascism, and racial preferences for jobs and college admissions as a form of reparations for America's alleged past transgressions. Intolerable.

THE CZAR ACT: Like the Massachusetts Bay Regulating Act before it, The Czar Act unlawfully concentrates federal power in the executive branch of government. Unelected Czars appointed by presidents without congressional approval has been a growing problem in recent administrations. However the Obama administration has more Czars than congressionally approved cabinet members...39!! With thirteen more projected for future appointment! This is a massive delegation of authority to unelected bureaucrats. Their rules have the power of law...made by regulators, adjudicated by regulators and enforced by the executive branch. It is essentially a shadow government that answers only to the president. Take a look at his appointments, a more wretched hive of left wing villainy could not easily be found...

1. Herb Allison (TARP Czar)
2. Alan Bersin (Border Czar)
3. Dennis Blair (Intelligence Czar)
4. Ron Bloom (Car Czar)
5. John Brennan (Terrorism Czar)
6. Carol Browner (Energy and Environment Czar)
7. Adolfo Carrion Jr. (Urban Affairs Czar)
8. Ashton Carter (Weapons Czar)
9. Aneesh Chopra (Technology Czar)
10. Jeffery Crowley (AIDS Czar)
11. Cameron Davis (Great Lakes Czar)
12. Nancy-Ann DeParle (Health Czar)
13. Earl Devaney (Stimulus Accountability Czar)
14. Linda Douglass (Dis-Information Czar)
15. Joshua DuBois (Faith Based Czar)
16. Arne Duncan (Education Czar)
17. Kenneth Feinberg (Pay Czar)
18. Daniel Fried (Guantanamo Closure Czar)
19. J. Scott Gration (Sudan Czar)
20. David Hayes (California Water Czar)
21. Richard Holbrooke (Afghanistan Czar)
22. John Holdren (Science Czar)
23. Kevin Jennings (Safe Schools Czar)
24. Gil Kerlikowske (Drug Czar)
25. Ron Kirk (Trade Czar)
26. Vivek Kundra (Information Czar)
27. Mark Lloyd (Media Diversity Czar)
28. Douglas Lute (War Czar)
29. George Mitchell (Mideast Peace Czar)
30. Ed Montgomery (Auto Recovery Czar)
31. Lynn Rosenthal (Domestic Violence Czar)
32. Dennis Ross, (Central Region Czar)
33. Gary Samore (WMD Policy Czar)
34. Todd Stern (Climate Czar)
35. Larry Summers (Economic Czar)
36. Cass Sunstein (Regulatory Czar)
37. Michael Taylor (Food Czar)
38. Paul Volcker (Economic Czar)
39. Jeffery Zients (Government Performance Czar)
40. Van Jones (Green Jobs Czar) Oops, this self described COMMUNIST resigned after it was revealed he was a 9/11 truther. Apparently, however, being a convicted felon and a communist was just fine with this administration.

Worse, even than the proliferation of these unelected overlords, is who they are. These Czars are among the most radical, totalitarian leftists this country's godless institutions of higher education have ever produced:

John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, is a eugenicist that has laid out plans in his book, Ecoscience, for forced sterilizations and forced abortions as a means of population control. He stated that population control laws could be constitutional, under the right perception. Holdren also proposed such atrocities as forced adoptions for babies born out of wed-lock and claims that forced sterilization of women would be easier to enforce than men. What a guy, huh? He might appear reasonable, if only by comparison, to the half-wit Cass Sunstein who is Obama's regulatory Czar. He has publicly stated a desire to impose regulatory agendas such as outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption. That's right, he wants your cat to have the legal right to file a lawsuit against you. Of course your cat will be represented by an ACLU attorney who is a quackaloon liberal that talks to cats and knows what they want. I have a cat and if they have their way, she won't just think she's in charge..she will be!

Harold Koh, Obama’s pick as Legal Adviser to the State Department, is a self-described trans-nationalist who has openly stated that judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal “norms.” So much for national sovereignty! Applying Sharia law in US courts is more than acceptable to this man, and, in his child-like world, the United States constitutes an “axis of disobedience” along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq. Moral reletivism at its finest.

"In questions of power, let us hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." -Thomas Jefferson

Now you know what he means by "mischief." Unfortunately, our constitution is bound in chains by these unconfirmed, unelected and unconstitutional parasites that are sucking our freedom away right in front of us. Are we really powerless to stop this or, worse, are we just indifferent?

CAP AND TRADE ACT: Not unlike the Boston Port Act of 1774, the Cap and Trade legislation pending in the Senate would punitively restructure our economy based on the false premises of man-made global warming and the alleged climate debt that Western industrialized nations "owe" the world for emitting C02 into the atmosphere. The progressives, who bear a hatred for our petroleum based energy economy, have clicked their heels and repeated three times "there's no energy like wind and solar, there's no energy like wind and solar, there's no energy like wind and solar." All we are waiting for now is the wizard to make it all work.

The Senate, however, is balking at passing this economy killing legislation so the American Politburo, masquerading as the Obama administration, has circumvented the law. This of course is what all progressives do even as they expect you to follow the laws THEY create. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a finding of "endangerment" for carbon dioxide. That's right, a naturally occurring ingredient in the breath we exhale is now labeled as dangerous. By issuing this finding the EPA, under the authority of the Clean Air Act of 1990, can therefore regulate all carbon emissions nationwide.

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty." -White House Official under condition of anonymity

Command and Control is the dream of all liberals. They know what's best for us and are righteously indignant at having to constantly explain their "good" intentions and get the consent of the governed. So they threaten EPA regulation in an attempt to not only blackmail the Senate into passing disastrous Cap and Trade legislation, but also to express their willingness to act dictatorially if they wish. This, in spite of the fact that the Clean Air Act of 1990 is congressional legislation that congress can amend or rescind if they wish...and they better do it fast. This administration is fast rendering congress irrelevant. A dictatorship, always the result of liberalism, is on our horizon.

IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT: This is EXACTLY like the 1774 Intolerable Act that bears the same name. This allowed the royal governors to move trials in the interest of "fairness" as defined by the government. Does this sound familiar? The announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that he is going to give 911 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his co-conspirators civil trials in New York City has re-opened this intolerable wound. Once again we have the spectre of progressive moral relativism being imposed on the citizens of the United States. An enemy combatant, that does not even acknowledge the rules of the Geneva Convention, is going to be tried as an ordinary criminal, with the full accompaniment of rights and protections of an American citizen. History is indeed repeating itself.

This administration came in hell-bent on prosecuting the military and intelligence apparatus that so successfully kept a repeat of the 9/11 attacks from occurring for seven years. Apparently this Attorney general, with the approval of his boss, believes the terrorists had reasonable grievances against the United States and now he has given them a worldwide platform from which to advance their cause. In the process, the progressives will get to put the United States on trial, particularly the Bush administration and the CIA, and portray the United States as a villain deserving the "social justice" that the terrorists administered.

Do not think these trials will serve any other purpose. Other countries don't give enemy combatants the right to a civil trial. This passes for original thinking in this administration. Terrorists should be tried in military tribunals, as had already been agreed upon and which then senator Barack Obama supported. However this administration cannot even bring themselves to call them terrorists! They are consumed with the politics of American guilt...and it is intolerable!

In a culture that celebrates victims and their victimization, we must now accept that we too have become victims. Victims of a progressive attempt to fundamentally transform America either through our acquiescence to these intolerable actions, or through a deliberate attempt to over burden our government and economy with more debt and expectations than it can possibly handle. The collapse of our economy excites progressives as it will create an opportunity to rebuild a new America in their own image. An image of command and control, where those who know better do our thinking for us. Our portion is obedience.

This strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis, has a name and is well documented, and revered, among the elitist, progressive American left. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. I urge you to discover it for yourself. Read it, learn it and fight it.

Progressives, socialists and liberals of all stripes talk a good game, but they are not the type to sacrifice anything for their beliefs. They speak often of the poor and weak in our society but you will never see a liberal take a vow of poverty and dedicate himself to helping them. They simply exploit their misery to further their quest for control. Remember this the next time a liberal invokes Jesus or tries otherwise to conceal himself in religious foliage in an attempt to guilt his victims into accepting social policies that encourage parasitism.

Destroying the United States is their objective and "by any means necessary" is their moral code. They want the rest of us to accept poverty in the name of "equality" and "social justice" while they appoint themselves as bearers of the burden of managing our lives for us. This is the ultimate Intolerable Act.

Friends! Brethren! Countrymen! That worst of plagues, progressivism, has now infested our government rendering it intolerable. We must exterminate this government...by any means necessary! -Sidney Allen Johnson