Saturday, June 21, 2008

Six months in jail? Why that's great! Arrest him now, he's already committed the crime.

Crossed posted from:

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Can We Say Overwhelming, Preening, Elitist, ILLEGAL Arrogance?

Today, in my stroll through my daily reads, I ran across not one, not two, , not three, but FOUR articles at Real Clear Politics regarding the utter arrogance of Obama and his latest idiocy.

Good grief, I feel dirty even thinking the man's name--ugh. He becomes more distasteful on a minute-by-minute basis and it's getting to the point whenever I hear his name, the very next thing to cross my mind is, "Oh God, NOW what!"

Yes, he's that bad. And getting worse.

The first headline was this: "Oops! Obama's Faux Presidential Podium" at The Purple People Vote. KMorrison notes the illegality of the picture with this:

Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
What picture? What was this little tidbit? I schlepped on over to see and found this picture:

What the hey? The next headline at RCP was this: "John McCain: Obama Seal-Progressive Fascism's Cautionary Icon" at Hickeysite and Pat Hickey had this to write about it on his site:
Like the character of Sinclair Lewis' novel [It Can't Happen Here], Buzz Windrip, Barack Obama sweeps throngs of people up in whirlwind of pagentry and windy rhetoric.
The entire article is WELL worth reading.

Moving right along at RCP, I came upon the NEXT article addressing this issue, "The Great Seal of Obamaland" at the NYT Caucus blog and a quick quote from THIS article (wow the NYT ALLOWED this dissension to be published? Sultz must be on vacation!:
Just above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.” Not exactly E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), the motto on the presidential seal and the dollar bill. Then again, Mr. Obama is not the president.

The final article (and most voted) was titled :"Holy Arrogance Batman! Obama 'Presidential Seal' Causes Backlash" at DONE (Democrats Over Nominating Elitists) had this to say:

It appears Obama has been in touch with Diebold and decided to let the cat out of the bag early. That’s right, voters, you can stay home. As the good half-people of Florida and Michigan learned, democracy doesn’t matter. His Highness Obama — with an assist from the wise, hardened, probing American media — has declared himself Holy American Emperor.

The unveiling of his seal is not the first time Obama has unwittingly admitted he’s already garnered enough votes to be President. In fact, he recently told a Chicago audience that’s he’s already won election and re-election:

The comments in that article are priceless.

It seems Barack Hussein Obama goes out of his way to show his arrogance, snobbery, elitism and disdain for "ordinary folk" as we cling to our guns and religion. It seems he has no concept of reality and is truly living in a fantasyland brought about by constant association with crooks, thieves, liars, terrorists domestic and foreign. He so desperately wants the Kennedy mantle, Michelle so desperately wants the Jackie O mantle--and yet, there is absolutely nothing, NOTHING there to back up the rhetoric. Nothing.

He has yet to address anything of substance, preferring to continue the ridiculous whining and crying over race and every single perceived--PERCEIVED--slight of anything anyone says. I'm sure he would prefer each of our mouths and brains were put into a lockable freezer and tossed in the deepest crevice in the Antarctic. Thought police, though control, censoring the First Amendment--while decrying it all as perceived slights. And simultaneously showing his incredible, insufferable, arrogant ego. He thinks we're still in the early 60's, politics wise. He was barely cognizant of life in the early 60's, let alone politics. And what he was cognizant of was learning islam in the madrassas, under the tutelage of his muslim father and stepfather. Of course, there was the socialism counterbalance of his mother when he got home as well.

He gleefully assumes we are all just hanging on his every word with baited breath.

He assumes we fall into lockstep with his "Messiah" image so much so he can now take liberties with the Presidential Seal.

Here's a clue, BHO--Get over yourself. Start addressing the issues as to how they relate in the 21st century. Real issues like foreign and domestic terrorism. Taxes (you really think we're stupid enough to allow you to give our hard earned money away in your pet projects? You're NUTS!), oil, not falling for political scams (globull warming anyone?). Start acting like someone presidential if you want to be president. This isn't a game, this is life, real life, and you better come to the table prepared to act like an adult instead of like a child just promoted from the baby table. Or, maybe you were promoted to the adult table too quickly and need to be returned to the baby table.

You are an atrocity, Barry. A pimple on the nose of this great country. Once the pus is drained, nothing is left but a big hole of nothing. You are that big hole of nothing

Thursday, June 19, 2008

A Muslim By Any Other Name Is Still A Muslim

The video below should give you some insight on Obama...
It is highly recommended you inform other clear thinking Americans to view this...

See videos below. (Note: You may need to center video then click your refresh button)
Title of Video: Libyan Leader Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi: Obama Suffers Inferiority Complex That Might Make Him Behave "Whiter Than the White." He Should Be Proud of His African, Muslim Identity. Ben-Gurion Gave the Green Light for the Killing of JFK
Clip #1791 Broadcast: June 11, 2008

Obama's New Muslim Controversy

Barack Obama has come under fire recently for the actions of some of his campaign staffers during a rally in Detroit, Michigan. According to reports, the Obama campaign forced two muslim women, who were wearing head scarves, to move from their seats behind Obama's podium so that they would not be seen in video footage or photos of the event. One of the women is quoted as saying that the staffer asked her to move "because of the political climate of what's going on in the world."

The following by Redhawk

Amazing way to carry out the policy of "CHANGE":

1) Thou shall not be allowed to speak about MY lack of Experience.. that is Racial

2) Thou shall not mention my total lack of military knowledge.. that is Racial

3) Togo shall not dare mention my total lack of Senatorial record.. That is Racial..

4) Thou shall never, ever mention that I have an ultra left Marxist set of beliefs.. that is Racial

5) Thou shall never mention that the EU has come out against my Iran policy.. that is Racial

6) Thou shall accept the new "softer" make over of Michelle ( putting lipstick on a pig ) that is racial..

SO now that we have set the parameters for open and honest Debates.. shall we have a cup of tea and Chitlins???Boy Oh Boy Oh Boy!!Ok you immature, inexperienced, communist leaning So Chi Puppet of Soros, you inexperienced Jeremiah follower of anti military and defeat who has thrown people under buses and waffled mightily while having no record of senatorial accomplishments.. I call your hand with a Straight Flush to the ACE!

Now Here's A Novel Idea

You would expect the inovators of police revenues would have come up with this idea. The well-known police state of Massachusetts has for many years enhanced the annual salaries of all the police via the un-constitutional police detail program (which has bled over and into Rhode Island). Now comes the small southern suburb of Holly Springs, Georgia that beat the Nor'easters to the punch. Expect the harvard yard folks to follow the bull dogs from the South.
Speeders to pay extra for police fuel

HOLLY SPRINGS, Ga. — The surging price of gasoline has come to this: a "fuel surcharge" on your next speeding ticket.

Drivers caught speeding in this north Atlanta suburb soon will have to pay an extra $12 — to cover $4-a-gallon gas costs for the police officers who stop them.

The City Council passed the fee hike, effective July 1, to offset fuel prices that have eaten up nearly 60% of the police department's 2008 fuel budget, Police Chief Ken Ball says.

He expects the fee increase, which applies to all moving violations and can be rescinded if gas prices fall below $3 a gallon, to generate $19,500 to $26,000 a year for the town of 7,700.

Ball says he was seeking ways to maintain patrols despite record high gas prices. "I was hearing that Delta (Air Lines), pizza deliverers, florists were adding fuel charges to their services, and I thought, why not police departments?" he says.

Atlanta might be next. Monday, the City Council approved by a 13-0 vote Councilman C.T. Martin's proposal to add a $10-$15 surcharge for motorists convicted of speeding and other moving violations, Martin says. "I want to recover the cost of the extra gas … without raising property taxes," he says. The legislation awaits Mayor Shirley Franklin's approval.

Other cities could follow. Ball says he's being "inundated" by calls from police chiefs and city managers. "I've heard from at least a dozen police chiefs and half a dozen city managers," he says of the measure passed Monday night. "They want to know how we did it, and could we send them a copy of the ordinance."

Wendy Balazik, spokeswoman for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, says she's not aware of any other cities adding such a surcharge. "But it makes sense," she says. "Law enforcement agencies are already facing a number of financial pressures, and rising fuel costs can't help the situation at all."

The National League of Cities says it is unaware of other cities adding such fees.

The national average cost for a gallon of regular gas was $4.078 Tuesday, according to auto club AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

Katie Harris, 20, a babysitter and student at Georgia Perimeter College, doesn't like the new fines. "It always seems like government officials are trying to take money from citizens' pockets," she says.

Holly Springs Mayor Tim Downing says: "This is a self-taxing system. If you don't break the law, you don't pay the tax."

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

285 Dictators

545 People

By Charlie Reese -

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget.

He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.
If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

You want to solve this problem? Put a lean on all the properties owned by Pelosi, Reid, and company?

Last April, Carol Plato, director of services from Martin Memorial Medical Hospital, told members of Florida’s House Committee on State Affairs about the extreme financial burdens illegal immigrants have imposed on her hospital.

In the video, Plato testifies: “In 2001, we had a Guatemalan, an illegal patient in our hospital. He was there from 2001 and until 2003. He had over $1.5 million in health care services. We forcibly returned him to his home county of Guatemala at our own cost of $30,000. You ask why am I telling you about a case that happened in 2003? Because today that case is not over. We have spent and are spending up to a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees because his family here in the United States is suing us because they think it as inappropriate for us to return this illegal patient to his home country.”

She also reminds Florida lawmakers of the $100 million providing healthcare for illegal aliens in 2007. [Read full transcript at].

Angry? Take action! Join NumbersUSA to get action alerts and to send free faxes to your elected officials. Also join CAPS for action alerts and ready made emails to send to your elected officials.

141 Responses to “Must See: Testimony Of Illegal Alien Care From 1 Florida Hospital” (To see all responses click here:

  1. Sandman says:

    This lady stated a few examples of outrageous invader costs that are passed on to the taxpayers, and this was only one hospital…Imagine the TOTAL cost of health care across the country, it must be in the BILLIONS. I remember a cancer case a few years ago (in Atlanta) and the bill was over a million dollars. The invader who was treated ended up suing the hospital and even had help from the ACLU. ( I understand he was allowed to stay in the US & collect social security) We are killing ourselves with “compassion”.

  2. litew8 says:

    The feminist liberals are killing us.

  3. Mountain Man says:

    So the family of the Guatemalan who has already cost the hospital more than a million dollars is suing the hospital for having the bottom feeding leach deported.

    If I had my way, I would round up all the family members, put some knots on the heads and boot marks on the asses of the adults for being so damn arrogant. Then deport all of them and tell them if they ever come back they will get life at hard labor in prison, “NO EXCEPTIONS”.

Monday, June 16, 2008


Man fined for preaching near Liberty Bell
Judge finds street evangelist guilty of 'interfering'

Posted: June 15, 2008
8:53 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A man arrested for preaching on a public sidewalk too close to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia has been declared guilty of violating federal law.

He was fined over $400, put on probation and told not to go in Independence National Historical Park – or on its surrounding sidewalks – for a year.

On Oct. 7, Michael A. Marcavage, director of the evangelistic organization Repent America, stood on the sidewalk outside the Liberty Bell Center, on the western edge of Independence Historical Park, preaching a message against abortion and declaring "we need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" to a crowd waiting to enter the park.

"This is where we have been on a number of other occasions," Marcavage told WND. "This time we were ministering to people waiting in line to see the Liberty Bell, speaking on the message written on the Bell, which reads, 'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land.'"

Marcavage then was confronted by a National Park Service ranger, who demanded he move to a "free speech zone" some distance from the entrance, where he could continue preaching under the permission of a "verbal permit."Marcavage refused to move and refused to accept a verbal permit, claiming the First Amendment protected his right to speak in public.

He then was arrested, taken away and charged with violating the terms of the permit that he had refused to accept. Video of Marcavage's arrest, posted on YouTube, can be viewed below.

On Friday, in the case of United States of America vs. Michael A Marcavage, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arnold Rapoport found the preacher guilty of violating the terms of a verbal permit and "interfering with agency functions."

After the arrest, Marcavage posted his thoughts on a free speech blog, stating, "If they shut down our ability to speak to the people, they shut down the Gospel; they shut down any message."

The blog, however, noted that the Liberty Bell Center's establishment of a "free speech zone" is routine in cities and college campuses when officials want to maintain a tight control over potentially troublesome events. The blog cited a 2007 study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which found 259 of 346 colleges studied maintained such free speech restrictions.

In the aftermath of 9/11, government officials established a free speech zone near the Liberty Bell Center, where, according to government statistics, more than 100,000 protesters demonstrate each year.

In United States vs. Michael A. Marcavage, Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Goldberg stood behind the practice of government-created speech zones, stating in court that "nowhere does the law say that the government cannot regulate speech on a sidewalk used by the public."

Four years ago, Marcavage made headlines for being arrested as a member of the "Philadelphia 11," a group that preached on sidewalks during a homosexual rally in downtown Philadelphia. The group was charged under Pennsylvania's hate crime laws, though the charges were later dropped.

Marcavage's Repent America responded in a press release it will appeal this latest arrest and court decision and "will be challenging these unconstitutional restrictions by filing for an injunction in federal court."

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Los Angeles: May I have your attention please!

Los Angeles is Under Attack

Los Angeles Mayor and City Council
Corruption on Display

You won't believe how corrupt the City of Los Angeles has become under the "leadership" of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Democrat City Council. This video is shocking and the actions of these people should be unacceptable to all Americans no matter where you live. Walter Moore authored "Jamiel's Law", referenced in this video, as an attempt to deal with this problem of illegal alien gang bangers in Los Angeles, but it's not enough. It is the best that Mr. Moore can expect to get in this city under current conditions.

They say "you can't fight city hall," but Walter is willing to try. The mayor and city council refused to consider "Jamiel's Law" so Mr. Moore is taking it to the voters as a ballot initiative. Los Angeles is overrun with Latino illegal aliens and their gang bangers who are operating with the full immunity and support of the Mayor, City Council, and the police working under Special Order 40, the mayor's "illegal alien protection" order. They are Villaraigosa's people from Mexico and they are wrecking this city and taking it over. This should never be tolerated in America.

In the video, Jamiel Shaw Sr., who's son was recently murdered by an illegal alien, exposes why the City supports these criminals and keeps them on the streets, and the reaction to his pleas for justice from the DA and the city council. Decent citizens, still living in Los Angeles, must take action to deal with this problem and we need help from Americans across the country. Only by electing Walter Moore mayor in March, 2009, can this corruption be stopped and Los Angeles returned to the American People.

Please go to and help this good man get elected. We, here in Los Angeles, can't do it without your help. Only with contributions from across the country can Walter Moore purchase the media resources needed to get well known and elected. Please help spread this message by copy and pasting it to an email and send it far and wide. We must return Los Angeles to the American people or your city might be next.

Message From Me

Citizens of Los Angeles, smarten up! You've already lost your city and you're about to lose your country...get rid of the corrupt politicians before its too late...starting with the mayor!

The Supreme Court Of The United States Has Declared War On lie!

They have directed the U.S. Military hereinafter take no prisoners;

"kill 'em all"

The Deafening Silence...

"There should be crowds of people protesting outside the Supreme Court building with placards demanding "Never Again, Never Forget." There should be pundits in every newspaper and every television channel denouncing the Supreme Court's decision. There should be calls for the impeachment of the Supreme Court justices in the majority who made this ruling. But for the most part, with the exception of few outraged commentators, there is a deafening, sickening silence, even a defeated, resigned acquiescence. Much of the nation is already accepting such defeats, and moving on with the mundane aspects of life. After all, there is nothing they can do about it. It is "somebody else's problem." "

Don't You Know There's A War On?

By Jeffrey Imm

I am sending U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy a framed copy of a photograph of the remains of the World Trade Center West building after the 9/11 attacks with a note "Don't You Know There's A War On?".

The Real Headline: "U.S. Supreme Court Doesn't Think We Are At War with Jihad"

On June 12, 2008, the majority on the Supreme Court ruled in "Boumediene v. Bush," that habeas corpus rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution will be extended to foreign Jihadist enemy combatants currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court stating that "[i]t is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution." (Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, page 41).

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, with Justice Souter providing a concurring opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia both filed dissenting opinions; the other two dissenting judges were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In this decision, the Supreme Court majority tells the American people to ignore that, in no time in American history have habeas corpus rights been granted to unlawful foreign enemy combatants, to ignore that during WWII the Supreme Court ruled that unlawful combatant saboteurs could be denied habeas corpus, to ignore that during the Civil War that habeas corpus was suspended for American citizens, to ignore that the Supreme Court ruling seeks to give foreign enemy combatants more rights than illegal aliens. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy ignores the reality that the U.S. Constitution was for American citizens, not foreign enemy combatants during wartime, by arrogantly demanding that "[t]he laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."(Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, page 70).

Perhaps Justice Kennedy might actually read the U.S. Constitution. It states that "We the People of the United the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Where does that call for extending such rights of American citizens to enemy foreign combatants during war? Where does Article I, Section. 9. Clause 2 of the Constitution say enemy combatant Jihadists at Guantanamo Bay have a "Get Out of Jail Free" pass from the Constitutional clause that allows the government to suspend habeas corpus when "the public Safety may require it"?

The Supreme Court ruling will allow foreign enemy combatants the right to appeal their detention to U.S. civilian courts, and perhaps obtain their release back to attack America again. While the existing military trials are to continue, if such enemy combatants are convicted, analysts have stated that they will also be to appeal their convictions to civilian courts as well. Some 270 enemy combatants are currently held at Guantanamo Bay. As dissenting Justice Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion, "[a]t least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield...These, mind you, were detainees whom the military had concluded were not enemy combatants." (Justice Scalia Dissenting Opinion, pp.3,4).

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy writes what may be the epitaph for an America in mass denial regarding the global threat of Jihad when he states regarding the enemy combatants: "none is a citizen of a nation now at war with the United States." Over seven years after the 9/11 attacks, how could there be any American citizen that completely uninformed about the world and the transnational Jihadist threat? Justice Kennedy also goes on to whine that the enemy combatants have been held in "the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history." (Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, page 41). His written contradiction is staggering - on the one hand he claims that the enemy combatants are not a "citizen of a nation now at war" but on the other hand that the "conflict" under which they are being held is "among the longest wars in American history." Of course, Justice Kennedy has no idea who or what America is fighting. What is he doing holding a high office in the U.S. government, over 7 years after 9/11?

The Deafening Silence of the Public and the Braying of the Spin Media

There should be crowds of people protesting outside the Supreme Court building with placards demanding "Never Again, Never Forget." There should be pundits in every newspaper and every television channel denouncing the Supreme Court's decision. There should be calls for the impeachment of the Supreme Court justices in the majority who made this ruling. But for the most part, with the exception of few outraged commentators, there is a deafening, sickening silence, even a defeated, resigned acquiescence. Much of the nation is already accepting such defeats, and moving on with the mundane aspects of life. After all, there is nothing they can do about it. It is "somebody else's problem."

Moreover, the mainstream media has it all figured out - it is "George Bush's problem"... the mantra that has been drummed into the public media and airwaves for the past 7 years every time a difficult, unpleasant reality had to be faced... Bush, the convenient scapegoat for the media to enable denial about global Jihad.

The mainstream media has its bizarro-world spin on the vulgarity of giving American constitutional rights to foreign enemy combatants during wartime:
-- New York Times: "Justice 5, Brutality 4"
-- New York Times: "court repudiated the fundamental legal basis for the Bush administration’s strategy"
-- Washington Post front page: "The Supreme Court rules Bush can't trash American values"
-- Washington Post's Eugene Robinson: "the high court made clear that the Decider has no authority to trash the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence"
-- Associated Press: "Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush"
-- CNN: "Watch how the 5-4 ruling is a major blow for the Bush administration"
-- and last, but not least, to prove that the some on the right can be as blind as some on the left...
-- Washington Times: "War position shapes lawmakers' view of ruling"... "Whether politicians considered Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base detainees a victory for terrorists or for the Constitution was largely determined by their substantive stance on the war in Iraq."

That's correct, the right-wing Washington Times believes whether or not it makes sense to extend American constitutional rights to foreign enemy combatants during war -- depends on your "stance on the war in Iraq." Unless, of course, like the left-wing, you want to blame it all on George Bush.

Does anyone remember that on 9/11 that Jihadists killed Americans, regardless of our political leanings, and before the war in Iraq? In 2001?

Don't You Know There's A War On?

I remember the moment, years ago, that I stared into the abyss of what was the World Trade Center in New York City... thinking God Help Us. Although we here in Washington DC also had our tragedy with the attack on the Pentagon that also left an undeniable scar of war on our landscape, seeing the abyss of what was once the World Trade Center was so painfully graphic, how could any person not know we were at war? How could anyone be that blind? I remember thinking that a photograph of the remains of the World Trade Center should be posted in every public building and the office of every senior official - so that they never, never forget we are at war. But they have indeed forgotten. Images of 9/11 are now just fodder for fringe conspiracy theorists. The travesty of the latest Supreme Court decision sets a historical precedent of how much the mortal threat of Jihad against America has faded like a bad memory in the collective consciousness of our governmental leadership, and the memory of many, perhaps most, of the public. So, I have sent a photograph of it to Justice Kennedy to remind him of the consequences of ignoring the mortal threat of Jihad.

Yet Justice Kennedy and his cadre of Supreme Court Justices aren't the only ones who have lost the plot on the war of Jihadists against America. Today, U.S. Defense Secretary Gates again calls for patience with Pakistan, as the Taliban and their fellow Jihadists continue to declare war on the United States, exacting their form of Sharia justice on Pakistanis, and U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson seeks us to give another $750 million to a Pakistan area largely controlled by the Taliban. Two weeks ago, on May 31, DHS' Daniel Sutherland was giving a videoconference from the State Department to other government agencies to make sure that they don't use the term "jihad" as part of the new "terror lexicon."

America continues to face a reality truly stranger than any possible fiction... a bad dream from which our nation desperately needs to awaken.

Don't You Know There's A War On?

Indeed, they don't - certainly not a global war by Jihadists. That remains the problem. That is why we can't identify the enemy as more than "extremists," and that is why we can't get government leadership to develop a global strategy against Jihad. When it comes to Jihad and its ideological basis, they just don't know there's a war on.

They know that there is military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that's the extent of the issue. The larger, global war of Jihadists against all of humanity is not comprehended by multiple levels of American governmental leadership. The war of Jihadists in Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East... these are all "isolated incidents" and "regional concerns" to a mindset that simply sees no imminent threat by Jihadists or Islamic supremacist ideology. This blindness goes down to the individual citizen level. Instead of being concerned about what petrodollars would do to fund the enemy during war, many American citizens are only concerned about whether gasoline is $4.00 a gallon or not.

Mass Denial Leads to an Increasingly Vulnerable America

So in this state of mass denial, it is not surprising to see such a vulgar slur by the Supreme Court against our fallen soldiers fighting against Jihadists that also disgraces the memories of those murdered by Jihadists on the American homeland.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia provides a synopsis of the consequences of such disgraceful denial (Scalia Dissenting Opinion, page 2):

"America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60-61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed."

"The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today."

Justice Kennedy symbolizes the state of mass denial about Jihad when he states regarding the enemy combatants "none is a citizen of a nation now at war with the United States."

Tell that to the victims of the next attack on America.

Because anyone involved in knowingly releasing a Jihadist to successfully kill Americans in the future will be an accomplice in their murder.

Sources and Related Documents:

United States Constitution
June 12, 2008 - Supreme Court Slip Decision: Boumediene et al. v. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
June 12, 2008 - CNN: Justices: Gitmo detainees can challenge detention in U.S. courts
June 12, 2008 - AP: Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush
June 12, 2008 - AP: Detainee ruling triggers scramble among DC judges
June 13, 2008 - Justices side with the enemy - by Joseph Farah
June 13, 2008 - The United States Supreme Court Versus America: Awarding "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus To Terrorists" - by Hugh Hewitt
June 13, 2008 - FOX News: Supreme Court Allows Guantanamo Prisoners to Challenge Detention in U.S. Courts
June 13, 2008 - FOX News: 'Special Report' Panel on Supreme Court Ruling on Al Qaeda Detainees and U.S. Progress With the Iraq War
June 13, 2008 - Washington Times: War position shapes lawmakers' view of ruling
June 13, 2008 - New York Times: Justice 5, Brutality 4
June 13, 2008 - Washington Post: A Victory for the Rule of the Law - by Eugene Robinson
June 13, 2008 - Reuters: Rules have changed for Guantanamo trials: lawyers
June 13, 2008 - AFP: US justice chief says Guantanamo trials to proceed
9/11 Aftermath of Attack on World Trade Center West Tower (Image) - September 21, 2001
9/11 Aftermath of Attack on Pentagon
Wikipedia: Boumediene v. Bush
Wikipedia: Guantanamo captives' appeals in Washington DC Courts
Wikipedia: Habeas Corpus
Wikipedia: Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
Wikipedia: Suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War and Reconstruction
Wikipedia: Suspension of Habeas Corpus during World War II and its aftermath
Wikipedia: Suspension of Habeas Corpus in the United States in 1990s and 2000s

A Clear And Ever Present Danger

"A Clear And Ever Present Danger" headline should be more than a simple wake-up should be a call to action. (The headline is mine and not the author of the article below)

An Old Newness
Obama is a hit with the media, but electing him would be a grave error.
By Thomas Sowell

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the 3,000-hit landmark — which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner’s 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black president of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a president of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever, and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a homecoming queen.

The three leading candidates for their party’s nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex, and age — as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.
Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive, and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.
We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.
The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances, and hamstringing the police.
Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.
Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Another "WAKE UP AMERICA" warning...oh well, I keep trying.

Why is this article important to you? (The answer herein...)

Venezuela: Terrorist links at the Immigration Department

By Veneconomy

President Hugo Chávez’ administration has been linked to guerrilla movements and terrorist activities, mainly radical Arab groups in the Middle East. The most recent accusation comes from an investigative report conducted for the Miami Herald by Phil Gunson, president of the Foreign Press Association in Venezuela.

The starting point of the investigation was the appointments of Hugo Cabezas, aged 38, and Tarek el-Aissami, 28, as director and assistant director of the DIEX (Identification and Immigration Office) two months ago. According to Gunson, the appointments came as a surprise precisely because of the ties that both officers have with radical guerrilla movements at Universidad de Los Andes (ULA) and el-Aisammi’s possible ties with radical movements in the Middle East.

It is said that both Cabezas and el-Aissami have fostered the presence of urban guerrillas in cahoots with the governor of Mérida, Florencio Porras, for whom Cabezas worked as secretary until last July. Cabezas was a founder member of Utopia, an armed group that has connections with the Bolivarian Liberation Front.

El-Aissami, a Venezuelan whose father is Syrian, was president of the ULA’s students union for two years up until July this year, when he failed to get reelected. Apparently, he had managed to get members of the guerilla installed in the student residences during this time. According to Gunson, of the 1,122 people living in one of the ULA’s residences, only 387 are active students and more than 600 have nothing to do with the university.

El-Aissami had political control of the residences, which were used to hide stolen vehicles and conduct drug deals. In addition, the people living there would use balaclavas to commit crimes on the streets.

As though that were not enough, el-Aissami’s father is the head of the Venezuelan branch of the Iraqi political party Baath, while his great-uncle Shibli el-Aissami was a prominent ideologist and assistant to the party’s secretary general in Baghdad during the Saddam Hussein administration. Guson points out that Tarek el-Aissami was unwilling to give a statement to the Miami Herald.

The DIEX, the agency in charge of issuing identity cards and passports, has been put into the hands of radicals with terrorist connections precisely at a time when Venezuela is at the gates of a revocatory referendum against President Chávez and a number of deputies. It seems quite clear that the government intends to commit fraud in order to derail the referendum initiative.

Why is this article important to you?

Answer: Hezbollah is in your back yard! (Read more )