Sep 292020
 

Chairman Graham Releases Information from DNI Ratcliffe on FBI’s Handling of Crossfire Hurricane

September 29, 2020

READ PDF: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-29-20_Letter to Sen. Graham_Declassification of FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigations_20-00912_U_SIGNED-FINAL.pdf

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today released a letter from Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe. DNI Ratcliffe responded to Graham’s request for intelligence community information regarding the FBI’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane.

 DNI Ratcliffe provided the following declassified information to the committee:

  • “In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”
  • “According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”
  • “On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.’”

“I appreciate DNI Ratcliffe responding to my request for any information concerning all things Russia in the 2016 campaign, not just alleged Trump-Russia involvement.

“Director Ratcliffe will make this information available in a classified setting. I will try to review the material as early as today.

“This latest information provided by DNI Ratcliffe shows there may have been a double standard by the FBI regarding allegations against the Clinton campaign and Russia. Whether these allegations are accurate is not the question. The question is did the FBI investigate the allegations against Clinton like they did Trump?  If not, why not?  If so, what was the scope of the investigation?  If none, why was that?

“I look forward to speaking with Director Comey about this latest information, and many other topics, at tomorrow’s hearing.”

READ –

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/chairman-graham-releases-information-from-dni-ratcliffe-on-fbis-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane

To Save America

 Comments Off on To Save America
Jan 242020
 
To save the America we grew up with and loved

January 24, 2020, by Sharon Ward

America is clearly and deeply divided. The question is, will we ever be united again? Former newsman, Walter Shapiro, wrote in a Dec 27, 2018, Roll Call article, “What America, and not just the Democrats, need most of all in 2020 is a presidential candidate who can begin to heal the nation’s deep wounds.” He opines that a good president will not only give “an inspirational appeal to our better angels as citizens,” but as well have, “that half-forgotten virtue called competence — the ability to understand how government works and to know how to use the levers of power to recover from the wreckage of the Trump years.”

He started out sounding nice but ended with digging the knife again into the wound. Ridiculing again the President chosen and loved by half the nation, Shapiro demonstrates he has no desire to understand half the population. Those of his mind have no idea how – and perhaps no genuine desire to – heal this land.

Several, but not all, of the 2020 presidential contenders have talked about healing the nation.  An August 2019 article reported that former Pennsylvania congressman Joe Sestak was “running for president to heal this nation’s soul.” A November 8, 2019 headline announced that Senator Cory Booker “wants to heal nation,” and a July 12, 2019 New Yorker headline touted “Andrew Yang’s Robot Apocalypse Can Heal a Divided Nation.”

Dr James J. Zogby, in a November 12, 2019 article, asked, “Will 2020 elections heal or deepen the divide?”  Zogby then claims, “There can be no doubt that, by any measure, Donald Trump has been the most outrageous president in our history…It isn’t just the policies Trump has pursued. It is how he has exacerbated the polarization of our society and coarsened our political discourse.”

What is not fully acknowledged by many on the left is that our society was deeply polarized years before Trump came down the escalator. He is merely supporting and responding to those who elected him – as almost all politicians do.  As far as exacerbation is concerned, half of America believes the far-left – which has falsely alleged that President Trump and his supporters are racist, greedy, fascists – is responsible for almost all of the exacerbation and violence that has occurred.

Indeed, there is a strong case to be made that it is not conservatives who are courting fascism. While many progressives have said they consider Christians to be dislikable, controlling people, they, themselves, embrace strict societal controls designed to prevent Christians from living their faith. This is interesting because four centuries ago in what is now the State of Massachusetts, Puritans, who founded the New England governments, were devoted to Jesus Christ but governed in a very strict, controlling manner.  According to historian Perry Miller, Puritans “disliked individualism” and believed government should not only “interfere and direct and lead as much as it could, in all aspects of life,” but also “discipline and coerce” when necessary.  Liberals in the extremely progressive State of Massachusetts today might not all believe in God, but they, along with other east coast liberals, continue to believe government has a duty to control the masses. Many young liberals, in fact, strongly believe government should prevent free speech, free assembly, and free expressions of Christian religion.  

Democrats seem to underestimate how strongly conservatives feel about this – as well as underestimate how strongly conservatives felt about many of President Obama’s policies.  As long as the Obama administration was enacting policies that liberal America embraced  – they closed their eyes and pretended the rest of America didn’t matter.  President Trump, on the other hand, said they do matter.

Zogby admits that President Trump “speaks directly to” conservatives, but then wrongly claims President Trump “has convinced them that he alone understands them and will fight for them.” President Trump didn’t “convince” conservatives of this.  Liberals have. One only has to listen to a liberal for minutes to hear the condescending and derogatory remarks.  Democrats and their 2020 candidates consistently renounce conservatives as either idiots or racist, sexist, evil white people. If they aren’t doing it overtly, they do it subtly.  Zogby himself frames liberals as good and conservatives as bad, describing Democrats as reaching out to “young voters, ‘minorities,’” and “educated professional women,” while Republicans reach out to “the wealthy, of course, and white, ‘born again,’ non-college educated, and rural voters.”  He applauds Democrats as having “condemned inequality, promoted diversity and tolerance, and proposed a range of social programs designed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable,” then scorns Republicans – alleging they chant a “mantra” for “smaller government, lower taxes,” and “social issues (from abortion to anti-gay rights) to appeal to their voters.”  So much for healing.

The Democrat’s apparent ‘Alinsky’ assumption is that if they ridicule people enough, those people will change. News Flash. Ridicule is only making conservatives angrier and less likely to ‘submit.’  When Obama made his derisive ‘God and guns’ comment and Clinton contemptuously called millions of Americans “Deplorable,” conservatives embraced the terms proudly.  Zogby asserts that conservatives have latched onto President Trump as their “last, best hope” and feel attacks on him are a threat to their well-being. This is partially true. President Trump is currently the best, but not last, hope, and attacks on him, while indeed recognized as threats to well-being, will not stop conservatives. Even if successful at unseating the President – the divide will remain, and conservatives will find another brave soul to fight for them. To think otherwise is delusional.

While Zogby advises 2020 contenders to “appeal to their base, while also speaking directly…to the left-behind working class – of all races…recognizing the hurt, acknowledging the frustration, and sharing the anger of the right,” he does not understand that is impossible. His words may appeal to Leftist elites, but conservatives recognize them as inherently and insufferably paternalistic. Sure – share the anger. Then go ahead and do what you were going to do anyway. Democrats, including those who claim to want to heal the country through “unity and civility,” always assume that those they see as inferior will be satisfied with any token they might give.  After years of maligning conservatives, there is no reason to believe the 2020 Democrats will suddenly care now. 

Zogby admits that “Winning and transforming American politics means adopting a ‘both/and’ instead of an ‘either/or’ approach to politics” and “Ignoring or just trying to get more votes than the ‘other side,’ will only perpetuate the divide.” He also concedes that “lame calls for unity and civility fall flat when people are hurting, frustrated, and mad.” However, his advice to unify the nation “around an agenda that speaks to all Americans across the divide” is naïve, at best. Our nation is not split on minor points of policy, easily compromised.  It is split on primary, fundamental beliefs – core to everyone’s identity.  

Liberals think conservatives are deplorable?  Conservatives think liberals are insane.  Attacking God and guns wasn’t bad enough – liberals have gone on to rob Americans not only of who they have been as a society for centuries – but of the very essence of who they are as human beings.   

For example, when a Democrat reads that many Americans will never – ever – be comfortable with or accepting of biological men in women’s restrooms, does their stomach turn or lips curl into a sneer?  If so, accept that outside of a war that unites Americans in defense of their lives, there is no longer an agenda that will speak to both sides.  The left is quick to condemn any man who might have made the slightest perceived offence to a woman – yet is comfortable ignoring the deep perception of privacy and safety many women need in a bathroom – especially those who have been sexually assaulted in the past.

Several issues cannot be compromised. Too many Democrats have said they want to make children who are just days away from birth disposable.  The large number who staunchly embrace this agenda will need a transformative experience with God before America will ever be united – because conservatives will not cease condemning the cold-blooded murder of infants.   

The left has been attempting to subvert everything Americans have known about life and culture.  Democrats demand the right to teach a leftist illusion to the children who have been allowed to live – including that they can be another gender. Children are then confused into believing that not only can they change gender; they can choose from dozens of ‘genders.’  But because nothing is what it seems, they had better not make the mistake of assuming what a person looks like is what that person really is, and heaven forbid they call them by the wrong pronouns – which have multiplied exponentially along with the genders.  Liberals have then shamed and even punished children who, confused by all this, state the obvious.  

Liberals have told children that God isn’t important and probably doesn’t even exist. They told young girls that it is okay to kill their babies if they want. Then they started infusing this far-left agenda into children’s schoolwork, cartoons, movies and toys.  

Claiming that sexually explicit “Pride parades” are family fun and story hour at the library educational, liberals called conservatives uptight and homophobic, and suggested more drugs be legalized so everyone could just get high and relax.  President Obama broke the camel’s back when he mandated schools open up bathrooms, locker rooms, and even motel rooms on field trips so children the left had allowed to survive but strived to confuse could more effectively stress and confuse other children. In just ten years, Obama had forced so many changes to our society that many citizens over the age of 40 felt they had lost their own culture. This was no longer “your parent’s America.”  Many who were losing their children to the leftist distortions could see this wasn’t going to stop. It was only going to keep getting worse.

All of that – along with the economically destructive policies of the Obama administration – made people grieve for the America they grew up in.  This is why the phrase, “Make America Great Again,” spoke to so many.

Unfortunately, Democrats successfully convinced young people that the phrase was all about ‘race.’

It was not about ‘race.’  It also had less to do with the economy than many out-of-touch elites supposed.  While everyone wants better cash-flow and those who recognize the President’s economic achievements are very grateful for it, the provoked anger during the Obama administration wasn’t about jobs as much as it is about social issues.

The liberals had gone after the children.

Hands off our children. 

This is not a village. You do not get to raise our child.

Conservatives have been pushed too far. As men, women, mothers, fathers and grandparents, they will not allow the far left to destroy their families any longer.

Liberals are enraged at President Trump precisely because of his conservative social policies – yet still don’t get that half of America loves President Trump precisely because of his conservative social policies.  They want to make it about anything but that.

There can never be a uniting of these two, diametrically opposed worldviews. The divide is irreconcilable. Accept it.  No President can heal this nation. Leftists have been clear they intend to extend the craziness further, and conservative have been clear they intend to stop them. Both have been increasingly disgusted by the policies of each other’s successive administrations over the last 30 years.

Nevertheless, don’t worry.  It does not need to come to blows and one side does not need to push the other out of the country. We do not need to have a civil war.  While we cannot heal the divide, there is a way for this nation to survive.

We must genuinely honor the 10th amendment – just as the Founding Father’s originally envisioned.  Unlike genders, we really do have many different states to choose from – 51 if Northern California has its way.  

The original colonies were, by their measure, jarringly distinct from each other.  Each had its own manner of government and was highly protective of its territory. They had separate histories, specific religions, distinguishable cultures and unique commerce issues. They were often in competition or conflict with one another. Nevertheless, while they wanted to retain their individuality, they desired to form a collective central government for purposes of defense, oversea commerce, national infrastructure, and a small number of other issues best handled in unity. Our nation was created, constitution written – and over the years, civil rights added – under the premise that each state be able to maintain its own policies.

Today, if a state decides to be socialist, so be it – with the understanding that the federal government has no power and the other States are under no obligation to bail it out when it fails.  The federal government must finally limit itself to those powers vested by the Constitution and perform only those tasks it was created for. Each State must be free to determine its own internal policies as allowed under the federal constitution – including how long a new resident must wait before receiving state benefits.  The president must return to a more limited role as Chief executive.  It is only in this way – the way originally established by our founding fathers – that this nation can survive under two disparate world views.

Open Letter to Senator Heidi Heitkamp

 Comments Off on Open Letter to Senator Heidi Heitkamp
Sep 282018
 

Senator Heitkamp,

As a North Dakota constituent, I am very concerned by your silence during these Senate hearings concerning Judge Kavanaugh. I, along with many North Dakotans, am disturbed by the inappropriate disruptions by protestors and discourteous, insulting behavior of Democratic senators on the committee.

I am wondering how you would feel if you were in honorable Judge Kavanaugh’s position, or how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot as a committee member having to endure this level of rudeness.

I am wondering why you haven’t made a statement calling for civility and respect.  Do Democrats want the developing chasm between Americans to continue to widen? Or do you, Senator Heitkamp, value unity and respectful dialogue?

This is a very important question for me, personally.   I will be attending hearings as a member of your Congressional Commission – the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children over the next couple years.  Having attended contentious hearings in the past with my husband, I am very aware of the potential for angry, insulting behavior directed at me during these hearings – especially if I ask a question someone might not like.  I remember an angry, packed, out-of-control hearing in Billings that frightened even my husband so much that he decided against openly testifying. He handed his written testimony to a staff person and we left. My husband was afraid of being physically hurt at that hearing – and that was in the late 90’s or so when things were a lot more civil than they are today.

I am a human being. I get hurt, I bleed, just like everyone else.  Courteous behavior in the public square used to be normal and anticipated.  I want to know that manners and civility are not only expected but insisted upon at public hearings of any type, anywhere in this country.  I want to know – I NEED to know – that I will be physically SAFE at the meetings I attend.

If you are refusing to stand up for civility and safety at a hearing inside a Congressional building in DC – at the hearing for a Supreme Court Justice no less – how can I expect you to stand up for my safety at hearings across the country?  Will you stand up for my safety?

Despite your campaign claim that you value all voices and prioritize standing up “for North Dakotans and making sure that their voices are heard in the halls of Congress” and that you “make it a point to meet with, listen to, and fight for North Dakotans every day” – this is not how I have ever been received by your staff.  Despite several attempts to schedule direct meetings with you over the years, I have yet to have even one meeting with you.
In late 2013, I actually felt ridiculed by your DC staff when attempting to meet with an aide.

Watching you sit silently now while Judge Kavanaugh’s children are escorted out of the hearing for their safety – I have no confidence you will be a voice of protection for me, one of your constituents, at the hearings I will be attending as member of your commission.

Senator Heitkamp – please show your mettle and take a stand for what is right.  Please show us that you value all voices as you say you do – and make a statement against the out-of-control behavior currently exhibited during the Kavanaugh hearings.  Please make it clear that respectful, considerate behavior – including from members of the committees – is expected at any and all government hearings.

It is impossible for our nation to come together and reach any kind of consensus without it.

Elizabeth Sharon (Lisa) Morris
Chairwoman
Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare (CAICW)

President Obama, Senator Heitkamp, and Standing Rock

 Comments Off on President Obama, Senator Heitkamp, and Standing Rock
Jun 072014
 

June 7, 2014

Concerning the upcoming event featuring President Obama and Senator Heitkamp at the Standing Rock Reservation on Friday, June 13th:

North Dakotans are a gracious and forgiving people and will politely welcome the president to our wonderful state.

However, before he gives his speech concerning the wonderful “Nation to Nation” relationship he has with tribal leaders and announces what further moneys and authorities he will bestow upon them – he needs to learn facts from those whom his edicts directly affect.

  • According to the last two U.S. censuses, 75% of tribal members DO NOT live in Indian Country – and many have deliberately taken their children and left in order to protect their families from the rampant crime and corruption.
  • The abuses at Spirit Lake here in North Dakota are well known, but it is also known that Spirit Lake is just a microcosm of what’s happening on reservations across the country.
  • These abuses are rampant on many reservations because the U.S. Government has set up a system that allows extensive abuse to occur unchecked and without repercussion.
  • Many, many times more children leave the reservation system in the company of their parents, who have mass exited – than do children who have been taken into foster care or found a home in adoption.  But tribal leaders can’t admit parents are consciously taking their kids out of Indian Country in attempt to get them away from the reservation system and corrupt leaders. It makes a better sound bite to blame it on evil social services

President Obama, please listen to those who do not have a vested financial interest in increasing tribal government power, and learn about the physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse of tribal members by other tribal members and even many tribal leaders.

STOP supporting corrupt tribal leaders and corrupt systems and pretending all is okay in Indian Country.

Every time power to tribal leaders is increased, tribal members – U.S. citizens – are robbed of civil freedoms under the constitution of the United States.

More power given to tribal leaders means less freedom, safety and constitutional rights for tribal members.

VAWA Protects the Rights of Tribal Govt, NOT the Rights of Women!

 Comments Off on VAWA Protects the Rights of Tribal Govt, NOT the Rights of Women!
Mar 012013
 

March 1, 2013

On February 12, 2013, a horrid violence against women was committed when the ‘Violence against Women Act’ was passed by the U.S. Senate by a 78-22 vote with all amendments intact. Women across the nation were thrown under a bus.

On February 28, 2013, the U.S. House repeated the violence with 87 Republicans joining 199 Democrats to pass the bill 286-138. God only knows if this callous assault on women can be stopped. The measure now heads to Obama’s desk.

Obama said in a statement. “Renewing this bill is an important step towards making sure no one in America is forced to live in fear, and I look forward to signing it into law as soon as it hits my desk.”

Does no one actually read these things? We are discussing women and young girls who have been vulnerable and already victimized – being forced into further victimization. Where is the language in the VAWA that tribal government can only have jurisdiction under informed consent and absent objection of the victim?

If there is none, is this Act protecting the rights of women, or the rights of tribal government?

I asked this question to both Ms. Tracee Sutton and Ms. Gail Hand from Senator Heitkamp’s office. Both were silent in response.

I understand that most of our Congressmen on the Hill have never been in the situation of being a victim within Indian Country. I understand that they might not be aware the ramifications these amendments will have on tribal and non-tribal women. Reading the recent report by Mr. Thomas F. Sullivan, Administration of Children and Families in Denver of the severe corruption and abuse on the Spirit Lake Reservation might shed some light on the problem. If even a portion of what he is saying is true, our Congress has no right for mandating tribal jurisdiction over U.S. citizens.

Never assume that simply because a woman is of tribal heritage, she wants her case to be heard in tribal court. A person does not know the meaning of “Good ol’ Boy’s Club” until one has dealt with some of the tribal courts. On top of this, our government has given all tribal courts full faith and credit, meaning once the case is ruled on in tribal court, the victim can’t go to the county or state for justice.

And while many enrolled women will be upset when told their options have been limited, please realize that multi-racial marriages and relationships are very, very common in Indian Country and non-member women are no small number in domestic violence cases within reservation boundaries.

Further, it is interesting that in the language in section 4(A) below, describing under what conditions in which there would be an exception to tribal jurisdiction, the defendant is addressed more than the victim. It doesn’t matter what heritage the woman is – that isn’t the deciding factor for tribal jurisdiction. The language below addresses the perp’s relationship to Indian Country as the deciding factor.

In fact, under this section, ‘victim’ is defined and limited to only women who have obtained a protective order. In other words, women who DON’T have a protective order would NOT be considered victims under the exception section, and thus, no matter what, are subject to tribal jurisdiction.

FURTHER – the words, “in the Indian country of the participating tribe” are used over and over. Do you know what this means? I will tell you what it doesn’t mean. It DOESN’T mean inside reservation boundaries. But I can’t tell you what it DOES mean as far as how many miles outside the boundaries it extends – because, apparently, that is up the tribal government and BIA.

Yes, friends. A woman, off the reservation, who is assaulted by a person whom she might not even be aware is a tribal member (we talked about multi-heritage relationships, right?) might find herself fighting for justice in a tribal court.

… But trying to read the legalese in section 4, I have to ask, if both the victim and perp are non-Indians, but the victim doesn’t have a protective order…? (Who writes this stuff?)

It appears that the language has been written to protect the defendants, specifically enrolled men, from state and federal jurisdiction. They might come down hard on a non-member, but given the track history of many tribal courts – do not doubt that this bill will end up protecting certain men and further victimizing many women.

This type of language throws women of all heritages under the bus. Not only could enrolled women be forced into a court predominantly run by her ex’s relatives, but non-tribal women, viewed as outsiders no matter how long they have lived in ‘Indian Country’, could be forced to share their horrific story and plea for justice in a room full of potentially hostile relatives and friends of the defendant.

How many women will simply suffer in silence rather than attempt to be heard in tribal court? How do laws like this seriously protect an already victimized woman? What can be done to ensure that victims know they have the option to refuse tribal jurisdiction and seek justice elsewhere?

Further – could you please tell me in what manner women who would be affected by these amendments were consulted? During the discussion of these amendments, what non-tribal entity or organization represented and advocated for needs of women who live within Indian Country?

PLEASE URGE PRESIDENT OBAMA NOT TO SIGN THIS HORRIBLE VERSION OF THE VAWA!

`SEC. 204. TRIBAL JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

`(4) EXCEPTIONS-

`(A) VICTIM AND DEFENDANT ARE BOTH NON-INDIANS-

`(i) IN GENERAL- A participating tribe may not exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over an alleged offense if neither the defendant nor the alleged victim is an Indian.

`(ii) DEFINITION OF VICTIM- In this subparagraph and with respect to a criminal proceeding in which a participating tribe exercises special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction based on a violation of a protection order, the term `victim’ means a person specifically protected by a protection order that the defendant allegedly violated.

`(B) DEFENDANT LACKS TIES TO THE INDIAN TRIBE- A participating tribe may exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over a defendant only if the defendant–

`(i) resides in the Indian country of the participating tribe;

`(ii) is employed in the Indian country of the participating tribe; or

`(iii) is a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner of–

`(I) a member of the participating tribe; or

`(II) an Indian who resides in the Indian country of the participating tribe.

Pundits Missed the Forest: Why Obama Won

 Comments Off on Pundits Missed the Forest: Why Obama Won
Nov 252012
 

November, 25, 2012

There are many conservatives across the nation today who are seriously distraught over the election, panicked because the results made no sense and worried sick over what is to come. In the hope of giving some kind of comfort, I want to assure my conservative brethren that the pundits, scrambling to explain the Obama re-election in terms of conventional wisdom, have missed an important factor.  It wasn’t the only factor, but it was a huge one.

You could call this new factor “Unlikely Voters.” I count several of my extended relatives, whom I love but face reality about, among this group:  first-time voters who never bothered nor cared to vote, but did so on Nov. 6 solely out of hope for the loosening of drug laws and moral absolutes and the perception that the change promised will mean easier access to unearned money, food and housing.

Go ahead and call me names for saying it. I really don’t care. Those were their reasons. They weren’t voting about abortion, Libya, Hurricane Sandy—not even the economy. If you were to ask these relatives about Fast and Furious, most of them would think you were referring to a movie.

As a member of a very diverse family I have been privy to disturbing posts on Facebook, like these two the day before the election:

Person 1: do u kno wat romney really wants to do with native americans and our treaties?

Person 2: Those who need rides to vote can call ACLU at 444-2285 :)Good service ACLU!! Thanks for your help!

Later, someone else exalts the fact that all the “hoodie tokers” and “hoes” were watching this election, and that is something ‘no other president had ever done.’

The election now over, they continue with day-to-day conversation.

Person 3:  Cool cool I just got my food stamps… ima walk up 2 the store

Person 4: ur one lucky dude – cuz im one of them peps that dnt get any foodies… gota buy dem from peps, my countys fkd up lol.

[Translation: “You are one lucky dude, because I am one of those people who don’t get food stamps… I have to buy them from people (food money on the card is “sold” for cash to use for drugs/alcohol.)  My county is f….. lol.”]

As this small illustration shows, far more important than gender, age or other conventional distinction was the split between those who see beyond tomorrow and prefer discipline, and those who live for today and prefer pleasure. These ‘unlikely voters’ truly only cared that Obama looks cool, their friends all like him, and they think he will relax repressive laws. It’s probably no coincidence that Colorado, which legalized marijuana, and Maine and Maryland, which legalized gay marriage, also went for Obama.

Some of these are the voters whom the Democratic party went out of the way to get to the polls. They’re not on Dick Morris’ radar because he was using logic, but they weren’t making decisions based on logic. Because their friends believed the street rumor that Romney was going to toss out Indian treaties, they believed it. Because they were told that there was a war on women and minorities, they believed it.  What they were told on the street about Obama was all that mattered and nothing was going to change that.

Remember, conservatives swept the polls in 2010. Those conservative voters did not disappear nor change their minds on the issues. We did well in 2010 because Obama wasn’t running. There was therefore no interest on the part of some ‘unlikely voters’ to get out there and vote. We should be able to count on 2014 to be like 2010.

I don’t know if the Dems will find someone as “cool” to get the attention of the gang crowd in 2016. I doubt it. It could be that once Obama is done, we will be back to normal. Hillary isn’t cool enough to excite some of my relatives to get out and vote—and neither is Biden. But whether or not these relatives and others ever vote again, we do need to deal somehow with an immoral bent in our country, a very unhealthy element that is growing.

We were surprised and broken-hearted Nov. 6 because we thought that Romney was doing so well, making so much sense, and there was so much that was against Obama. Romney did do well, and there was much against Obama. But it was all beside the point. It never mattered to some voters what Romney did or didn’t do. They weren’t even listening.

Is the Obama Administration fanning the flames of a Race War?

 Comments Off on Is the Obama Administration fanning the flames of a Race War?
Sep 232010
 

September, 23, 2010

Let’s see, we had Black Panthers, La Raza, NAACP, and Mrs. Obama all talking “us against them.” Now we have President Obama, himself, telling black lawmakers, “

I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, and your workplaces, to your churches, and barbershops, and beauty shops. Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can’t wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now.”

As many know, in late 2008, the Department of Justice, under President Bush, filed a lawsuit alleging that the ‘New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense’ (NBPPSD) and two of its members had intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election.

According to the complaint, two members of the NBPPSD were stationed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling station. They wore their uniforms and one carried a “police-style baton weapon.” Two witnesses testified that at least three voters, after seeing the two men in front of the door, turned away without voting and that a black poll watcher was harassed, called a race traitor, and told that if he stepped outside, there would be ‘hell to pay.’

Later the Black Panthers admitted that they had ‘deployed’ members to polling locations nationwide and these two men were part of that deployment.

But soon after Obama took over the presidency, the case was dropped. Apparently, career prosecutors at the DOJ wanted to proceed with the case, but Obama appointees did not. The Obama administration, it was said, won.

According to whistleblower J. Christian Adams, attorney of 18 years and until a few months ago, Department of Justice employee, dropping the case was about ‘race,’ not fidelity to the law.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former career Counsel to the Assistant AG for Civil Rights, thinks this action by the Justice Department is unprecedented and says the DOJ has failed its duty to enforce voting laws. He told The Bulletin that the dismissal by the DOJ, with no notice on the Justice Department press site, particularly against an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a horrible miscarriage of justice.

Having heard of Mr. Adams sworn testimony, why didn’t President Obama push for justice in the matter?

Later, one of the NBPPSD members who was at the Philly polling place was video taped at an event, yelling at the crowd that black people have to get with it and ”Kill Some Crackers and Their Babies!”

It is clearly obvious that the Tea Party is multiracial in both leadership and membership, while the Black Panthers are not. And yet, it is the ‘Tea Party’ that Obama’s followers, including the NAACP, are accusing of racism. In truth, who are the ones creating issues over race, i.e. racists?

Last month, the NAACP voted on a Resolution concerning the ‘Tea Party. Although the NAACP refuses to release the language of the Resolution until October, ABC reported that it says

“Tea Party members have used “racial epithets,” have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protesters have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.”

To this date, no one has come forward with any video or audio of Tea Party participants engaging in any of the behavior described – other than displaying signs and posters concerning the misguided politics of President Barack Obama. But no one has supplied evidence of a poster intended to specifically degrade people “of color” on account of their “color.”

Despite the lack of any evidence, the President of the NAACP went on with his claims:

“For more than a year we’ve watched as Tea Party members have called congressmen the N-word, have called congressmen the F-word. We see them carry racist signs and whenever it happens, the membership tries to shirk responsibility,” NAACP President Ben Jealous (an apt surname) said in an interview with ABC News. “If the Tea Party wants to be respected and wants to be part of the mainstream in this country, they have to take responsibility.”

The NAACP unanimously passed this resolution, purportedly calling on Tea Party members to ‘repudiate’ what the NAACP calls “ultra-nationalist and racist factions within the organization.”

Okay…back up. Now they have thrown the word “Ultra-nationalist” into the mix? What’s that supposed to mean? Is that what the left now calls Patriotism? So now Patriotism is a bad thing, inherently associated with racism?  They have no evidence of racism, so they must be going after Patriotism because its the only thing there’s lots of evidence of within the Tea Party!

Yet, there is plenty of footage of the Black Panthers using direct, deliberate racist language towards non-blacks. Has Mr. Jealous taken responsibility and repudiated that clear, undeniable racism – racism from who Mrs. Obama has for some reason called “African” Americans?

Somehow the NAACP’s complaints smell more political than anything else. This isn’t an organization devoted to supporting a people group, it’s an organization devoted to supporting a political party,

Fortunately, not every US citizen of African heritage thinks the NAACP is correct. ABC reports that the Rev. C.L. Bryant, former president of NAACP’s Garland, Texas, chapter and now a leading Tea Party activist, said;

“The idea that the Tea Party is racist or is trying to instigate a racist climate is “simply a lie.”

But the NAACP isn’t alone. Organizations such as the National Urban League, Acorn, and Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Push Coalition all appear to see non- “African” American people in this country as a stumbling block to their political objective.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of the Washington-based social-justice group Sojourners, former leader of the Michigan Students for a Democratic Society (associated with Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground) and a key member of Obama’s faith council, wrote on May 27 that, “There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white…” and claimed that an undercurrent of white resentment is part of the tea party ethos. Apparently not having heard or understood anything that has been said by Conservatives over the last year, he also asked whether the Tea party would even exist if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office.

Willis’ group, Sojourners, BTW, had actively lobbied for communist regimes that seized power in Latin America in the late 1970s, and is currently advocating for the controversial Imam and Mosque in New York.
The left’s constant invective that everyone else in America is racist appears to be a shallow effort to provoke young, minority voters nationwide to rise up and save the Democratic Party over these next two election cycles.

And it appears that Michelle Obama is assisting in that effort. Are we being too hard on her?

First Lady Obama, who wrote in her 1985 undergraduate thesis at Princeton, “I will always be black first and a student second,” and “Princeton made me more aware of my blackness than ever before,” spoke to the NAACP prior to their vote on the Tea Party Resolution. ABC News, as expected, commended her speech in their report headlined, “Michelle Obama Rouses NAACP Before Vote Condemning ‘Racist’ Elements of Tea Party”

Her speech had to do with childhood obesity, but her community focus was very narrow. Many felt her speech was incendiary and race baiting. Her statement that “African American communities are still hit harder than just about anywhere by this economic downturn…” was very hard for someone of a different heritage to hear while struggling to keep the electric bill paid and food on the table. The entire speech was focused on the idea that the “African American” community struggles harder than any other. President Obama has made similar statements.

The Obama’s, like so many in their inner circle, appear to be blind to people of other heritages. Does she honestly believe that the ‘African American’ community has been hit harder by this economy than the Native American community? Does she have statistics to back that up? And is it really hit harder by childhood obesity than the ‘Caucasian’ community, or ‘Latino’ community?

Mrs. Obama went on to say, “African American” children “won’t be in any shape to continue the work begun by the founders of this great organization (NAACP).”

Again…back up. Is that the point of teaching the children good nutrition? So that they will be in good condition to work for the NAACP? I certainly hope that was simply poor speech writing, and not the true goal. Incidentally, what is the work that she is hoping these children will do? And why does Mrs. Obama, the NAACP, and their followers continue to call American citizens with darker skin tones “African” Americans? Why the continual, purposeful pointing out of centuries ‘past’ heritage?

And why the persistent attacks on “America?” Why does the left appear to be continually, purposefully, blaming and riling people? Were initial concerns about the Obama’s twenty-year relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright well-founded?

Listening to Sermons such as this one:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing “God Bless America.” No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. ~ Jeremiah Wright (2003 sermon)

Which brings us to one of his more recent ones: an anti-Semitic Palm Sunday Sermon

This is no fluke in thought or sermon. On Palm Sunday, 2010, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, pastor Emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, Ill., whose church Barack and Michelle Obama attended for 20 years, gave the following sermon at a Church in Detroit:

Based on 2 Kings 6:8-17, Rev. Wright spoke on “What You Can’t See.”  The passage related how the Prophet Elisha saw God’s invisible host of Angels standing ready to protect him against the King of Syria. Pastor Wright stressed, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them…”

Ellis Washington, former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute was a witness to this sermon and later stated,

“Despite the thunderous shouts of Amen! Praise the Lord! Hallelujah! and hysterical laughter in response to Rev. Wright’s sermon, I knew in my heart that this man standing before me in the pulpit was deceitful to core; a false prophet perverting the word of God like no other person I had ever witnessed.”
“For example, I heard Rev. Wright read the well-known biblical passage …but the political spin he put on it was quite outrageous…

  • Syria-Israel War = America-Iraq War;
    • King of Syria = President George W. Bush;
    • Operation Capture Elisha = Operation Desert Storm;
    • Prophet Elisha = Saddam Hussein (an innocent man with no WMDs);
    • Syrian Army = U.S. military (i.e., an evil pagan army hell-bent on capturing the man of God);
    • Syria’s servants = President George Bush military and political advisers;
    • Elisha’s servants = black Americans whose eyes needed to be open about how evil and irredeemable the US of KKKA is.

Okay, Rev. Wright…so where do the other American minorities fit in? As far as the Tea Party is concerned, they fit in right next to the rest of us. But where do they fit in with the NAACP, and Wrights version of America?

Because, you know, their human and want to fit in somewhere…

A few months ago, Ron Gochez, a LA Unified School District Teacher, railed against conservative Caucasian capitalists at a small Los Angeles rally and called for a Communist Progressive revolution in America. This liberal Revolution would involve killing people in the United States.

On Cinco de Mayo, May 5, 2010, Robert Rodriguez released an “illegal” trailer on Ain’t It Cool News. The trailer implied that the film would be about Machete leading a revolt against conservative anti-immigration politicians and citizens. Very unfunny – and an excellent reason to boycott the movie.

Do Obama and his administration truly believe that Fanning the Flames of Race War will help them win in 2010 and 2012? Are they honestly willing to push America to the edge in order to obtain their goals?

In August, 2010, a man went on a shooting rampage at his former workplace. After shooting 10 co-workers, killing eight, Omar Thornton told the 911 operator,

“This place is a racist place. They treat me bad over here. They treat all the black employees bad over here, too. So I took into my own hands and handled the problem,” he said. “I wish I could have got more of the people.”

Unfortunately, while most people continue to rise above the rhetoric and remember who we are as a country, angry, racial rhetoric is now rising from all sides and heritages. Two years ago, many were not angry and did not say such things as they are saying now. People are growing more frightened of each other; unsure what the other person might be thinking or where they stand. It’s always a relief when one finds out that despite the difference in heritage, the other person still thinks just like you do. Despite the wedge that the left is trying to force between everyone, most of us still want to be neighbors.

This was supposed to be a “post” racial presidency. Why is our leadership fanning these flames?

On September 18, 2010, President Barack Obama , in a speech to just the black lawmakers said, ”

I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, and your workplaces, to your churches, and barbershops, and beauty shops. Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can’t wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now.”

Why was this message given to only part of the liberal Congress members? Why weren’t non-black lawmakers included?

The president, in effort to secure their support, repeated the First Lady’s claim, saying the recession had struck “with a particular vengeance on African-American communities” and implied that opposition to his policies is based on racism.

Members of “the other side,” Obama said, “want to take us backward. We want to move America forward.”

The caucus dinner with the lawmakers capped a concentrated week of outreach to minority groups. On Monday there was a White House reception for black college officials. On Wednesday there were speeches by the president to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and by first lady to a black caucus legislative conference. Obama told the Hispanic group he is committed to an immigration overhaul, even though it has stalled in Congress. He blamed GOP opposition and said Hispanic voters should keep that in mind.  Obama was also interviewed on “The Tom Joyner Show” radio program last week, which has a large black audience.

I was raised in the DFL, amongst many people that seriously believed that liberal policies would help people. I wonder what some of those older people I grew up around; Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Don Frazer and Rudy Perpich would be thinking, or are thinking, about the Democratic Party now. They seemed so honest while I was growing up. I have a hard time believing they would support the current administration.

But I’ve also realized for years that it is the liberal mindset that keeps people separated and angry, salting wounds. Having had lots of experience living in very low income communities and on reservations, I began to see how the liberal policies were doing much more harm than good. More recently, I have begun to wonder if that is their real purpose. I still believe the people I grew up around were sincere, but the Democratic Party, at the top, as near as I can tell, is now the party of elite wanting power over the poor.

I see the Democrats today as more closely aligned with the Communists of 60 – 80 years ago, who professed to be for the poor while they terrorized and subjugated them.

You can hear it in their angry words – the venom, rudeness, and hate with which they treat their political opponents. In Blog comments and on twitter, they have been attacking the elderly, vets, and young mothers with disdain and the foulest language. Why? That kind of behavior certainly doesn’t endear them to anyone. It only pushes people farther away from the Democratic Party. People that attack brutely rather than debate maturely are scary people. I do not want them leading us; they are the type that hit when they aren’t obeyed.  However it appears this is the type of people we now have in the White House.

We can not let this small group of ultra-liberals push us into race war.

Not only is race is irrelevant in any context, (including in the U.S. census), race doesn’t even exist. According to Genome Project, there is no such thing as race. There is no gene for race. There are only genes for familial differences, such as facial cheekbones, shade of skin, and texture of hair. Those aren’t race differences; they are family differences. Human genes have been traced back to just one family. (The genome project stopped short of saying that all humans descended from one couple. Too touchy of a statement, I would guess.)

Commenting on current racial tensions, Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, “The NAACP is slamming the Tea Party for racism, as all the while the NAACP supports Planned Parenthood, the most racist arm of genocide in America today. Add to this melee the most recent attack by the Pro-abortion Movement on the Pro-Life Prayer Movement that is sweeping the nation. As the games play out, one thing is apparent. The concept of separate races and consequently racism are a lie.”

“What people need to do is to read the Bible, or at least read my Uncle Martin’s book Strength to Love,” said Dr. King. “Human dignity, bringing love and respect for each other as human beings, not considering ourselves as separate races is the answer to this puzzle.”

Rep. King, Obama IS a Racist

 Comments Off on Rep. King, Obama IS a Racist
Jun 172010
 

Finally – someone has had the guts to say something.

Iowa Congressman Steve King, in a June 16, 2010, FOX article by Cristina Corbinon, reaffirmed his belief that President Obama has “a default mechanism that breaks down on the side of the minority.”

While he stopped short of calling the president a racist, saying “I don’t know if I want to go so far as to make that allegation,” King ”made no apologies for his comments about Obama favoring Minorities.”

The Iowa Representative meant exactly what he said on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show Monday: that President Obama favors blacks over whites and “needs to be called to task on that.” He felt he is performing a public service by stating that the President obviously favors blacks over whites.

YES – he had done a public service!  President Obama, Eric Holder, and the extremely large number of people in our country that are doing the same thing DO need to be called on it.  They MUST be called on it, because to continue this ridiculous facade is seriously harming us all.

One of King’s examples was the July 2009 Cambridge, MA, brouhaha where white police officer Sgt. James Crowley arrested black Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. outside his home. Before knowing the facts, Obama said the officer had acted “stupidly” by arresting Gates.  Under severe criticism, Obama later ate his words and pretended to make it all better at a White House ”beer summit,” where he and Gates continued their assault on the varied motivations of law enforcement.  (One thing that was noticeable in the press photos of their walk to the table was Crowley’s kind attention in assisting Gates, who uses a cane, while Obama lumbered ahead, oblivious to them both.) 

King said Obama’s initial statement on the incident “brought up race in the beginning” and “concluded with race.”

King went on to cite Obama’s criticism of Arizona’s immigration law and Eric Holders decision to drop the 2008 voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.  Two members of that party had been standing at the door of a Philedelphia voting center in election day, waving sticks.

Democrats are feigning outrage over King’s remarks, and even some republicans have run hiding.  Never mind he’s speaking to an issue that many of us had been aware of, or have become aware of, over the last year.

While King stops short of calling the president a racist, I have no such hesitancy.

It is beyond me how my husband, who was 100% Native American, was called a racist by the Montana Human Rights Commission simply because he politically opposed what tribal leaders are doing to people of Indian heritage.  Yet, he never showed disdain for the tribe. In fact, everything he did was because he loved his family and friends and hated to see them continue to be hurt by destructive federal Indian policy.  His only crime?  He was taking the same side on the issues as many conservative white people. Therefore, because the left labeled those white people as racist, they labeled him as a racist as well.  In fact, the Montana Human Rights Network claimed that ANYONE who opposed tribal government decisions was inherently a racist.

Yet Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, Rev. Wright, and the like , (I’m referring to ideology here), can behave as they have toward whites – not with simple political opposition, but with constant hate mongering in the form of  false  accusations about the motivations of Caucasians.  And no one is supposed to say anything.

What’s honestly behind the huge outcry against the Arizona law – the one that reflects and upholds federal law?  The only ones making this a racial issue are the ones who are calling the law racist and inferring that Arizonans are as well.  That would be Obama, Holder, Napolitano, and the Mayor of LA… to name just a few.

While the state was forced to enact the law because federal government wasn’t doing its job concerning gang members and drug runners crossing the border in greater numbers, Arizona law enforcement personnel are not idiots, nor are they all racists. For Obama, Holder, various mayors and pandering politicians from the left to accuse them as such is racism in itself.

Arizona Law Enforcement personnel are trained professionals and they deserve respect.  They have arrested criminals of every size, shape, color and persuasion in the past and will continue to do so in the future. While jerks exist in any and every group, (including the White House) Arizona policemen do not intend to eyeball only Latinos for suspicious activity and arrest and let everyone else go on about their crimes.

Further,  the need for a secure border and strict law isn’t only about Latinos! So pretending that Latinos are the only issue – the only ones crossing the border illegally and the only ones to be affected by the bill …is racist.

In case not everyone has heard, we were attacked in 2001, and not one of the attackers was Latino.  Further, on an Arizona reservation just last month, a Pakistani was picked up after crossing the border illegally.

It has also been known for quite awhile that Al-Qaeda has been recruiting Caucasians in Britain to commit terrorist acts. In 2008, a Scotland paper wrote,

“As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK.”

In Israel, terrorists are now coming in every shape, size, gender, and color.

So let’s get real. We can’t play games with our border, no matter who feels offended and pouts. This is about crime, not race.

Further, quoting Dr. William B. Allen, former Chair of the US Comm. on Civil Rights and Dean Emeritus, Political Science, MSU

(The Arizona Law) …addresses individuals who have broken the law, and looks for ordinary social indications in order to determine who such persons are. … So, in the case of immigration laws, … the laws operate universally, to protect those who enter legally and to condemn those who enter illegally.  It is the individual, personal decision to enter legally that identifies the person as subject to the law, and not the person’s race or ethnicity.

So why does Obama and other keep making it about race?  Who are the real racists?

Obama’s comments and behavior consistently reek racism and even anti-Semitism.  (He couldn’t even bring himself to dine with or have his picture taken with Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel.) 

Some argue Obama can’t be racist because of his mother and grandmother. The fact that Obama’s mother was white is irrelevant. As a Berkeley psychotherapist noted, “His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.” She also wrote that “Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.”  But Obama subsequently wrote a book praising his father.

It’s time for the whole ‘racism’ game to stop. Many of us refuse to play anymore.

This is a country full of varied individuals.  Our multi-racial family refuses to even answer questions about ‘race’ posed by the census, school documents, and the like.  Race doesn’t matter!!  It’s liberals who keep trying to make it an issue.  We didn’t answer it on the 1990, 2000, or 2010 census.   We encourage everyone – of every heritage – to stop answering that racist, immaterial question no matter what document it comes on.

They will tell you that the question is only for funding purposes – but that’s part of the problem!  Why is the federal government allocating funds based upon question of race?  It’s way past time for all this garbage to stop!

Obama, trying to beat McCain to punch, sends 1,200 troops to…to sit at desks

 Comments Off on Obama, trying to beat McCain to punch, sends 1,200 troops to…to sit at desks
May 262010
 

So…after again behaving with arrogance during a private meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday, and giving them the impression that he wasn’t interested in sending troops to help secure our southern border, President Obama waltzed out of the room and immediately announced that he’s sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border as well and $500 million for “enhanced border protection and law enforcement.”

He hadn’t said a word to the Republicans, even though they had been discussing this very thing with him. In fact, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that he and Sen, McCain (R-AZ) had told Obama that McCain was introducing an amendment that very day that would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border and would be paid for with unspent stimulus money.

”Sen. McCain spoke to it…and then I stood up. One of the things I said was we were going to the floor in a few minutes to request additional money for sending troops to the border. But that was the end of the conversation.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who described the meeting as “testy,” said the president

wasn’t embracing” the call to secure the bordersbefore pressing forward with a comprehensive immigration policy overhaul.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) put it a little more bluntly:

“The more he talked, the more he got upset. He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

What?  What is wrong with Obama?  Maybe the Republicans weren’t questioning his motives, but I sure am. Why doesn’t he seem able to sit at a table with his opponents and behave with any kind of openness and sincerity?

The last time he has a real meeting with Republicans, he did the same thing.  He goes in, puts on an anemic show of bipartisanship, all the while arrogantly keeping Republicans at arms length – and making sure he doesn’t do anything that will give them any credit.  So insecure in his authority, he is loathe to give any appearance that he’s not totally in control. So he leaves the meeting intending to do only that which will prove to Americans that he’s the one on top.

Last time, after the health care ’summit’, he continued on with his own plans despite every good idea and point made by his opposition.  This time, it was “get to the people and announce a border guard surge before McCain gets to the Senate floor.”

His announcement came just as several Republican border security amendments, including McCain’s, were being introduced on the Senate floor. Amazing…

McCain, whose re-election depends on appearing firmly conservative, said from the floor that he appreciates Obama’s decision …but there needs to be more.

“I think it is a recognition of the violence on the border which has been really beyond description in some respects,” McCain said. “But it’s simply not enough.”

But will his “surge” do any good?

A White House official, who claimed Obama’s announcement was “part of his comprehensive plan to secure the southwest border,” has confirmed that the National Guard will “provide intelligence, surveillance,” “training capacity” and support for “reconnaissance” and “counter narcotics enforcement” until more Border Patrol officers can be hired. The additional funds are to improve security technology and increase the number of agents, investigators and prosecutors for the area.

Essentially, according to Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-AZ),

…”the 1,200 border patrol troops are, in effect, desk jobs…They aren’t boots on the ground at the border, they were not intended to be deployed to the border.  Rather they’ll be investigating, administrative support, maybe training. Now that’s all fine…but the real value of the National Guard is to be seen.”

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer gave a response that we hope Obama can learn from; she spoke with courtesy  regarding the deployment, even though he is an opponent and has mocked her, and even though it’s obvious the deployment is simply a political gesture. She applauded his plan as a ”very significant and important shift in the president’s immigration and border security policy.”

“I am pleased that President Obama has now, apparently, agreed that our nation must secure the border to address rampant border violence and illegal immigration without other pre-conditions, such as passage of ‘comprehensive immigration reform…I am anxious to hear of the details that have not yet been disclosed of where, how, and for how long additional forces will be deployed.  With the accountability of this election year, I am pleased and grateful that at long last there has been a partial response from the Obama administration to my demands that Washington do its job.”

But the CATO Institute had no trouble summing it up;

President Obama is deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and requesting $500 million more for border security. With due respect to Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, who want even more troops and money, this approach is neither here nor there. (And it echoes Obama’s split-the-baby decision on Afghanistan, not willing to go for a whole-hog escalation but also not willing to rethink the overall policy.) Half-measures won’t do it here, Mr. President (and Congress). If you lack the heart (or have too much of a brain) for a full wall-and-militarization of our southern border — and perhaps mass rounding up and deportation of 12 million people — it’s time for a fundamental reorganization of the immigration system.

U.S. immigration (non-)policy is nonsensical and unworkable. We’re beyond the point of perestroika; it’s time for regime change.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, (D-AZ), who, with others, had requested more border security after a rancher, Robert Krentz, was murdered in March by an illegal immigrant, kept her party face on and praised Obama for the deployment. She said that Arizona residents,

“… know that more boots on the ground means a safer and more secure border. Washington heard our message.”

Apparently no one told her that those boots won’t actually be on the ground.

 

Quotes from FOXNews.com – May 25, 2010

Obama Blames Congress for Borders, but sat on it like Bush/Clinton

 Comments Off on Obama Blames Congress for Borders, but sat on it like Bush/Clinton
May 192010
 

Obama, in yet another speech last Friday, failed to apologize for not having been any better than his predecessors in taking action to protect the border, and blamed Congress – who he had forced into a year long pre-occupation with health care – for failing to enact ‘comprehensive reform.’  He then made another ‘promise’ that if Congress continues to waste its time (pandering to his agenda) ”We will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.”

In Fact, it was Obama himself that said on April 28, 2010, that he didn’t want to force an immigration bill through Congress at this time. “We’ve gone though a very tough year and I’ve been working Congress very hard, so I know there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue,” the president told reporters, although that sentiment hadn’t stopped him from pushing additional stimulus packages and sneaky legislation concerning student loans …and even Puerto Rican statehood.

He ended his blame of Congress by insulting the people of Arizona yet again, saying that the absence of a federal resolution opens the door to irresponsibility by “others,” ie “the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”

TODAY – in continued oblivion toward the thoughts, feelings and needs of his countrymen, President Obama stood with Mexican President Felipe Calderon to chastise Arizona for its new immigration law, insinuating that the Arizona police Force is racist, mean-spirited, …and not very bright.

Obama said the immigration law – which is simply an enforcement of Federal law and makes it a State crime to be in the U.S. illegally –  is a “misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system.”  He failed again to mention why his White House has made no effort to address and fix the system.

However, he DID say,

“We’re examining any implications especially for civil rights because in the United States of America, no law abiding person — be they an American citizen, illegal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”

So I guess you could say he’s doing something, although there is nothing in the law that says it has anything to do with what a person looks like.

You see, believe it or not, (bearing in mind there are always going to be loose cannons in any group) the Arizona police force is professional.  Most have lived in Arizona for a long time, lived with Latino neighbors all their lives, and some – hold on to your chairs – are even Latino themselves.  Further, they, like everyone else, know that an act of terrorism can come at the hand of anyone – any size, shape, gender or color.  They have been trained to watch everyone.  White people rob convenience stores, too.  They aren’t looking for illegals.  They are looking for crime, and when they find it, they are supposed to check the person’s ID.  This is something they do at every traffic stop with every person already.  Plain and simple.  They also all know that there are harsh ramifications if they mess with people without cause.  They all know the whole world is watching.  Does our President think they are idiots?

…Well, we already know he didn’t think too highly of the Cambridge police force.

Calderon, claiming that the Arizona law forces “our people to face discrimination,” doesn’t seem to think very highly of the Arizona police force, either.  He asked that the two countries work together to design an immigration policy that is more to his liking.  I’m sure Obama will accommodate him.

Calderon waxed poetic, saying;

“We can do so if we create a safer border — a border that will unite us instead of dividing us….We can do so with a community that will promote a dignified life in an orderly way for both our countries, who are some of them still living here in the shadows…If we are divided we cannot overcome these problems. We can only do this if we actually face our mutual problems.”

Calderon also waxed Self-Righteous, saying,

“My government cannot and will not remain indifferent when these kinds of policies go against human rights.”

Who is he kidding?  Did Obama think to ask the President of Mexico if he planned on doing the same thing with HIS southern border?  I wonder how the people of Panama and Guatemala feel about all this?

Right – this from Mexico. Up until 2008, illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico. Anyone arrested in violation of Immigration law could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported.  Which country has the record for going against Human Rights, Mr. President?  Officials in Mexico have been known to take bribes to keep suspects out of jail.

The law against illegal immigration in Mexico today is a civil violation, but just like Arizona, Police are “required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues.”

The law requires the same – but the behavior of Law Enforcement is not the same. Mexico has been cited repeatedly by human rights groups for abusing or ignoring the abuse of migrants from Central America. Just a few weeks ago, Amnesty International issued a report stating illegal immigrants in Mexico are abused, raped and kidnapped.  Mexican police don’t do much to stop it.  Is this why President Calderón thinks Arizona police are crooked?  That may be his excuse, but what is our President Obama’s?  And why are Americans supposed to stomach hypocrisy from President Calderón?

Well, why has Obama expected us to swallow any of the hypocrisy that he’s dished out?

“Illegal immigration is down, not up,” Obama asserted, “And we will continue to do whatever is necessary to secure our shared border…Today I want every American to know my administration has devoted unprecedented resources in personnel and technology to securing our border.”

When did he do that?  Yesterday?

By the way,  the U.S. has given Mexico about $1.3 billion to fight the drug war.  This includes special equipment meant to help capture drug runners as well as protect Mexican police and judges. According to Washington Post Reporter, William Booth, the equipment included “Black Hawk helicopters, night-vision goggles and armored cars and trains.” Obama wants to give Mexico 310 million more in 2011.

Mexican President’s Hypocrisy

Truth Meter: Obama’s Feigned Concern over the Dangers of Ipods

 Comments Off on Truth Meter: Obama’s Feigned Concern over the Dangers of Ipods
May 112010
 

In a May 9 commencement speech to graduates at Hampton University, Hampton, Virginia, President Obama claimed that modern technology and social media are “putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

Great! Many HOPE that to be true, as both our country and democracy have been needing a new pressure – a pressure that would cause people to wake up and “smell the coffee” (as one of my old teachers would have put it).  Our democracy has been spiraling out of control with Democrats and Republicans both having made decisions that put us on a financial train wreck.  Modern technology and social media bring pressure by providing a level of transparency and public discourse never before possible in history.  Many thank God for it.

Not so President Obama, although he made great use of modern technology and social media throughout his 2008 campaign.  He told the graduates on Sunday,

“…meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter.”

Let’s stop here. Truth meter?  Obama is going to lecture US about truth?  Does he sincerely believe that most of America still thinks he’s honest?

He goes on,

“And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations – none of which I know how to work – (laughter) – information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

WHAT?

– OK, first, he’s talking about a Truth meter, and inferring that that Truth is important…and then goes ahead and lies about his use of this horrid technology.  CNN.com’s SciTech blog, John D. Sutter writes that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama told Rolling Stone his iPod contained songs by Bob Dylan, Jay-Z and cellist Yo-Yo Ma. He also told the AP he has all Michael Jackson music “on my iPod.” He’s even given the Queen Elizabeth an Ipod (With…can you believe this?… his speeches programmed in. Talk about arrogant…) And his administration uses social media to push their agenda constantly. His Press Secretary made a big show of starting to use Twitter.

– Second…most of us feel that yes, indeed, modern technology HAS been a huge tool for empowerment and emancipation!  Call Twitter, Blogs and other non-traditional media what you want, but I and many others are GRATEFUL for the ability to get news without having to depend on NBC, ABC or CBS.

– But third …wait, most of what he mentioned in the above list ARE …primarily tools used for…entertainment, right? Not information?  So…what’s he talking about?  Tools for entertainment aren’t putting pressure on the democracy…are they?   Wait…there’s an ipod in England loaded with his speeches….right; an entertainment ipod which contains distracting information that doesn’t rank that high on the truth meter… exists.

No, this feigned concern over the dangers of ipods, etc. was a farce.  He campaigned using social media, and his administration continues to use it heavily.  This wasn’t about the dangers of modern technology.  This was about the lamest attempt to quash dissent ever recorded.  Obama can control a few of the major news sources, but he hasn’t been able to control what we text, tweet, and blog each other.  And that’s what he hates, just as much as he hates the Tea Party.

Some think that this was his first volley in an attempt to control the Internet as well as dissenting news media.  If it was, it was a very weak and ineffective volley.  Needless to say, any attempt to circumvent the constitution and prevent people from freely communicating would only anger the public further. No matter what, they would continue to communicate by any means possible.

He might have wanted to give the appearance that he was trying to ”warn” America’s youth about the dangers of new technology, but for many of us, the actual warning we received is that he’s trying – ineffectively – to dampen trust in the myriad news sources that he can’t control.

Obama Swipes at Media, Says ‘Information’ Onslaught Pressuring ‘Democracy’

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/10/obama-targets-ipods-video-games-commencement-address/

ObamaCare: Don’t make me Sick

 Comments Off on ObamaCare: Don’t make me Sick
Mar 222010
 

Thieves!  I don’t have much money, but what little I have – Keep your hands off!

My Representative, Earl Pomeroy, voted FOR the passage of the Senate’s massive health insurance overhaul Sunday night. Among many of the onerous provisions that our country can’t afford:

– Children will be able to remain under their parents health coverage until they are 26.

– Insurance companies who participate in the government-run exchange will be allowed to provide for abortions. Many prolife orgs, including the National Right to Life, say that federal funds will be used for some of those abortions.

– In all, there will be a half a trillion in new taxes.

– The House “fixes” on the Senate bill raise taxes $50 Billion dollars more, as well as cut Medicare spending $66 billion more for a total of $523 billion.

– The $523 billion of money taken from Medicare will be used to pay for this new government program, including subsidies to help families with incomes up to $75,000 a year buy health insurance. $75,000 is NOT low income.  I, for one, do not want my health needs to come before those of my elders – in particular, the vets who fought for our country and their wives.

– Estimates are that this legislation will expand the deficit by more than $660 billion dollars.  So, not only are we neglecting the needs our elders, but we’ll be leaving our grandchildren with an impossible debt.

– The above are facts. There are rumors of much more to be frightened of.

Thanks Earl Pomeroy. I for one, will be voting for your opponent.  You, too, Obama. You are no hero of mine.

The campaigns against all those that voted for this horrendous legislation must begin today, whether or not they even have an opponent yet.

I write this as a low income widow that has lived many years without Insurance.  Having lived seven years in Canada and witnessed their abysmal care, I would rather have no insurance than to have our country and health care system ruined by Canadian style Obamacare.

These last few weeks, even listening to Obama go on and on with his rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach.  Is it just me, or does he talk now with a sing song in his voice, as if he’s a Television Evangelist?  Someone please tell him to stop.  Please.  It’s truly nauseating.

Michelle Obama and her News-Free Zone

 Comments Off on Michelle Obama and her News-Free Zone
Feb 202010
 

Are you kidding me?  In an interview with Mike Huckabee, Michelle Obama said she stays away from news because she wants to formulate her own opinions based on her “experiences.”  Obama said she reads news clips from the headlines, “but I tend and I try to keep home kind of news-free zone.”

At this unusual time in American history – when more Americans are waking up to what’s going on in their government and getting involved, Queen Obama announces that her family home is a “News-Free” zone, because she prefers her own “experience” to those of her fellow citizens.  She has no need for factual events going on with anyone else.

We teach our kids in school to stay on top of current events and we hold discussions with them in classrooms and at our dinner-tables.  Adults gather at watercoolers, lunch tables, and townhall meetings to discuss news.   Many turn to Twitter, Facebook, and other social media to stay informed.  And wait – didn’t liberals mock Sarah Palin when she didn’t answer Katie Couric’s question about magazines she reads?

But not Michelle Obama.  Forget about gathering information and researching facts.  Her home is a “News-Free” zone and her personal experience is all that she needs.

Heaven knows that any news about what the country is actually thinking, doing, or saying is the last thing she wants to hear about.

“Let them eat cake” she may as well have said.

Never mind if her personal experience has been limited to Chicago, and she knows nothing about the experience of rural, non-black, or “less than elite” Americans.

Has she ever been on welfare?  Has she ever slept in the projects?  No?

What about an understanding of middle class America?  She’s been living on the high end for a long time; enjoying the pay-offs that come with her husband’s social and political positions.  Does she have any understanding of what it is like to work your fingers to the bone and still not be able to make ends meet?  Or what it is like to keep a small family business in the black with today’s economy and taxes?  No?  Lived and worked in the rural bread basket of America; known people who gather for coffee in a small town cafe?

I’ve had experience with all those things, and it amazes me that Michelle Obama assumes she can have any understanding of what I or most other Americans are about.  She’ll never understand the Tea Party if she’s going to depend solely on her personal “experiences” to formulate her opinions.  But…maybe she doesn’t want to understand the Tea Party.

But what can we expect.  This is no different then what any of the “progressive” elite are doing.  They really don’t give a rip about the poor or middle class.  Just like John Edwards, they don’t even like being around them.  They feign concern, wailing about “all the poor that can’t afford Health insurance” simply because it makes good sound bites and gives an excuse for their dominating agenda.

But heaven forbid they spend any real time getting their hands dirty.  You won’t see John Edwards or Michelle Obama wiping saliva off the chins of elderly with dementia, much less take the time to really hear what “Tea Partiers” are trying to say.

Lastly, as can be seen on twitter and other social sites – Americans react to news as a group. It’s actually part of who we are.  Before the day is out, most of us know if someone of importance had passed away that day, or if there was a major tragedy a few states away.  We talk about it with people at school, work and home.  Part of the feeling of being “slapped” by her statement is …well, it’s the elitist attitude.  Not only does it seem that she doesn’t care about facts, but it seems she doesn’t care to share in our community news, whether it be national joy or national agnst.   We’re just not important to her.

Obama, Tireless Campaigner, Hires Plouffe to Snow Us Some More

 Comments Off on Obama, Tireless Campaigner, Hires Plouffe to Snow Us Some More
Jan 252010
 

Excuse me? Obama is in trouble for lying to the country, taking over banks and car companies, trying to push legislation down the people’s throats, mocking regular people for speaking up, staffing the White House with socialists and communists, and causing the Democratic Party to take a nose dive – and he responds, not by changing his direction, apologizing, or bringing in new, non-communist people to take crucial lead positions in the administration; he brings in his old campaign manager, David Plouffe.  A political consultant? Are you kidding me?

Remember when it was noted that he was a master campaigner, but wouldn’t know how to run the country? So what is he doing now but continuing to campaign rather than run the country.  That’s all he knows how to do – campaign – and that was noted long ago, as he’d gone from one campaign to another, climbing up the political ladder without ever accomplishing anything; barely spending a year in the US Senate before beginning his campaign for the presidency.

Now, again, it appears that the plan is to do some more campaigning rather than lead the country.  It appears that he’s going to fix all his troubles by getting his campaign manager to come up with a plan to try to snow us – to tell us what they think we want to hear, rather than getting a crew around him that can devise an agenda that will work with our country and our people.

Why?  Why would they respond to the Massachusetts election by hiring David Plouffe?  Because they don’t plan on changing their current agenda.  They plan to change how we perceive their agenda.  Thus begins a new campaign.  Brace yourselves for some fresh propaganda.

White House Tells Artists to Tell Country “What to do”

 Comments Off on White House Tells Artists to Tell Country “What to do”
Sep 222009
 

You are the thought leaders,” the artists were told. “You are the ones that, if you create a piece of art or promote a piece of art or create a campaign for a company, and tell our country and our young people sort of what to do and what to be in to; and what’s cool and what’s not cool. And so I’m hoping that through this group and the goal of all this and the goal of this phone call, is through this group that we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things that we’re passionate about as we did during the campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president’s initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration.” This from Michael Skolnik, political director for a hip-hop mogul.

“We’re going to need your help, and we’re going to come at you with some specific ‘asks’ here,” added Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. “But we know that you guys are ready for it and eager to participate, so one we want to thank you, and two, I hope you guys are ready.”  The White House Office of Public Engagement, together with the NEA and “United We Serve,” an initiative created by President Obama, held this telephone conference in August with hand-picked artists from across the country.

They are the “thought leaders,” according to the White House, being directed to change our minds.  They are the thought leaders, whose jobs are to tell us what to do and think. 

How offensive is that?  Who does this administration think they are: first telling hundreds of thousands of the American public – the elderly, veterans, young families, from all walks of life – that they are a “mob,” “astro-turf,” and “racists,” for speaking their minds, and now telling rappers and painters that the public is also so stupid that they will let artists tell them what they are supposed to think?  And at our own (tax-payer) expense?

This administration appears to have no understanding of the American public.  They seem to assume that Americans are lemmings, and any lemming that doesn’t follow must have something wrong with him.

This administration is way off in “left” field.  Art inspires, but only when it touches what is already in the heart.  In other words, the art that becomes popular only becomes so because it is reflecting what people are feeling.  It is public passion that inspires art, not the other way around.

So in the current political climate, on a grass roots level, did you notice how quickly the picture of the President as a joker took off? Or the t-shirts with the words, “RIP Constitution”? Or the “I am the Mob” logos on twitter?   Wow. Artists creating popular political art without the help or instruction of the government.  Have you seen anything from the liberal side catch on like that recently on a grass roots level?   Sure, during the campaign there were things that were meant to inspire the public, but there they were created as campaign tools and died as soon as the campaign was over.  Heard any classrooms singing Obama songs lately?

AND for goodness sake – get off the bandwagon that any news station or host is leading the public.  It is the public that is leading Fox News! Fox News is merely the megaphone for the thoughts and feelings of millions of Americans. It is currently the only station listening to the public and giving them the news they are looking for.  I’ve EVEN heard people say that Bill O”reilly is becoming too soft!  And yes – we know that Beck is a little silly – but he’s offering us documented information that no one else is willing to discuss.  We don’t all draw his same conclusions, but we appreciate the information. When will it occur to the left that people choose to watch programs that reflect what’s already on their hearts – not the other way around?  They are leaving MSM in droves because they know much NBC and ABC are only reporting what they are told to report.

The left is imbedded in the concept that they are able to bend minds.  Thus the efforts to control what is taught in schools, push the “Fairness Doctrine,” and coax artists to support their agenda.  What they forget is that throughout history, other countries attempting to control the thoughts and lives of their citizens have eventually failed at the effort.  People push back. People inherently want freedom and independence. Ever heard of Solzhenitsyn?  Or the underground churches in China?  There were rebels even in Nazi Germany.   It was for rebels like that that leaders created, at best, the re-education camps, at horrific worst, Gulags and even death camps.  No! I’m not suggesting that’s where we are headed.  All I am saying is that when the effort to bend people’s minds’ fails, a government must either push harder, or come to the realization that it just doesn’t work.  So realize it right now.  It doesn’t matter to me what you pay a rapper to sing, a painter to paint, a troll to twitter, or even how well articulated an Obama speech is.  My experience and knowledge tell me it is wrong.Lisa Blogs at http://whitetrashvote.blogspot.com/

Is Acorns CEO Bertha Lewis Covering Corruption?

 Comments Off on Is Acorns CEO Bertha Lewis Covering Corruption?
Sep 212009
 

September 21st, 2009

What, pray tell, had Lewis changed about this disingenuous – some say even criminal – organization?

When Acorn CEO and Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis told Fox News Sunday that she has made many changes, and “Since I took over, I have overhauled the entire system,” what changes was she speaking of?

She said that there at now firewalls protecting the organizations finances, but Congressman Darrell Issa responded, “Your own counsel, Kingsley, said is not true. You don’t have firewalls.”

When Host Christ Wallace asked Congressman Issa to explain why he thinks Acorn is a criminal organization, the Congressman said,

“Well, one thing they did was they covered up an embezzlement, both internally and externally, and then glossed over the dollars…almost a million dollars. Basically, the founder stayed on the board until this became public eight years later. Now he’s with affiliates doing the same work and able to say well, he’s not with the company. The bottom line is there’s no transparency in Acorn. Any charity that you would look at…You normally find out who’s paid what, where the money goes, what the collection costs are and so on.

“Here we have literally hundreds of organizations tied under the ACORN umbrella, and you can’t even find out what their incorporation is, whether they pay taxes, who makes what or, more importantly, whether corporations within the affiliates work in different areas — political fundraising, getting candidates elected, voter registration, other community activities, whether or not those moneys are fungibly moved illegally.”

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms issued an 88-page report in July charging that “Acorn has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce.”

But Ms. Lewis doesn’t seem to understand how all this matters.  On September 12, she stated, “We are their Willie Horton for 2009.  We are the boogeyman for the right wing and its echo chamber,”

During Fox News interview, Ms. Lewis also called the proposal to defund Acorn an “Anti-Acorn Amendment,” as if it was an unwarranted and prejudicial attack rather than the logical result of Acorn’s own mismanagement.

Chris Wallace asked Lewis, “Can you still say this is just about race and politics?”

She avoided the question by responding with the excuse, “Any organization is not entirely perfect.”

Mr. Wallace, it is clear that Ms. Lewis does still think this is about race, as evidenced by her continual references to her organization as “mostly people of color” and her constituents as, “500,000 poor black and brown, Asian and white people in this country.”  People that don’t feel race is a priority don’t continuously and unnecessarily refer to the color of people’s skin. I know, I’m also the administrator of an organization serving a minority issue. I refer to heritage only when necessary and I refuse to count or keep data on the heritage of our members or donors.

After telling Ms. Lewis that he doesn’t know of any other organization structured like Acorn (a political wing of the Democratic Party, closely related to unions, taking federal dollars as well as charity, yet no disclosure or transparency) Congressman Issa asked, “If you’re going to change this, will you come before Chairman Towns, a man who, by the way, voted not to cut off your funding, and get — and give the kind of disclosure to where the Government Oversight and Reform Committee can know that you are doing work with firewalls… so the American people know that their dollars don’t end up doing political activities prohibited by law?”

Ms. Lewis not only refused to answer, she refused to even look at him. Instead she immediately jumped into a prepared statement, saying, “Here’s the question that we really should be asking…”

Wallace attempted to stop her, saying, “…no, no. Answer his question, if you will,” but she continued avoiding it, seeking instead the collective white guilt that had so been so effective in the past, “There are poor people in this country every day that we’re saving their homes,” she started…

Wallace tried to redirect her back to the question seven more times, but she continued to talk over him, …“my job is to serve our 500,000 members. My job…”

Congressman Issa finally got her attention when he said, “There is no God-given right for any organization to receive a grant from the American people. The fact is there are organizations standing in line that wish they won instead of you, and they’re giving us the transparency so we can have the confidence the money is spent only for the purpose of the grant.”

But even in this response she wouldn’t look at Issa or even address it to him.  Addressing Wallace instead, she said, “Congressman Issa is right. You have competitive grants and you need to compete with a lot of other folks. You need to deliver those services. He’s absolutely right…Since I took over; I have overhauled the entire system…”

Not seeing the overhaul, Congressman Issa again asked her to come with transparency before the committee.  Once more, Lewis refused to respond.

The Congressman later ended by saying, “… my opinion continues to be you shouldn’t get another penny of federal dollars until you demonstrate that those dollars are firewalled for only that use, and that has not been the history of the organization.”

Lewis, again, not understanding the severity of the issues and not addressing the Congressman directly, retorted, “And I’m glad Congressman Issa said that is his opinion.”

What is it that Ms. Lewis doesn’t understand? The founder of Acorn, despite his embezzlement, continued to work with Acorn affiliates.  That’s on Ms. Lewis’ watch. Earlier this month, eleven Acorn staff were arrested in Florida for filing fraudulent voter registrations.  That was on Ms. Lewis’ watch.  And now the pimping, tax evasion, child smuggling videos – again, Lewis’ watch.  Further, she not only refused to face the Congressman when he was speaking to her, but refused to answer his questions, talked over the host, and instead of understanding the severity of the problems, snapped about things being just peoples “opinions.”

For many of us in the public, Ms. Lewis seemed not only evasive, but rude.  This, while at the same time accusing her employees of being too stupid to understand that they are not reaching professional standards.  Ms. Lewis, what is YOUR understanding of professional standards?

If Congressman Issa is right about Acorn being a criminal organization, one has to wonder just which standards Lewis’s employees have ‘stupidly” bungled on.  Were they unprofessional in the advice they gave, or in not being careful as to whom they gave it to?

Just what, pray tell, had Lewis changed about Acorn in the last year, and what can we realistically hope will be changed this year?

Cash for Clunkers Hurts Poor People

 Comments Off on Cash for Clunkers Hurts Poor People
Aug 012009
 

August 1st, 2009

The Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association has predicted that there will be a backlash to the “Cash for Clunkers” program.  I agree, only it will come too late.   “Cash for Clunkers” hurts lower income people, but no one has thought much about that yet – including the lower income people that voted for Obama.

Although I drive a 1994 Suburban, I wasn’t planning on doing the  “Cash for Clunkers”. Gas guzzler that the Suburban is, it’s actually been nice for our size family, who are all too big to be sitting in the back seat of small five-seater cars anymore.  And I can carry and move things.

But even if I wanted to get a more fuel efficient minivan, I can’t afford to participate in  “Cash for Clunkers” program (more officially known as the CAR Allowance Rebate System or the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009.)   

To participate, a person has to be buying a new car.  Sure you get up to $4500 in a rebate, but you still have to have quite a bit of actual money in order to afford a new car.  People of lower income don’t have the kind of money. But more importantly, because  “Cash for Clunkers” merely replaces your trade-in value, the benefit of the program isn’t as great as many anticipate, and for the American taxpayer, it’s another program that they can’t afford.  As nice as free money (ie: the rebate) sounds, American taxpayers can’t afford to be giving this money away.  And low-income people, most especially, can’t afford to be helping pay for any more bailouts.So I just figured I’d hang onto my car for another dozen or more years, until it becomes valuable as an antique, because there won’t be any other cars of this time period around.  Most will have been crushed.  Maybe we’d fix it up and drive it in the parades!

But here’s when I realized the AAIA is right.  Junk yards that crush the CARS program cars aren’t allowed to pull engines or certain other parts before they are crushed.  Earlier this month, I made use of a junk yard twice – once for a radiator and once for an engine.   I still need to put in an alternator.  Will certain parts for older cars become harder – and more expensive – to get?When all is said and done  –  “Cash for Clunkers” benefits New Car Dealerships primarily, by increasing sales, and the upper and middle class possibly, but giving them an extra few hundred dollars.  But it’s not good news at all for lower income people.   We can’t afford a new car, and we won’t be able to continue fixing our older cars at an affordable price, if we can find the parts at all.  This isn’t good.  In fact, the Obama administration knew they were taking away our options to keep our vehicles running.  They want our cars off the road, and they really don’t care how it affects those of us with very little money.   The little guy isn’t a priority.  Obama pretended to champion the little guy in order to get their vote, but it’s becoming more and more obvious that special interest – those that have received the bailout money and those industries he is choosing to socialize – are what he really champions.  Politics as usual.

I’ll bet many of the people that voted for Obama haven’t even thought of this particular ramification yet.  They’re still waiting for him to pay their mortgages and health insurance.  The  “Cash for Clunkers” program will be all done and over with, with most of the cars crushed, before the little guy realizes that the price of his used part just went up a whole lot.

What Gates’ “Teaching Moment” Taught Some of Us…

 Comments Off on What Gates’ “Teaching Moment” Taught Some of Us…
Jul 272009
 

Professor Henry Louis Gates said he hoped his arrest by Crowley leads to greater sensitivity on racial profiling. He described it as a teaching moment, saying that he planned to use his arrest and jail experience as the basis of a documentary on racial profiling.

So what did we learn from the Gates arrest in Boston?  For me, it confirmed my belief that many (not all) accusations of racism and racial profiling are excuses for beligerance when someone is in a situation they don’t like.  For many others, the Boston incident taught them that some accusations of racism might be simple grandstanding and can be ignored.

My education along this line began twenty some years ago, when I first met the man that was to become my husband.  I remember one incident in particular.  I was paying for a meal at a chain restaurant.  The cashier, before taking my check, asked me for some ID.  I pulled out my driver’s license and showed it to her, and we went on our way.

Walking out the door, my to-be husband whispered to me that she wouldn’t have done that if he hadn’t been standing behind me.  He truly believed that the only reason she asked for my ID was because I was with a minority.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.  I knew that getting carded at a restaurant was nothing new for me.  Sometimes they did it, sometimes they didn’t, but it had nothing to do with whether he was there or not.  I scoffed at his assumption that it was all about him.

And we had other such “teaching moments” when he needed to learn that it wasn’t all about his skin.  He needed to learn that some clerks are just tired or have bad days, just like he does, and if they scowl, it doesn’t mean that they are even thinking about him let alone hating him.  I’m a person who falls into deep thought about various issues and I don’t always notice who is around me.  If I am lost in my own thoughts, thinking about something difficult or emotional, it frequently shows on my face.  It has nothing to do with who is in the room.  There are many people in this world just like me.  Not every scowl is racially motivated.

When I first met him and he attended a party at my Dad’s house, he gravitated after a short time to the garage and ate his meal out there.  This wasn’t because anyone in the house had any animosity against him.  It was a reaction born of his own insecurity.

Fortunately, my husband did learn from these teaching moments, and the older he got the more he began to relax around people of “non-color” and even enjoy himself.  In his later years, he not only enjoyed people of all heritages, but he felt comfortable standing up and speaking to various politicians about the fallacy of race-based laws (such as ICWA).  He even went to DC several times to speak to various Congressmen on issues.

This isn’t to say that we never experienced real racism.  On a few isolated occasions, we ran up against the real thing.  But now he could tell the difference.

Interestingly, it was because he relaxed and became comfortable with his own thoughts and voice that he himself began to be accused of being a racist by a state Human Rights Network.  You see, he was a minority speaking against political correctness.  That makes the Left very uncomfortable.  They would rather that all minorities stay in neat little, controllable packages.

When he passed away five years ago, his birth family was surprised by the number of people of “non-color” that not only showed up at his funeral, but stood up and spoke of their admiration for him.

Perhaps Professor Gates has spent too much time in his ivory tower and needs to get out more.

Crowley Better Bring a Friend to that Beer Party

 Comments Off on Crowley Better Bring a Friend to that Beer Party
Jul 262009
 

July 26th, 2009

So they’re supposed to sit down over a beer and come out all smiles? Come on, you know how it goes. Not one of the three has actually backed down from their positions, and there’s two of them and only one of Crowley. Anyone of us faced with that kind of situation wants to bring emotional support along.

Sergeant Crowley continues to assert that he didn’t do anything wrong and the entire Boston police force stands behind him, stating that everything he did was standard procedure. Further, Crowley, as it turns out, has for years been teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling. He knows that what he did that day was what he would have done in any home under the same circumstances.

Professor Gates, on the other hand, stated Friday evening in an email that he hoped the incident would bring “greater sensitivity on racial profiling,” even though no racial profiling apparently occurred. No apology was given by Gates for misunderstanding Crowley and jumping to conclusions.

Obama has also failed to apologize for his rush to judgment, saying that he only wishes he “calibrated those words differently.” In fact, he went on to say, “I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station.”

I’m sorry, but I do want the police to ask for identification if there is suspicion that someone doesn’t belong in my home. Even if it’s me that they are requesting ID from.

Now, I understand that Professor Gates had just returned from a long trip. I know that when I come home from a long trip, I am tired and crabby. It had to further aggravate him that when trying to get into his home to finally kick his shoes off and rest, the door was jammed. Topping off a long and tiring day, the police showed up and began questioning him. All he wanted to do was take a hot shower and go to bed, right? That’s all understandable. But none of it was Crowley’s fault and there is no indication that racial profiling occurred.

So now is the time to apologize to the men in blue who were just doing their jobs, and quit the grandstanding.

That all said, will there be humbling apologies over that beer? With both Gates and Obama, proud men that they are, still convinced that profiling occurred and Crowley knowing it hasn’t? his bounds? Not likely. No real apologies, but unfortunately, Crowley will probably feel pressure to suck up whatever spiel the White House wants to put on the beer fest, even if his stomach is turning. After all, the beer is supposed to end the fight, and they are all supposed to come out smiling. We’ve all been faced with similar situations. How can he say no without looking like a jerk?

More on Minority Civil Rights Issues at www.caicw.org
,Lisa