Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!
Obama Is A COMMUNIST!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!



Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page





Sunday, December 12, 2010

Swindle of the Year

Swindle of the Year
By Charles Krauthammer
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 — and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did.

In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package.  It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years — which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election.
This is a defeat?

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town.  Stimulus I, was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign.  And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years — $630 billion of it above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts.

No mean achievement.
After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing the debt.  And this budget-busting occurs less than a week after the president’s deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.

Some Republicans are crowing that Stimulus II is the Republican way — mostly tax cuts — rather than the Democrats’ spending orgy of Stimulus I.
That’s consolation?
This just means that Republicans are two years too late.
Stimulus II will still blow another near–$1 trillion hole in the budget.

At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as one percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.

Obama is no fool.  While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, tea-party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

And he gets all this in return for what?
For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes.  And an estate-tax rate of 35 percent — it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 — that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.

No, cries the Left: Obama violated a sacred principle.
A 39.6 percent tax rate versus 35 percent is a principle?
“This is the public-option debate all over again,” said Obama at his Tuesday news conference.
He is right.

The Left never understood that to nationalize health care there is no need for a public option because Obamacare turns the private insurers into public utilities.

The Left is similarly clueless on the tax-cut deal:  In exchange for temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates, Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus — what the Left has been begging for since the failure of Stimulus I, but was heretofore politically unattainable.

Obama’s public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept.  It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation.  The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 — and who abandoned the Democrats in 2010 — is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the Left.

Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the “professional Left” for its combination of sanctimony and myopia.  It was Obama’s Sister Souljah moment.  It had a prickly, irritated sincerity — their ideological stupidity and inability to see the “long game” really do get under Obama’s skin — but a decidedly calculated quality, too. 
Where, after all, does the Left go?
Stay home on Election Day 2012?
Vote Republican?No, says the current buzz, the Left will instead challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Really now? For decades, African-Americans have been this party’s most loyal constituency.  They vote nine-to-one Democratic through hell and high water, through impeachment and recession, through everything.  After four centuries of enduring much, African-Americans finally see one of their own achieve the presidency.  And their own party is going to deny him a shot at reelection?

Not even Democrats are that stupid.
The remaining question is whether they are just stupid enough to not understand — and therefore vote down — the swindle of the year just pulled off by their own president.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.
© 2010 The Washington Post Writers Group.

Go get 'em Charles!  We can always count on you for clarity and solid reasoning!
THANKS!

Friday, December 10, 2010

MSU Stands By Professor!

The story begins at  Michigan State University(MSU),  with a mechanical engineering professor named Indred Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.

The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'

Enter Professor Wichman.
In his e-mail, he said the following:
____________________________

Dear Muslim Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU,   I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'

If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave.

I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
________________________________

As you can imagine, The Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.


They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty, And mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.

Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.

For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,


Saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.


We are in a war!


This political correctness crap is getting old and its killing us!
_________________

From my good friend...
AND... MY sentiments exactly!

Saturday, December 4, 2010

More Information On The 2nd Amendment!

This information was forwarded to me and I feel it is VERY important to share with all my loyal visitors!

I did some research and found good references to the authenticity of the information:
1) At The American Military History web site - Chapter 16 -(351) to be more precise...  HERE
2) At The Army National Guard Archives... HERE
3) At The National Archives - #4.51... HERE
And,
4) A Congressional Biography of Charles William Frederick Dick... HERE

Follows is the message that was forwarded to me:
____________________________________________

The "DICK ACT of 1902" . . .

CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.  It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for, are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.   All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right, and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed;  To do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union;  To suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutiona​l that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

(Earlier)- During the war with England, an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is, that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:   “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.”

In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “... that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government;  And thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.

 “This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
The Honorable William Gordon

With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov't defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government.

I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment's notice.  Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that's the case?

Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supercede the Constitution!

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question:  Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution?
Keep reading.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."

Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result..."

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions." (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Do you understand what the Supreme Court said here?
No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.
- FACT.
No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that... "The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States.   It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."

"Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it."

The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear:
TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!!
CASE CLOSED.
_____________________

Time to do some reading folks!

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Assault Weapons and The Truth

Assault Weapons and The Truth
From a post by Jarhead, over at NoWeWont...

The Obama administration has nominated an anti-gun zealot as the U.S.’s top gun cop.

The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions.

The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern.

His attacks on the civilian use of so-called 'assault weapons' raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes. The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.

Mr. Traver is the special agent in charge of the BATFE’s Chicago field division. Therefore, he knows what was covered by the federal assault-weapons ban that sunset in 2004.

But in November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”

The list of problems with Mr. Traver’s claims is very long.
If he really believes that these weapons fire unacceptably “heavy caliber” bullets, he is going to have to ban virtually all rifles.
(Including...) Small-game rifles — guns designed to kill squirrels and rabbits without destroying too much meat — typically fire .22-caliber bullets, which are only slightly smaller than the .223-caliber bullets fired by the M16 (used by the U.S. military since Vietnam) and the newer M4 carbine (used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Deer-hunting rifles fire rounds that are very similar to those used by the AK-47.

Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.”

But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns.

The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.

On penetrating body armor, Mr. Traver leaves out one important detail:  Rifles in general are often able to penetrate body armor simply because their bullets travel faster than those fired from handguns. The same can be said for going through the walls of houses.

But if he had said that deer-hunting rifles can often penetrate walls and lower-level types of body armor, it is unlikely that his comments would have generated the same fear.

Unfortunately, Mr. Traver has done more than make clearly inaccurate claims about so-called “assault weapons.”

He has supported banning .50-caliber rifles, and regulations that would force many gun shows to close down, and the Chicago handgun ban, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects sensitive trace data from being misused in frivolous municipal lawsuits against gun makers.

He also worked with the Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center, on the “Gun Violence Reduction Project.”

The fact that Mr. Traver uses the same misleading claims as groups such as the Brady Campaign shouldn’t make it too surprising that gun-control groups are applauding his nomination.

Nor is Traver’s nomination very surprising after President Obama appointed two strong anti-self-defense members to the Supreme Court. 

But Mr. Traver’s nomination is dangerous.
Making up claims about guns to demonize them is beyond what is acceptable for someone who wants a position in which he will be regulating American gun ownership.

Jarhead’s Comment;  First of all, The Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center is sponsored and supported by "guess who?"...... "George Soros."

Now the truth;  For the third year in a row, violent crime has declined in the United States while increasing numbers of American citizens own firearms and are licensed to carry, a trend that belies predictions of anti-gunners that more guns will result in more crime, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Preliminary data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that the violent crime rate went down 5.5 percent in 2009, compared to statistics from 2008. This covers all four categories of violent crime: murder, robbery, aggravated assault and forcible rape. Violent crime went down 4 percent in metropolitan counties and 3 percent elsewhere, according to the FBI.

At the same time, the agency’s National Instant Check System reports continued increases in the number of background check requests and the National Shooting Sports Foundation has reported increased federal firearms excise tax allocations to state wildlife agencies, an indication that more guns and ammunition are being purchased.

“This translates to one irrefutable fact,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “There are more guns in private hands than ever before, yet crime rates have declined.

In plain English, this means that gun prohibitionists have been consistently wrong. Higher rates of gun ownership have not resulted in more bloodshed, as the gun ban lobby has repeatedly forecast with its ‘sky-is-falling’ rhetoric.

“According to the FBI,” he continued, “the murder rate fell last year 7.2 percent in larger cities.  Robbery declined more than 8 percent and forcible rape was down 3.1 percent.

It might just be that criminals are less likely to attack someone out of fear their intended victim is armed.  Robbers might be discouraged by the growing potential that the clerk behind the counter is willing to fight back.  Maybe would-be rapists are deterred by the possibility that they might get shot.

“For many years,” Gottlieb observed, “anti-gunners made all kinds of wild predictions that higher rates of gun ownership and the expansion of shall-issue carry permits would leave neighborhoods awash in blood.  The data proves otherwise.  America should turn its back on the gun prohibition lobby and their insidious policy of victim disarmament.”

This is what they do not want you to see, they want the anti-gun establishment to bolster tp the ignorant masses that crime goes up when there are more weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Nothing could further from the truth.
View the statistics from 1990 to 2009 here;

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
__________________________________________

More from 'Jarhead'... HERE

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!