U.S. Census...the bidding war has started. I bid $20.00 per person. Do I hear $15.00?

----- Original Message -----

From: link removed

To: link removed

Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:56 AM

Subject: FW: This guy nails it

 

Robert M. Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau Washington, DC March 10, 2010 Dear Mr. Groves: Thank you for your kind letter of March 8th telling me  that you will be sending me a Census form in about a week. It made me wonder, do you also send your employees emails giving them a “heads up” that you’ll be sending them future emails? I will have plenty of time to wait in eager anticipation of your census, as I am currently unemployed. Since you are into numbers, you might be interested in knowing that 4 million Americans have become unemployed over the last 18 months or so. That’s a lot of people waiting for your census! Of course not every job market is suffering; the government has added about 55,000 jobs during this same timeframe! That stimulus bill has really done a number on us, hasn’t it? I know this is a really busy time for you, but perhaps you will humor me by answering a few survey questions: •How does it cost $14 BILLION to count 350 million people?  That’s $40 per person. Oh, and why did you give  this out to a private company under a no bidding contract?

 I’ll count everyone in my town for $25 per person. Please send me $250,000 and I’ll send you back the
information (care to guess how many people live in Groton?).I’m also willing to do a few surrounding towns if you want.
•Are you really hiring 800,000 people to conduct this count?
Is this really just a government plot to temporarily reduce the
unemployment figures for two months? Each new hire only has to
count 437.5 people—I could do that in one morning and be
done!
•Why did you think you needed a Super Bowl ad to tell people about
the Census? Never mind, I guess that’s obvious since you think you
need to send me a letter to tell me that you’re going to send me a
letter.

•Is it true that every person identified could be “worth” $1,000
in Federal government aid, prompting cities and counties to aggressively
seek out and count illegal residents in their area?
•How many Acorn activists are working on the Census? Are you
comfortable hiring people from an organization that is facing charges of
voter registration fraud?
•The census only has 10 questions, so why are two of them focused
on race? Instead of asking me if I’m Hispanic and THEN asking my
race, you could pretty much just add Hispanic to the race
question.¿Entiendes?
Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate your letter. It is a stark reminder of
how wacky and over-blown our government has become. I only wish
you were doing this survey in October so we’d be even more energized for
the November elections, if that is possible.
Good luck with your census—we’re all counting on you!
Chuck McKinney
Groton, MA

a post-racial society? Not as long we have a racist in the White House

The man currently occupying the White House is by far the most racist biased person that ever claimed that address...with maybe the exception of Bill Clinton.  These Leftist ideologues subscribe to the radical beliefs of Saul Alinsky (not to mention the Socialists Karl Marx and Norman Cousins and the dictator Stalin) and will certainly cry out just the opposite with words designed to cater to the naive and very ill-informed Americans.  With platitudes that defy meaning, everything they say or do is has just the opposite outcome.  They are the masters of lies and deceit!  This is quite common among those that have no conscience to guide them with the moral values expected of leaders with integrity and religious virtues.  Even the mention of religion is distasteful in their warped minds.  

During the last presidential campaign Mr. Obama said, "Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. "  This radical statement was carefully prepared and/or designed to reduce our beliefs (or as John Dewey said, "...a synthesizing of all religions.")  of the Founding Fathers...to lesson the grip we have on our past which brought us to where are.  The where we are has been denigrated to where we had been and without getting rid of the stench in Washington we may never recover our republic for which we once stood... a freedom loving and God fearing people! 

And for thoseof you who may remember the words of James MacGreor Burns form his 1984 book, The Power To Lead,  "The framers of the U.S. constitution have simply been too shrewd for us. The have outwitted us. They designed separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to 'turn the Founders upside down' -- we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected.", Mr Obama has laid claim to the word shrewd. ...with one little exception, he has dropped the 'w' and with all of his hope and change has decided to shred he Constitution by turning the Founders upside down. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Race and Politics
By Thomas Sowell
April 6, 2010

Few combinations are more poisonous than race and politics. That combination has torn whole nations apart and led to the slaughters of millions in countries around the world.
You might think we would have learned a lesson from that and stay away from injecting race into political issues. Yet playing the race card has become an increasingly common response to growing public anger at the policies of the Obama administration and the way those policies have been imposed.
When the triumphant Democrats made their widely televised walk up Capitol Hill after passing the health care bill, led by a smirking and strutting Nancy Pelosi, holding her oversized gavel, some of the crowd of citizens expressed their anger. According to some Democrats, these expressions of anger included racial slurs directed at black members of Congress.
This is a serious charge-- and one deserving of some serious evidence. But, despite all the media recording devices on the scene, not to mention recording devices among the crowd gathered there, nobody can come up with a single recorded sound to back up that incendiary charge. Worse yet, some people have claimed that even doubting the charge suggests that you are a racist.
Among the people who are likely to be most disappointed with the Obama administration are those who thought it would usher in a post-racial society. That they wished for such a society is a credit to their values. But that they actually expected a move in that direction suggests that they ignored both Barack Obama's history and the heavy vested interest that too many people have in race hustling.
This is just one of many areas in which this country is likely to pay a very high price for the fact that too many voters paid attention to Obama's rhetoric while ignoring his actual track record.
However soothing the Obama rhetoric, and however lofty his statements about being a uniter rather than a divider-- both racially and in terms of bipartisanship-- everything in his past fairly shouts the opposite, but only to those who follow facts.
Has he been allied with uniters or dividers in the past? Do Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger sound like uniters?
What has his administration done-- as distinguished from what the president has said-- since taking office?
It has dropped the prosecution of black thugs caught on camera stationed outside a polling place intimidating voters.
Obama has promoted to the Supreme Court a circuit judge who dismissed a discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters, whose case the Supreme Court later accepted and ruled in their favor.
He preceded this appointment by talking about needing people on the court with "empathy." That is a pretty word but the ugly reality is that it is just another euphemism for bias. For generations, white Southern judges had all kinds of empathy for other white Southerners, which is to say, bias against blacks.
The question is whether you want equal treatment or you want payback. Cycles of revenge and counter-revenge have been at the heart of racial and ethnic strife throughout history, in countries around the world. It is a history written in blood. It is history we don't need to repeat in the United States of America.
Political demagoguery and political favoritism have turned groups violently against each other, even in countries where they have lived peacefully side by side for generations. Ceylon was one of those countries in the first half of the 20th century, before the politics of group favoritism so polarized the country-- now called Sri Lanka-- that it produced a decades-long civil war with mass slaughters and unspeakable atrocities.
The world has been shocked by the mass slaughters of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda but, half a century ago, there had been no such systematic slaughters there. Political demagoguery whipped up ethnic polarization, among people who had co-existed, who spoke the same language and had even intermarried.
We know-- or should know-- what lies at the end of the road of racial polarization. A "race card" is not something to play, because race is a very dangerous political plaything.
---
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is http://www.tsowell.com/.

What Have you Done? - An Open Letter To Americans ... a Canadian speaks the harsh truth...the job Americans are unwilling to do!

Source: Front Page Magazine

What Have you Done?

Posted By David Solway On April 5, 2010 @ 12:01 am In FrontPage 

An open letter to Americans:

As a Canadian, I’ve been observing for some time now, with great concern and even greater disbelief, the political farce enacted day after day in your country. And I keep asking, what have you done? For it seems to me, and to many others as well, that you have embarked upon a truly destructive course that may eventually bring the United States to the brink of ruination.
What have you done? You have elected a president on the strength of an ellipsis, neglecting to fill in the three dots trailing after his every echoing jingle—“Yes we can”…what? You have credited a nimble spinner of tales, a pretty fellow with no significant experience of the real world of risk, hard work and the hazards of survival, a thug with a beguiling smile. You have elevated to the highest office in the land a man without discernible qualifications who is plunging the nation into unredeemable debt for generations to come. You have installed possibly the most consummate liar in POTUS history, who breaks campaign promises as if he were cracking eggs for the skillet and changes his mind almost daily like a weathervane on steroids. You have put your trust in an intellectual lightweight and geopolitical bungler who makes Jimmy Carter look like a paragon of acute intelligence, moral substance and rare diplomatic foresight.
What have you done? You have bought into a fraudulent narrative. You have made a Faustian bargain with a suave Mephistophelian who offers hope and change but delivers instead inevitable suffering and a violated people. As in all such compacts, the price for a brief state of euphoria is subsequent prolonged distress. You have given carte blanche to a man with a personal dossier blacked out in many places like a letter from the front, so as not, apparently, to divulge sensitive information. You have raised among you a man whose friends and influences would surely have precluded him from meriting your confidence had you paid attention to plain facts rather than to quasi-mystical incantations. You have anointed a man with a sinister agenda. You have voted for your historical nemesis who with his every move and decision renders you increasingly insecure in a violent and unforgiving world.
If you need a slogan to trigger a reaction, it should not be “Yes we can”—whatever that might conceivably have meant—but “What have we done?”—whose implications should now be obvious. I pray it is not too late to reverse the trajectory you have unthinkingly plotted for yourselves. It may be a shame to let a serious crisis go to waste, as your president’s intimate adviser cynically put it, but it would be a much greater shame to let a crisis reach the point of no return. And there is little doubt that you are now facing an impending crisis of the first magnitude, both domestically and globally.
Let us count the ways.
The response to a looming international menace is paralysis, appeasement and misconstrual—to the dire effects of which we are all, not only Americans, susceptible. American troops are targeted on the battlefield by the interventions of rogue regimes, such as Syria and Iran, which the present administration refuses to condemn and, indeed, with which it is seeking closer engagement. Defense capability is progressively truncated. Officials sworn to defend the nation to the best of their ability are saddled with the fear of prosecution, discouraging their peers and successors from properly doing their job. Detained terrorists are repatriated to their fields of operation, many taking up once again the jihadist activities for which they were originally interned. Acts of military aggression are adjudicated as civil offenses, awarding terrorists the same constitutional rights as ordinary Americans. Solemn alliances are flouted with whimsical impunity and typical hissy fits while manifest tyrants are treated with kid gloves and gestures of obeisance. UN kleptocrats and avowed enemies are laureled with meretricious authority. This is what your president’s current foreign policy amounts to, abetted by a carefully selected and pliable cadre of career puppets without character or backbone.
Meanwhile, legitimate dissent is denounced as a form of subversion. The Constitution is euphemistically interpreted as a “living document,” that is, as subject to tampering, which is nothing less than an assault upon the foundational heritage of the Republic. Individual liberties are being relentlessly eroded and private behavior regulated by an expanding government bureaucracy. The prospect of enfranchising up to eleven million illegal immigrants presages an American ochlocracy, that is, government by the masses rather than the laws—the very antithesis of Republican rule. Unelected officials, appointed by the president and known as “czars,” wield disproportionate power as they carry out their master’s directives. Unsustainable entitlement programs impinge dramatically upon the future. Income redistribution schemes disincentivize industrial and commercial productivity, creating a shrinking GDP and budgetary shortfall. Discredited hypotheses such as anthropogenic “climate change” are allowed to drive economic policy, leading to even further instability. Major tax hikes are on the horizon, complemented by the shell game of disappearing numbers, especially in regard to the so-called healthcare “reform,” with revenue calculated over a longer period than expenditures. New debt is piled on old debt like Pelion on Ossa. Fiscal blood drains from the nation’s arteries. These and more are the daylight consequences of your electoral delirium.
Who am I to address the citizens of another country? A loyal friend, and a citizen of a nation whose fate is inextricably bound up with yours. My interests are also at stake. That is why I am glad to note that many people are now awakening to the nature and extent of their folly, but far too many still malinger in the grip of a profound narcosis. To these latter, I would say that, in your desire for novelty, your pampered sense of frivolous grievance and your hypnotic suggestibility, you have chosen to cohabit with an incubus. You have shown a readiness to be seduced not by a lover of freedom but by a votary of his own malign gods. Despite the recent surfeit of Hollywood films, TV programs and neo-gothic novels fondly rehabilitating the undead, deep down you must know there is no such thing as a good vampire.
And so, in conclusion, I ask once again. What have you done?

Barack Husein Obama: Definition - A deep structual flaw that does not take responsibilty for..." aah, this is really a book report, I just got side tracked

This is by far one of the most outstanding book reviews I've read in a number of years.  As I've advocated for some time now Islam should be banned  from the list of the world's religions... it is, as some say, "a worldwide political movement meant on domination" and I should add, by any means possible!  How often have we heard or read, "Death to the infidels!"?  And that is suppose to identify with, "the religion of peace"!  Even though I thought I had a pretty good handle on the philosophy of Islam, I am further educated by the line,"Muslims in the twenty-first century still fear they may be raided by others and live every second of their lives preparing to raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives..." 

And speaking of having a handle on one's beliefs...this passage certainly clarifies the well-known and so often identified with the Muslim in the White House, "A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God’s will. There is no clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don’t happen inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them."  Now if that's not a perfect description of Barack Husein Obama!  Webster should take note of this, the definition fits!  Blame George Bush!  ~ Norman E. Hooben

The following from:

Fjordman Book Review: Wafa Sultan's "A God Who Hates"

I am thrilled to publish Fjordman's most excellent review of Wafa Sutlan's seminal, must read book, A God Who Hates. If you never read anything on Islam, read this former Muslim's breathtaking account of her harrowing journey from complete submission to Islam to freedom.
I read and reviewed the book here for Front Page Magazine. Devastating, and I read it all.

Book Review: A God Who Hates, Wafa Sultan

Fjordman

The book A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam was written by Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American ex-Muslim. Breaking with Islam takes tremendous courage, as the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam is still upheld today. The only good byproduct of Muslim immigration to the West is that it has allowed a handful of such former Muslims to publish their thoughts about leaving Islam. One of these titles is Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, edited by Ibn Warraq. Another is Understanding Muhammad by the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, the founder of Faith Freedom International. I have reviewed his book at Jihad Watch previously.
In her writing, Wafa Sultan draws extensively on her own personal experiences as well as those of friends and others in her society, especially the women, who suffer from an appalling level of brutality and repression. She manages in a very convincing manner to tie many of these problems directly to Islamic teachings, all the way back to Muhammad, his wives and companions. Far from representing a “perversion” of Islam, she shows us that the repression and violence that is endemic in Islamic societies represent the true essence of Islam.
In sharp contrast to the self-proclaimed “reformist” Irshad Manji, whose knowledge of Islamic doctrines is quite limited, Sultan shows us how Islam was born in the Arabian desert and is still shaped by this 1400 years later. The raids Muhammad and his companions carried out in his lifetime – which amounted to at least twenty-seven if you believe Islamic sources – occupy a major part of his biography. They were intended to acquire booty, but also to inflict physical and mental harm upon rival tribes in order to deprive them of their ability to resist.
Wafa Sultan, page 66: “For me, understanding the truth about the thought and behavior of Muslims can only be achieved through an in-depth understanding of this philosophy of raiding that has rooted itself firmly in the Muslim mind. Bedouins feared raiding on the one hand, and relied on it as a means of livelihood on the other. Then Islam came along and canonized it. Muslims in the twenty-first century still fear they may be raided by others and live every second of their lives preparing to raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives, the way they behave, their relationships, and their decisions. When I immigrated to America I discovered right away that the local inhabitants were not proficient in raiding while the expatriate Muslims could not give it up.”
On the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding,” she states on page 69: “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”
A master-and-slave mentality dominates Arab-Islamic society, both in public and in private. A person can often be a master in one relationship and a slave in another, simultaneously.
Page 158: “When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak. The American saying ‘speak softly and carry a big stick,’ is, unfortunately, of no use when dealing with Muslims. It would be more appropriate to say (until we can change this way of thinking), ‘speak forcefully and carry a big stick’; otherwise you will be the weaker party and the loser. Democracy cannot spread in societies like these until the people who live in them have been reeducated, for they cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave.”
A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God’s will. There is no clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don’t happen inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them.
Page 215: “Never in my life have I heard or read of a Muslim man’s expressing feelings of guilt about something he has done, even in fiction. People feel guilty only when they feel a sense of responsibility and acknowledge that they have made a mistake. But Muslims are infallible: The mere fact that they are Muslim makes their every error pardonable. A man’s adherence to Islam is defined not by his actions and responsibilities, but only by the profession of faith he recites: ‘I testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of God.’ As long as he continues to repeat this profession of faith he will continue to be a Muslim, and no crime he may commit against others can diminish this. Saddam Hussein was one of the great tyrants of history, but most Sunni Muslims consider him a martyr. At his funeral they chanted: ‘To paradise, oh beloved of God.’”
Islam constitutes an extremely and arguably uniquely repressive belief system. Already in the first days of Islam, Muhammad linked obedience to himself with obedience to God.
A God Who Hates, page 159: “Muhammad understood that the ruler was the link between himself and the populace, and so concentrated on the need to obey the ruler, saying in a hadith: ‘Whosoever obeys me obeys God, and he who obeys my emir obeys me. Whosoever disobeys me disobeys God, and he who disobeys my emir disobeys me.’ In confirmation of this, a verse rolled down from the mountaintop, as follows: ‘Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you’ (4:59). ‘Those in authority among you’ means, according to works of Koranic exegesis, ‘your rulers.’ In order to ensure that Muslims would obey their rulers implicitly and without reservation, Muhammad told them in a hadith: ‘Obey your emir even if he flogs you and takes your property.’ Fearing that some Muslims would rebel against such unquestioning obedience, he justified it by saying in another hadith: ‘If a ruler passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision is the right one, he is rewarded twice. If he passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision turns out to be the wrong one, he receives a single recompense.’”
Page 160-161: “Never in the history of Islam has a Muslim cleric protested against the actions of a Muslim ruler, because of the total belief that obedience to the ruler is an extension of obedience toward God and his Prophet. There is only one exception to this: A Muslim cleric of one denomination may protest against the actions of a ruler who belongs to a different one. How can a Muslim escape the grasp of his ruler when he is completely convinced of the necessity of obeying him? How can he protest against this obedience, which represents obedience to his Prophet and therefore also to his God? He cannot. Islam is indeed a despotic regime. It has been so since its inception, and remains so today. Is there a relationship more representative of the ugliest forms of slavery than that between a ruler and a populace whom he flogs and whose money he steals while they themselves have no right to protest against this behavior? The ruler acts by divine decree, and the people obey him by divine decree.”
Islam is totalitarian to such an extent that it is difficult to comprehend for outsiders. Critics often compare it to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism from the Western world, which is apt in many ways. Yet Islam is even more totalitarian than those creeds. Even the Nazis and the Communists didn’t ban wine and beer, all works of pictorial art, sculptures and most types of music. I can think of other religious denominations and groups who restrict the use of alcohol, but I cannot think of any other religious creed on this planet that bans wine, pictorial art and most forms of music at the same time. Islam is unique in this regard.
I have developed a beer hypothesis of civilization, which stipulates that any society that does not enjoy beer and wine cannot produce good science. I say this 80% as a joke and 20% seriously. The Middle East before Islam produced some scientific advances at a time when the ancient civilizations were great consumers of beer and wine. The Middle East after Islam did, for a while, produce a few scholars of medium rank, but these contributions steadily declined until they almost disappeared. This time period overlaps with the period when there were still sizeable non-Muslim communities and by extension sizeable production and consumption of wine in this area. The medieval Persian scholar Omar Khayyam was a good mathematician, but a bad Muslim who loved wine. The Ottoman Turks largely chased away what remained of wine culture in that region. Incidentally, the Turks also contributed next to nothing to science.
The one possible objection I can see to the consumption of beer and wine is that some men become alcoholics who proceed to beat their wives, and some women beat or abuse their children when they drink. This is unfortunately true sometimes and constitutes an issue that should not be ignored. Yet Islamic societies suffer from an extreme level of child abuse, domestic violence and general violence of all kinds, which means that the one really serious objection to alcoholic beverages carries no meaning there. The Koran 4:34 says quite explicitly that men are allowed to beat their women.Ibn Warraq (Editor) They don’t need to get drunk to do so.
A God Who Hates is easy to read, but at the same time deeply disturbing and packed with examples from everyday life of how Islamic doctrines ruin the lives of millions of people. Wafa Sultan’s book provides us with an insightful, but unpleasant look into a culture that damages the soul of its inhabitants. It paints a portrait of a society where women are mistreated daily and barely seen as human. They will in turn project their own traumas on their sons, daughters and daughters-in-law, creating an endless cycle of mental and physical abuse. It is very hard to see how this vicious cycle can be broken without repudiating Islam.

New York Times Circling The Drain? ... And I thought they were already in the sewer.

The following From Wake Up America

New York Times' Comical Mistake

Long story short, a blogger made false claims, with the intent of trapping other bloggers into writing about it and instead of bloggers getting caught in the trap, New York Times did.

Teaser:

And these clowns wonder why they are circling the drain? This lawyer pulled the fake story stunt to entrap us – political bloggers – because “fact checking is not” our “strong suit,” so he claimed. We ignored the story, and the NYT ran with it.

Read the whole thing... this is your entertainment for the day.

Earthquake ... Largest Since 1992 In Southern California

Earthquake closes San Diego Airport

A major earthquake of 7.2 magnitude which struck at forty seconds after 3:40 p.m. PDT on Easter Sunday, April 4, 2010 was centered 39 miles (63 kilometers) SSE of Calexico, CA in the upper Baja California peninsula of Mexico,...
Keep Reading »  includes videos

The biggest hustle in human history. Investigators discover numerous bogus claims on Obama's resume!

Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume

April 3, 5:15 PMConservative ExaminerAnthony G. Martin

In what is being called 'the biggest hustle in human history,' a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama's resume, including the outright lie that he was a 'Constitutional scholar and professor.'
The claim turns out to be false.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be.  The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false--fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.
According to a special report issued by 'the Blogging Professor,' the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama.  The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a 'constitutional professor and scholar,' and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.
The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an 'instructor' at Chicago Law School, not a professor.  Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.
In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.
In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham.  The President of the United States is a complete fraud.
According to Doug Ross:

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Thus,  the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a 'put-up job' as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position?  And why?
Further,

Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.
There is more from Ross, however:

6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video.

9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight.  And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama's presence in their institutions.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT--just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous 'journalists,' promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information 'they may discover.'

What would you do? What are you doing now? When are you going to face reality?

A lot can happen in just over four minutes...watch this:

There's an analogy to this story...it may be one of many analogies but I think we ought to consider this one:

Is this what Eric Holder meant when he said, "We are a nation of cowards."

I think that most Americans are sitting on the bus just going along for the ride while Obama is stealing the country right out from under our noses.    Wake up America!

Decision Time Rapidly Approaching

The current adminstration is out of control.  They recently passed health care provisions that nobody wanted but they shoved it down our throats anyway.  Now they are about to pass environmental regualtions that they have no control over but will make you pay for the privilege of exhaling that which you just breathed into your lungs for free.  No, you won't find this one shoved down your throat but you will have a sore butt from them shoving it where the sun don't shine! 
Below we have yet another story filled with scare-mongering rhetoric regarding global warming; none of which is true, i.e. "greenhouse gas emissions that are increasing ocean acidity at an alarming rate."  This is all garbage.  The primary purpose of any environmental regualtion is to increase revenue and facilitate the takeover of the United States by the United Nations.  It has nothing to do with the environment...nothing, nothing, nothing! ~ Norman E. Hooben

 ______________________

EPA May Use Clean Water Act to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Larry West,

Sunday April 4, 2010

 

If some businesses and politicians, plus the usual Greek chorus of climate skeptics and conservative pundits, are up in arms about the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (and the U.S. Supreme Court decision that authorized the agency to do so), they're likely to be livid about a new move the EPA is considering: using the Clean Water Act to control greenhouse gas emissions that are increasing ocean acidity at an alarming rate.
But with climate legislation stalled in Congress, the Obama administration is exploring other options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, accelerate climate change, and cause other problems such as increasing ocean acidification.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the ocean's acidity has increased about 30 percent. Today, the world's oceans are absorbing 22 million tons of carbon dioxide every day. Scientists are worried that increasing acid levels in the oceans could disrupt the complex and delicate marine food chain.

Deval Patrick - The Canary In The Coal Mine

Source: Politico

Obama's mission: Saving Gov. Patrick By: Carol E. Lee April 4, 2010 07:15 AM EDT

President Barack Obama raised $2.5 million for the Democratic National Committee Thursday night, but his trip to Boston had another, less publicized purpose - saving Deval Patrick. Few politicians are as close to Obama as the Massachusetts Democratic governor, or have deeper ties to the president and his core team of advisers. And almost no one faces a tougher re-election battle this year than Patrick, whose disapproval ratings would be considered near-terminal if not for the three-way race that he currently finds himself in. As a result, the White House is looking to every weapon in its arsenal to help Patrick win a second term. Patrick has been at the White House at least a half-dozen times in the past year, whether he’s lunching with senior adviser David Axelrod, dropping by the Oval Office for a chat or attending Obama’s first state dinner. The Massachusetts governor is the only Democrat besides Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) to get the president to headline a personal fundraiser for him more than a year before the November election. Obama’s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, has been consulting for Patrick’s 2010 bid since last spring, and Axelrod also has lent his expertise. “We want to be as helpful as we can to him,” said Axelrod, who worked on the Massachusetts governor’s 2006 campaign. “The same things that attracted me to Barack Obama attracted me to Deval Patrick,” Axelrod said, “this sense of public service as a calling and not a business, and the sense that we have to break out of the old political paradigms of hyper-partisanship and special interest-dominance and bring about real change.” The intense White House interest in the Massachusetts election is more than just business—it’s personal. Patrick and Obama, both Harvard Law School graduates with Chicago roots, have a history together that dates back almost two decades. They first met in Chicago, at a time when Obama was a community organizer and Patrick, who grew up in a tough South Side neighborhood, was working in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton. Years later, Patrick supported Obama in his Senate campaign. Obama returned the favor in 2006 when Patrick was running for governor, his first-ever bid for public office. In October, 2007, Patrick reached out to Obama and, against the advice of some political advisers, informed his friend he’d decided to endorse him over Hillary Clinton. The safe political play for Patrick—who’d been in office less than a year—would have been to let the contest unfold. But he decided to take the risk at a critical time for the then-Illinois senator’s struggling presidential campaign. Obama and his team flew to Boston the following week. “Not only did we do the endorsement, but we did a rally on Boston Common and there were 20,000 people there,” recalled John Walsh, Patrick’s 2006 campaign manager who is now chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. So it was hardly a surprise when more than 800 words of Obama’s speech Thursday were dedicated to gushing about the governor. As he did at a Patrick fundraiser last October, Obama reminded the donors just how close the two men are. “Deval stood up for me,” Obama explained, early in the Illinois Senate campaign when nobody knew his name. Later, Patrick came to his Senate office and told him he wanted to run for governor. “And I thought to myself, ‘Well, this guy is crazy. He’s not going to win. He’s never run for anything,’” Obama said. “But then I thought to myself, ‘Well, yes, but he supported me when I was doing this stupid thing running for the United States Senate, so – and I like him – so, what the heck.’” Politics isn’t the only thing they have in common. They share similar personal backgrounds, with each raised by a single mother and forced to come to terms with a strained relationship with a distant father. Both are married to attorneys and have two daughters. They are also trailblazing, post-civil rights era African-American politicians of roughly the same age who rode similar hope and change themes to victory--“Yes we can” for Obama in 2008; “Together we can” for Patrick in 2006. Their messages were close enough that in one much-publicized 2008 speech, Obama even borrowed nearly exact phrasing from a 2006 Patrick speech. It is precisely those thematic similarities—not to mention some shared political experiences—that have spawned theories that Patrick’s re-elect will be a bellwether for how Obama fares in 2012. “Deval Patrick is the canary in the coal mine for Barack Obama in 2012,” conservative Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr wrote in January. Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist in Massachusetts, believes that if Patrick loses, “many people would say, ‘This is the way to try to beat Barack Obama in 2012.’” The president himself invited comparisons Tuesday in his remarks at the Boston fundraiser. “The campaign Deval Patrick built is the same campaign for change that you and I built across this country,” Obama told the Democratic crowd. “I’ve come to tell you tonight that we have kept faith with those beliefs.” The notion of Patrick’s campaign as a dry run for 2012 is rooted in the idea that both politicians took office with ambitious first-term agendas and huge expectations based on the historic nature of their victories and Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches in Boston and Washington. Both found that the euphoria surrounding their victories began to fade with the daily grind of governance and difficulties in making the adjustment from campaigning to governing. Both men saw their poll numbers drop, particularly among key independent voters. The economic downturn only added to their challenges. Patrick, however, has had a much harder go of it than Obama. The president has been able to point to significant accomplishments—among them health care reform and the economic stimulus bill—enabled by the luxury of being able to run a deficit. He is still popular within the party and his poll ratings remain respectable. Patrick, meanwhile, stumbled through controversy during a rough first year and has been forced to make unpopular decisions to maintain a balanced budget in tough economic times. One of the issues he’s being hammered on this year is not making good on his campaign promise to lower property taxes. “As candidates they were both in tune with what people were worried about, with their concerns, what they were looking for, what they wanted. And that in large part helped them get elected because they not only understood that, they were able to communicate that and people really believed in them and trusted them,” said Marsh, the Democratic strategist. “And it seemed when they both got into office they went tone deaf, politically.” Those close to Patrick aren’t buying into the idea that his election offers any insight into 2012. “What happens in 2010 will say something about what happens in 2012, but the truth is that between 2010 and 2012 there’s probably three or four or more political lifetimes,” said Walsh, the state party chairman. “The overwhelming dynamic I see out there is this anxiety that voters have and it sort of combines in with an impatience at the pace of change.” Axelrod laughed when asked if Patrick’s reelection campaign is a referendum on the hope and change platform. “No, I think every election is unique and has its own qualities,” he said. “If you’re someone who’s committed to bringing needed change, that’s additionally burdensome.” He said he believes Patrick’s campaign, and ultimately Obama’s, will be affected more by timing and the economy. “I don’t view this as some sort of a canary in the coal mine sort of thing, but I view it as the effort of a very, very good man governing in difficult times,” he said.

© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

We Are A Nation Of Laws...aah, we used to be!

Cross-posted from: RBN

The Fed Admits To Breaking The Law

Now how long will it be before something is done about it?

April 1 (Bloomberg) — After months of litigation and political scrutiny, the Federal Reserve yesterday ended a policy of secrecy over its Bear Stearns Cos. bailout.
In a 4:30 p.m. announcement in a week of congressional recess and religious holidays, the central bank released details of securities bought to aid Bear Stearns’s takeover by JPMorgan Chase & Co. Bloomberg News sued the Fed for that information.

The problem is this: The Fed is not authorized to BUY anything other than those securities that have the full faith and credit of The United States.

In addition Ben Bernanke has repeatedly claimed that these deals would not cost anyone money.  But the current value looks differently:

Assets in Maiden Lane II totaled $34.8 billion, according to the Fed, which set their current market value in its weekly balance sheet at $15.3 billion. That means Maiden Lane II assets are worth 44 cents on the dollar, or 44 percent of their face value, according to the Fed.
Maiden Lane III, which has $56 billion of assets at face value, is worth $22.1 billion, or 39 cents on the dollar, according to the Fed’s weekly balance sheet. A similar calculation for the Bear Stearns portfolio couldn’t be made because of outstanding derivatives trades.

In other words, they have lost more than half of their value.

This was and remains a blatantly unlawful activity.

The Fed has effectively usurped Article 1 Section 7 of The Constituion which reads in part:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Fed effectively appropriated taxpayer funds without authorization of Congress.  At the time these facilities were put in place neither TARP or any other Congressional authorization existed for them to do so, and to date no bill has been put through Congress authorizing the expenditure of taxpayer funds, either through putting them at risk or via outright expense, for this purpose.

Nor does it stop with a “mere” Constitutional violation – The Federal Reserve Act’s Sections 13 and 14 do not permit Fed asset purchases except, once again, for items carrying “full faith and credit” guarantees.  Credit-default swaps and trash mortgages most certainly do not meet these qualifications.

I know I’ve harped on this for more than two years, but here we have a raw admission of exactly what was done – and there is simply no way to construe any of it in a light that conforms with either The Constitution or black-letter statutory law.

What’s worse is that Tim Geithner, head of the NY Fed at the time, was very much involved in this – that is, he in effect personally, along with Ben Bernanke, usurped the power of the United States House.

The Fed has spent two years trying to hide this from the public and Congress.  It has fought off both Congressional demands for disclosure and multiple FOIA lawsuits, the latter of which has resulted in a series of adverse rulings (and, it appears, was ultimately going to force disclosure anyway.)

These actions are unacceptable but promising “never to do that again” is insufficient.  In a Representative Republic where the rule of law is supposed to be paramount – that is, where we do not crown Kings and relegate everyone else to the status of knaves, unlawful actions such as this demand that strong and unmistakable sanction also be applied to all wrongdoers in addition to protection against future abuse.

In this case this means that both Geithner and Bernanke must go – for starters.

Amending The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (as Chris Dodd has proposed to prevent future lending bailouts) is not sufficient in that The Fed did not lend in this case, it purchased, and by buying what we now know were trash loans it violated the black letter of existing law.

There is only one effective remedy for an institution that has proved that it will not abide the law: it must be stripped of all authority that has been in the past and can be in the future abused.

This means that The Fed, if we are to keep it at all, must be relegated to a body that only practices and provides monetary policy – nothing more or less – and that all monetary operations must be performed openly, transparently, and within those constraints.

We cannot have a republic where an unelected body is left free to violate The Constitution with wild abandon and those acts are then allowed to stand.

One final thought: If the individuals responsible for this blatant black-letter violation of the law do not face meaningful sanction for these acts, and neither does The Fed as an institution, can you fine folks over at The Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches of our government please explain to us ordinary Americans why we should obey any of the laws of this land when you will not enforce the laws that already exist?

April 2, 2010

8 Comments to "The Fed Admits To Breaking The Law"

• 
  
  gg aka " The White Rose " Says:
  

  April 2nd, 2010 at 2:57 pm

  To All, Since this is a CRIME that ramifications of resulted in the death of anyone ie. the unfortunate soul who was so affected by all this purposefully caused DEPRESSION flew and crashed his small plane into I.R.S.. [ israeli revenue service ] this CRIME should be tried as MURDER !!!!!
  

  [Reply]

  gg aka " The White Rose " Reply:
  April 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
  P.S. Down with the MISHPUCKA !!!!!!!!
  

  [Reply]
• 
  
  John S. Says:
  

  April 2nd, 2010 at 3:58 pm

  After that stupid congressman from Georgia thought an island could capsize because it had too many troops on it – we are so screwed!!!
  The FED does whatever it wants to do without the consent of our prostitute suck-ups that pose as our representatives. Folks, only a small fraction of the people in this country have the capacity to understand that the FED took over the country in 1913 and put the nail in the coffin in 1933 under the treasonous FDR who signed over our country to the scum-sucking pedophile satanists. LOOK IT UP!!!
  

  [Reply]
• 
  
  Alex Jonesberg Says:
  

  April 2nd, 2010 at 6:39 pm

  Who Controls the Federal Reserve System?
  Board of Governors:
  Ben S. Bernanke(Jew) – Chairman
  Donald L. Kohn(Jew) – Vice Chairman
  Kevin M. Warsh(Jew)
  Elizabeth A. Duke(White European)
  Daniel K. Tarullo(White European)
  Federal Reserve District Banks:
  Eric S. Rosengren(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
  William C. Dudley(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
  Charles I. Plosser(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
  Sandra Pianalto(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
  Jeffrey M. Lacker(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
  Dennis P. Lockhart(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
  Charles L. Evans(White European) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
  James B. Bullard(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
  Gary H. Stern(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
  Thomas M. Hoenig(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
  Richard W. Fisher(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
  Janet L. Yellen(Jew) – President, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
  Of the five(5) members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, three(3) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 60%. Of the twelve(12) Federal Reserve District Bank presidents, eight(8) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population. This means that Jews are over-represented on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by a factor of 30 times, or 3,000 percent, and over-represented among the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents by a factor of 33.5 times, or 3,350 percent. This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the U.S. Federal Reserve System.
  

  [Reply]
• 
  
  Alex Jonesberg Says:
  

  April 2nd, 2010 at 6:39 pm

  Who Controls the Federal Reserve System?
  For the past forty(40) years, every Chairman of the Federal Reserve System has been a Jew, except for a brief period of seventeen(17) months. Here are the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve System since 1970.
  Arthur F. Burns(Jew)
  term: February 1, 1970 – January 31, 1978
  George W. Miller(White European)
  term: March 8, 1978 – August 6, 1979
  Paul A. Volcker(Jew)
  term: August 6, 1979 – August 11, 1987
  Alan C. Greenspan(Jew)
  term: August 11, 1987 – January 31, 2006
  Ben S. Bernanke(Jew)
  term: February 1, 2006 – present
  Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population. The probability that almost every Chairman of the Federal Reserve System since 1970 would be a Jew is infinitesimally small. This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve System cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so dominate the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve System.
  

  [Reply]
• 
  
  Sondra Says:
  

  April 3rd, 2010 at 6:10 am

  The House of Representatives had NO authority to give a charter to the private banking cartel which called itself the Federal Reserve System. Fooled us for a long time & many people still don’t know the truth that the “Fed” is a PRIVATE CARTEL & THEIR SOLE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE MONEY. Do members of congress know this? Of course they do. Why don’t they stop it? Ask them.
  The hired help in DC not only went out and begged for their jobs they knew that if hired the would be required to swear to support & defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. To do less should require INSTANT DISMISSEL.
  

  [Reply]
• 
  
  No1nptkulr Says:
  

  April 3rd, 2010 at 1:45 pm

  With the assumption that the federal government is NOT an entity… they are hired and paid by us…. wouldn’t it be correct on all fronts to FIRE the ones that are doing wrong? There is so many things heard on the internet today about how the ‘Fed’ is doing illegal acts…. people agreeing with those ‘facts’ but no one ever shows the hard core proof. How about someone get the laws broken, who broke those laws and all of us charge them with what ever charges that will stick? Write your congressmen/women and demand they either pay attention to the constitution or they are FIRED! Many people want change and have no idea how to go about making it happen. Just my humble opinion. Just WHAT CAN be done???
  

  [Reply]
• 
  
  No1nptkulr Says:
  

  April 3rd, 2010 at 1:51 pm

  Changing “…how about someone get the laws broken” … to …
  “How about someone find out which laws were broken,”…”
  I for one will be the one screaming to put them in prison from the capital building if someone that knows what they are doing can provide solid evidence that the constitution is being unlawfully broken by anyone in congress or the white house… etc. How about it y’all? I’m willing to help.
  

  [Reply]