Amid escalating violence and crime that has gone ignored by the federal government for years and years, Arizona was forced to pass a strict immigration law. Many people from across the nation who do not understand what the citizens from Arizona are dealing with, have derided the law as racist and “misguided.” These same people– including some of whom are in the government– don’t seem to understand that the Arizona law is a mirror image of the federal law. Because the feds don’t have the willingness to enforce immigration policy for fear of being perceived as politically incorrect– this goes for both sides of the aisle– Arizona had to take matter into their own hands.
For some reason Barack Obama– as we will see in the video below– thinks that this is an issue that can be made light of, he made a joke about it at the White House correspondents dinner. Well, Jan Brewer– the governor of Arizona– does not think that Barack Obama’s joke is very funny.
Barack Obama’s ill conceived joke just goes to show us that the federal government does not take this issue seriously. Hell, Nancy Pelosi would rather treat drug addicted teenagers than stop the flow of drugs across the border because it is cheaper.
Until we have an administration that takes immigration law seriously, we will continue to see illegal aliens cross the border and while many of them are looking for honest work, many of them will bring drugs and violence to American soil. Americans are dying at the border, and that is not a laughing matter.
The last time that I checked– and despite Barack Obama’s attempts to “fundamentally change America”– this is still the United States of America. But when you read this story about students at Live Oak High School who were sent home on “Cinco de Mayo” for refusing to turn their shirts inside out because the shirts had the image of the American flag on them, you have to wonder how much longer this will be the United States of AMERICA.
These boys were trying to show their pride in their country but they were told that what they considered a show of pride was actually “incendiary” because they were purposely degrading a Mexican holiday.
They said we could wear it on any other day,” Daniel Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.
They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended.
According to the story there were many Mexican-Americans who were offended that these boys decided to wear the colors of the United States during a Mexican holiday.
Needless to say, I do not have the words to express how despicable I find this story. The “offended” Mexican-Americans are demanding an apology but there is little chance that an apology will be forth-coming.
I’m not going to apologize. I did nothing wrong,” Galli said. “I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag, but I’m an American and I’m proud to be an American.
Somehow we now live in a country where wearing the American flag on a tee shirt on the wrong day is offensive, but illegal immigrants are allowed to protest the American government on May Day– a day that celebrates the birth of communism– while flying the Mexican flag to protest American immigration policy and nothing is done or said about it.
I am not equating these LEGAL Mexican students or LEGAL Mexican immigrants who protest this country’s policies on May Day with the ILLEGAL immigrants who protest this country’s policies on May Day, I am simply using the example to illustrate the differences between this story and the story of the May Day protests. These legal Mexican-Americans can celebrate their national holiday all they want, I do not have a problem with these students having pride in their native country, but they should also respect the national pride that these American students have in their native country. These students were not hurting anyone by wearing these tee shirts, having an American flag printed on a tee shirt is technically not proper flag etiquette but that is not the issue here. What is at issue here is the acquiescence to these Mexican-Americans, who while they may be proud of their heritage, have chosen to leave their home country in order to achieve a better life for themselves in America. It seems to me that while they are proud of their native country, they should also be proud of the country that they have chosen to live in because this country offers them a better chance of success than does their native country.
If these “offended” Mexican-Americans are so proud of their country and so disgusted by the sight of the American flag being displayed on their holiday perhaps they should go home to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. There would be no danger of seeing the offending symbol there, because contrary to America, where illegal Mexican immigrants are allowed to parade and display their national symbol, the Mexican government will not allow American immigrants in their country to do likewise.
As oil spilled into the Gulf, the Interior Department Chief vacationed in the Grand Canyon
As the days go by it is becoming more and more obvious that the federal government’s response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was inadequate to say the least. While Joe Gibbs claims that the administration has been all over this oil spill since day one, all of the evidence says otherwise.
The latest report claims that the chief of staff of the Department of the interior– the department that is in charge of coordinating the federal response to the oil spill– Tom Strickland, went on vacation in the Grand Canyon three days AFTER it was learned that the pipeline was leaking and only after it was realized the disaster was worse than was initially thought did he bother to return to coordinate the effort that he was charged with. He claims that while on this vacation he was still focused on work, but it seems highly unlikely that he would be able to coordinate the federal response to this crisis while he was white water rafting.
Once it was learned that the pipeline was leaking the responsible thing for Strickland to do would be to postpone this “work related” white water rafting trip but he instead decided to let his deputy chief of staff handle the crisis because he couldn’t be bothered. This is a serious case of misplaced priorities.
SOme people have claimed that this is “Obama’s Katrina” and there is one similarity that is striking. In both cases in the immediate aftermath it wasn’t realized how problematic the situation was. I remember right after Katrina seeing reports on television talking about how New Orleans had dodged a bullet. It wasn’t for several hours after the hurricane that the levees began to break. With the oil spill in the gulf, the same seems to be true, the extent of the problem was not immediately known. It will be interesting to see if the Obama administration is held to the same standards of responsibility for this disaster as Bush was for Katrina. I’m just asking for a little consistency here.
David Obey teabagged– will not seek reelection
David Obey– Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and 40+ year veteran of the House– has announced that he will not seek reelection. He was facing a tough reelection bid but is denying that this is the reason he is stepping down.
More and more incumbents are realizing that the Tea Party movement is for real and while they are trying to marginalize us– and while the media is trying to marginalize us– the truth is, they fear the repercussions that are coming in November and this is another example. David Obey is a powerful Democrat in the House and this has to be a blow to Democrats.
We may be laughed at in public, but privately we are being heard loud and clear and the effects of the movement are already being seen in the number of Democrats who have decided to step down instead of fighting for their seats.
David Obey, you have been teabagged. NEXT!
The media begins to spin the Times Square attack to cover their irresponsible journalism
Before the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted car bombing in Times Square the media made a big deal over their claim that the “person of interest” in the case was a white American citizen who was probably a Tea Party member who was disgruntled with Barack Obama. These reports turned out to be false. While technically Shahzad is an American citizen after he became a naturalized American citizen, the rest of their reporting was off the mark. In fact it was the definition of irresponsible journalism.
It turned out that Shahzad attended terror camps in Pakistan where he received training in bomb making (apparently he was not at the top of his class as his ineptitude in bomb making is the only reason that we do not have dead Americans on our hands.) But the media is still trying to cover their asses with their reporting following the revelation that Shahzad was in fact a Jihadist. Every story that we read from the media seems to mention in the first sentence that Shahzad is an American citizen and now the speculation can be seen in this article what they are trying to claim his motivation was, while ignoring the fact that his motivation was he was a radical Jihadist hell bent on attacking America for his radicalized religious beliefs.
At the time of his arrest, Mr. Shahzad and his wife, Huma Mian, were facing foreclosure on the compact home of gray vinyl shingles they owned on Long Hill Avenue near the center of Shelton, Conn. He is “financially bankrupt,” said a high-level official briefed on the investigation.
Igor Djuric, a broker who showed Mr. Shahzad the 1,356-square-foot home he eventually bought, said he remembered that Mr. Shahzad was quiet about himself, but was openly critical of President Bush in the aftermath of the Iraq war.
There you have it, he was losing his house and he hated George W Bush. This is the angle the media is going to take in their attempt to understand what motivated Shahzad to kill innocent Americans. It wasn’t that he was a radical Muslim, it is simply the fact that he hated Bush because of the Iraq war, and the fact that Bush’s economic policies led to him losing his house. That is the angle the media is using for two purposes; first to cover their totally false reporting, and second; to try to blame this attack on George W Bush.
It is what it is and this is to be expected from the media, but is anyone really going to buy the explanation that a person disgruntled at the former president and angry that he was losing his house was inspired for these reasons alone to kill Americans that had nothing to do with his plight? I don’t think so, other than staunch Bush haters is there anyone who doesn’t believe that Shahzad was motivated by Jihad and Jihadist beliefs?
Arrest made in the Times Square bombing attempt
Last night the suspect in the attempted terrorist attack on Times Square in New York was arrested and contrary to the reports in the media that the “person of interest” was a 40 something, white American, those reports turned out to be false. The man who was arrested– and who later admitted that he is the one who attempted to set off a car bomb in Times Square– turned out to be Faisal Shahzad, a Muslim Pakistani national who technically did become an American citizen a few short months ago. In order to save face, the media still mentions that Shahzad was a naturalized American citizen while neglecting the fact that he is a Muslim.
After becoming a citizen of the United States, Shahzad promptly returned to Pakistan for five months where he admitted to receiving bomb making training before returning to America to attempt his attack. The Taliban had taken credit for the attempt but this claim was denied by members of the federal government who claimed that there was no evidence to back it up. This claim by the federal government now also seems to be disingenuous with the revelation by Shahzad that he received terrorist training while overseas in his home country, and with the report that Pakistan has also arrested people over there as accessories to this attack. It appears as if this isn’t an isolated attack or a “lone wolf” as the administration had earlier claimed.
It almost seems as if some Democrats in congress, some Democrats in general, and the news media wanted desperately to be able to pin this attack on the Tea Party movement. Do you think that that claim is too outrageous for me to make? Then you should take into account what Michael Bloomberg said in regard to this attack when he suggested that the terrorist could be “home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.”
Who was Michael Bloomberg talking about when he made the claim that the person was probably someone who opposed Barack Obama’s signature domestic agenda item if he was not suggesting that the person was a Tea Party member? The fact is that the media and some Democrats desperately want someone in the Tea Party movement to commit an act of violence because it would validate the “concern” many of them claim to have that the Tea Party has the very real possibility to become violent. So far nothing has happened in the Tea Party movement that would validate that “profile” but they are still portraying the movement as potentially problematic.
I have to say that I find Michael Bloomberg’s comments not only baseless but also extremely insulting, deplorable, and appalling.
Do you still think that I am going too far out on a limb with my claim that many anti-Tea Party people are hoping for violence to be perpetrated by the Tea Party? Well maybe you haven’t heard MSNBC host Contessa Brewer claim that, “there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country.” If she was hoping that this wouldn’t be related to a radical Islamist, who was she hoping it was that committed this act? A Tea Party member of course.
This type of thinking is reminiscent of what I have read about in the aftermath of the JFK assassination. Many people on the left were disappointed when they learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a radical right wing extremist as they had hoped but rather a disgruntled communist. This is no different. After this attack there were people in the media who hoped that this would be the act of a right wing radical and they are disappointed to learn that this was just another radicalized Muslim.
We now know that Faisal Shahzad was indeed a radicalized Muslim, and I would claim that he only became an American citizen as cover for his nefarious plans. Nobody can deny that this was yet another terrorist attack on American soil since Barack Obama became president– Fort Hood and the Christmas day bomber being the others. The Fort Hood terror attack was successful, and while the Christmas day bomber and the Times Square terrorist did not manage to kill any Americans, that does not mean that either attempt was not successful, they were. Sure the bombs did not go off in either case, but the plans were carried out to the point where the bombs could have– and probably should have– exploded. The plans themselves were successful, in the end it was the bombs that failed.
While Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano made a victory lap today with the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the fact is they have nothing to be proud of. This attack was not averted because of Homeland Security, they did nothing to protect us in either the Christmas day bomber or the Times Square terrorist. Much like Adolph Hitler survived a bombing assassination attempt in 1944 by dumb luck, it was dumb luck that prevented hundreds of Americans from dying in these two attempted bombing plots.
Yet Janet Napolitano had the audacity today to claim that this was a failed terrorist attack? Homeland Security did nothing to thwart this attack, they had no idea the attack was pending. In that regard the attack was a success because it has shown the terrorists that the plans they are hatching will work with a little more reliable of a detonation device.
Janet Napolitano is trying to act as if her department had any role in actually stopping this attack from taking place, when in reality the only person who deserves any credit is the street vender in New York who called 911 when he saw the smoke filled vehicle. Without his action, this bomb still may have ignited.
I am not one who generally takes offense to someone who is making a joke, I think that people have become way too sensitive and that, as a whole, people are too easily offended nowadays. When Barack Obama’s joke about his bowling skills being comparable to a special olympian sparked outrage among his detractors, I was not one who took offence to the remark. It is a joke that you would hear in any given factory across the United States on any given day. That doesn’t make it right and, sure, it was out of the norm for a president to make such a remark, and he should have thought it through more before he said it, but I didn’t take him to task over it.
But having said that, and after reading this article about a joke that Barack Obama made at the White House Correspondents Association in which he jokingly told the Jonas Brothers to stay away from his daughters or a predator drone might find them, I just have to wonder if this man is as smart as his supporters think that he is.
Here is the text of his latest joke:
Jonas Brothers are here, they’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking?
Again, I am not going to pretend that I am outraged by this, actually it was pretty funny if you ask me, but as in the case with the special olympian joke, I have to wonder what the backlash would be if this had not been a far leftist who had made this comment. As the article I linked to above states, one third of all predator drone casualties are civilians. Were Barack Obama not a liberal would this comment not have stirred more than a little controversy? I think it would have. I am not offended by the joke, but what I am offended by– actually, offended is the wrong word, perturbed is more accurate– is the different standard conservatives are held to over liberals. There is a double standard at play here in the media, if this was a conservative president who made this joke, there would be hell to pay. But Barack Obama is a card carrying liberal so there is no media scrutiny.
I am not sure it this story is true but if it is it is truly disgusting. The story I am referring to is the claim by the foster mother of a pregnant teenage girl that the Department of Human Services basically forced a teenage girl to have a late term abortion by threatening to take the baby– and a toddler that the girl had already given birth to– away from her if she decided to carry the baby to full term.
Undermining parental rights, once the DHS learned of the girl’s pregnancy they got a judge to okay the agency to take the girl for the abortion after the girl’s mother refused to okay the abortion. Not only that, but the girl had to be transported across state lines because under Pennsylvania law abortions are illegal at 24 months.
But the story of the DHS and abortions gets even uglier when you read the following:
Between September 2006 and March 31, Schwarz said, 335 minors under DHS care became pregnant. Of those, 119 resulted in abortions. Of those abortions, 54 were done by judge’s order.
54 abortions were carried out by court order. One has to assume that is because it was against the will of the parents or legal guardian of the child. This is the type of behavior that you would expect to read about happening in China, not in the United States of America. How many other stories like this are out there but are unknown because nobody has spoken up until now? It is chilling to think of.
Art Caplan, director of the Center of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania had the following to say about the DHS and the decision to extort this young woman into having an abortion:
You can’t or shouldn’t be threatening to break up a family depending upon whether somebody gets an abortion or not,” Caplan said. “That is . . . unethical practice, it’s not even common sense
The director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform had this to say about the accusations:
If DHS’s behavior is as described, it is shameful and inexcusable. . . . Sadly, this is not surprising . . . . This kind of bungling, this is not unusual in child-welfare systems. Especially in Philadelphia
The story goes on to claim that the expectant mother was excited to learn that she was carrying a boy and that she had already talked to her daughter about being a big sister and discussed the name of the soon to be born little brother. She was not planning on having an abortion until she learned that her daughter would be taken away from her if she did not have an abortion. Can you imagine the horror that went through this young girl’s mind?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning the fact that this sixteen year old girl is getting pregnant and is obviously oblivious to the fact that she is too young to have children. I am not condoning her behavior and apparent promiscuity that led her to become pregnant. I am a firm believer that children should be born to two loving adults in the comfort of a secure and loving relationship, but I thought that having an abortion was supposed to be about the mother’s right to chose. It is obvious that this mother had intended to keep her baby only to change her mind after she was threatened by DHS with the loss of the child that she had already had. What kind of government agency would threaten a young, impressionable, and easily scared young woman into having an abortion with the threat of taking away a child that she obviously loved very much? Is the unborn baby less of a human life just because the mother of that baby is a teenager? Is this how we define life in this country? When did it become acceptable for a government agency to decide who should have babies?
Her choice was evidentially thrust upon her by coercion and manipulation by the DHS, that is not choice. Again, I hope this story isn’t true, I find it hard to believe– or at least I am unwilling to believe– that this type of thing could happen in the United States. But judging by the radicals that have infiltrated various agencies of the federal government, I fear that this story is true.
A new government report has been released and it claims that global warming can increase the risk of mental illness. The theory goes like this: because of the increased hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes that are supposed to occur as the earth warms, people who are prone to have anxiety attacks will have anxiety attacks.
Extreme weather events such as hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding, can create increased anxiety and emotional stress about the future, as well as create added stress to vulnerable communities already experiencing social, economic, and environmental disruption. Individuals already vulnerable to mental health disease and stress-related disorders are likely to be at increased risk of exacerbated effects following extreme weather or other climate change events
Whenever there is a catastrophic weather event global warming is being blamed– from earthquakes to floods, events that were once rightfully written off as acts of nature are now being called symptoms of this fraudulent scheme. That is the game that is being played in the upper levels of our scientific industry and in government. And now that game is being expanded by claiming that people who would otherwise probably suffer from some type of mental illness are suffering from that mental illness because of global warming. See how that game works? You take something that is going to happen anyway and claim that it only happened because of global warming, you get everyone worried about it, and you capitalize on the panic. The global warming alarmists have this down to a science. Pardon the pun.
The report then goes on to claim that the results of this report are inconclusive and that more research has to be done. More research naturally means the agencies will need more federal funding to continue. And that is the real crux of the issue. These government agencies and scientists are dependent on federal grant money and they need to keep this hoax alive if they want to keep the federal money flowing in. So they invent all of these possible scenarios while claiming that they need to do more research on them. The money keeps coming in and everyone is happy. Everyone except us that is, we are the ones that have to foot this bill on a hoax that climategate has proven was purposely created in an attempt to keep up the money flow. These people have no scruples and will stop at nothing to assure that they will stay fully funded.
More and more people are growing leery of this scam every day, but the ones that control the purse strings have their own agenda for keeping the hoax alive– more regulations and taxes– and they are looking for any reason to keep the money flowing into these fraudulent claims.
In spite of the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling, Governor Lynch plots to steal funds from the JUA
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch just can’t seem to let go of his idea to balance the state budget by stealing private money from the Joint Underwriting Association even after the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for him to do so.
For those unfamiliar with the story, you can check out my previous posts on this issue here, here, and here. A very quick summary goes like this: New Hampshire’s constitution requires a balanced budget; in order to pay for his outlandish spending (spending that Republicans warned was unsustainable) Governor Lynch devised a plan to steal money from the JUA to balance the budget for the previous two years; the New Hampshire Supreme court ruled that the governor had no right to steal this money because it did not belong to the state, it belonged to the people who paid into the system; New Hampshire is left with a $100 million deficit in the state budget for the last two years. The money that is in question is from a fund that doctors and hospitals pay into to cover mal-practice lawsuits, there is a surplus of funds and the governor tried to steal them from their rightful owners.
Fast forward to today. After failing in his attempt to steal this money from the people who paid into the fund– and being an election year– the governor actually proposed spending cuts to state agencies. But lacking the leadership that is necessary to make a decision on where the cuts would be made, and being unwilling to make the tough decisions and look like the “bad guy,” Governor Lynch told the agencies to find the money that they could cut. Needless to say, when the state legislature took up the new budget they did not include any of the cuts that the governor asked for, instead they proposed seven new tax increases with no budget cuts to trim the deficit. That is what happens when the governor can’t be a leader.
But there is something afoot behind the scenes, as I stated earlier the governor hasn’t given up on his idea to steal the money from the JUA. Governor Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch are trying to run an end around in order to claim at least some of the funds from the JUA. The Insurance Commissioner, Roger Sevigny, and Bud Fitch are conducting a confidential investigation into the recent New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling to see if that ruling actually cost the JUA its tax exempt status. In other words, after losing the court battle, the governor is looking to collect in back taxes the money that the Supreme Court denied him in the first place.
The New Hampshire Republican Party was quick to jump on this news:
Gov. Lynch’s decision to blatantly ignore court rulings indicates a complete lack of respect for the state constitution and the rule of law. Lynch’s repeated attempts to illegally raid the JUA also raise serious questions about his ethical standards
Harsh words indeed, but in light of these recent events I have to say that I agree with them 100%. When the economy took a turn for the worse and the governor realized that there was going to be a deficit, he did what all good Democrats do– he blamed George W Bush for the state’s budget woes. But the truth is that even before the economy took a downturn Governor Lynch was warned by state Republicans that his budget was unsustainable and relied on unrealistic and bloated “revenue” projections. And now we are seeing that those Republicans were right. The projections were never realistic and it has nothing to do with the recent downturn in the economy– although the economy doesn’t help– his budget never had a chance at succeeding.
When the governor first unveiled his plan to steal the surplus of funds in the JUA many people warned him that he would not get away with it and that it would be ruled unconstitutional. But much like he ignored the warnings he received about his budget, he ignored the warnings about stealing these funds. He was ridiculed for not having a “Plan B” for the eventuality that his plan would be ruled unconstitutional– but maybe he did have a “Plan B’ after all, and we are seeing what this “Plan B” was– stealing this money anyway, just using a different angle to do so.
America's Watchtower 