Saturday, July 31, 2010

The Clinton Crime Family...Chelsea picks a loser ...aah, that all depends on what side of the fence you're on.

posted by Norman E. Hooben

Not much here just another wedding announcement...but when Paul Craig Roberts poses the question, "Where did the money come from?" we should know the answer.  We can begin with the idea that Bill Clinton gets an embarrassing amount of money every time he speaks before a bunch of fools willing to part with their cash to hear one of the grand masters of deceit...a malady I could never understand (Who wants to listen to a known liar?)  Whether or not the declared sums (you can find a few million here and here ) are legitimate or not should be, I think, questionable to say the least. But for the most part (regardless of what Clinton says) the money comes from a secret slush fund that he (and Hillary) stole from the American treasury to the tune of trillion$...
In 1993, Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta met with Vince Foster in Geneva, Switzerland. Foster had traveled there to make a special pickup of a disbursement that had been formally requested by the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. According to Wanta, he had been working on "Seal projects" and had been requested to transfer $250 million to an account that was retrievable by Foster. The account was destined for the "Children’s Defense Fund," hardly a "Seal" project. Wanta arranged for three payments, approximately $81 million dollars each, to be made and converted to U.S. Treasury notes which were given to Foster, who then gave them to Hillary Clinton.  ...Read more here

Meanwhile, back to the wedding announcement... ~ Storm'n Norm'n

Source: Lew

The Clinton Crime Family’s Conspicuous Consumption

Writes Paul Craig Roberts:
Now comes the politicians’s daughter as celebrity. According to news reports, Chelsea Clinton’s wedding to investment banker Mark Mezvinsky on July 31 is costing papa Bill $3,000,000. According to the London Daily Mail, the total price tag will be about $5,000,000. The additional $2,000,000 apparently is being laid off on US Taxpayers as Secret Service costs for protecting former president Clinton and foreign heads of state, such as the presidents of France and Italy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who are among the 500 invited guests along with Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, and Clinton friend and donor Denise Rich, wife of the Clinton-pardoned felon.
Before we attend to the poor political judgment of such an extravagant affair during times of economic distress, let us wonder aloud where a poor boy who became governor of Arkansas and president of the United States got such a fortune that he can blow $3,000,000 on a wedding.
The American people did not take up a collection to reward him for his service to them. Where did the money come from? Who was he really serving during his eight years in office?
How did Tony Blair and his wife, Cherrie, end up with an annual income of ten million pounds (approximately $15 million dollars) as soon as he left office? Who was Blair really serving?
These are not polite questions, and they are infrequently asked.
Related...and maybe more explicit:  Chelsea’s father in law a felon dem congressman who did 7yrs prison time. From Chicago Ray

The Constitution 101 - Instructor Tony DeMeo [From the real life story, "Don't Let The Feds Get You Down"]

Don't click this one away.
You just never know when you'll need this information.
Knowledge Is Power ~ Storm'n Norm'n


Constitutional Sheriff Tony DeMeo

by Cassandra Anderson
In this 3-part video interview with Tony DeMeo, Sheriff of Nye County, Nevada, he explains that he is a Constitutional Sheriff and that authority for public office holders is derived from the people.  He tells the story about how he used the Constitution as his foundation in the saga of Nye County rancher Wayne Hage's disputes over encroachments by the federal government.  While Wayne Hage's case centered around property rights in federally managed lands, Sheriff Tony DeMeo's example is relevant for everyone to understand the power of local government, the importance of following the Constitution and upholding the Tenth Amendment (states' rights and sovereignty).

Wayne Hage, the author of "Storm Over Rangelands, Private Rights in Federal Lands" owned the Pine Creek cattle ranch in Nye County. Wayne Hage wrote his book after suffering illegal cattle seizures by armed federal agents and chronicled the history of how the robber baron bankers and railroad magnates monopolized the western states over 100 years ago.  Hage wrote that the northern core financiers were aware that there are two ways to monopolize any resource, "One, get all of it for yourself that you can; two, keep anybody else from getting what you can't."   Public Lands and National Forests were created along with restrictive regulations, using environmental protection as the excuse.
PART ONE: The first video covers Wayne Hage's discovery that the US Department of Forestry, an agency of the USDA, filed a claim for his water rights and later seized his cattle; the USDA Forestry Service used armed agents to accomplish  the seizure.  Hage believed that his cattle were confiscated so that he would be unable to show that he was using his water rights for 'beneficial use' in order to shut down his ranch. Water is scarce in Nevada and unless the landowner can prove he is using the water rights for 'beneficial use', the rights are removed.
PART TWO: In the late 1990's, before Sheriff DeMeo took office, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the Department of Interior, seized more of Hage's cattle off of his ranch, using armed federal agents.  The sheriff at that time left town on a fishing trip.
Subsequently, when Sheriff DeMeo took office in 2003, he told his deputies that illegal cattle seizures were prohibited and that any federal agents attempting to confiscate cattle would be arrested.  Shortly thereafter, the BLM arrived at Hage's ranch to perform a seizure. The Sheriff's Deputy told the federal agents that there would be no seizure or taking of cattle, per DeMeo's decision based on the Constitution.  The Deputy was told that the BLM federal agents intended to arrest DeMeo and use armed force to take Hage's cattle.  Sheriff DeMeo advised the federal agent that their SWAT team would be faced with Sheriff DeMeo's SWAT team if they proceeded.
Sheriff DeMeo clearly stated that he refused any unlawful seizures on Wayne Hage's estate.  He further advised federal agents that if they could produce a lawful court order for seizing cattle, he would not take the cattle off of the land, but impound them there on Hage's ranch.  This is important because if seized cattle were to remain impounded on Hage's ranch, then Wayne Hage could still show 'beneficial use' of his water rights.

PART THREE: In 2004, the BLM wanted authority for law enforcement over the roads in the federally managed Public Lands.   Sheriff DeMeo said that because they were asking for the authority, that meant that they didn't have that law enforcement power. Nye County passed a Resolution forbidding the BLM from encroachment, protecting state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.   Nevada also passed a State Law in 2005 (NRS 565.125) that requires a court order from the court of competent jurisdiction and submission of the order to the Sheriff's Office before any agency seizes animals.   All cattle ranches in Nye County are independent family owned operations.
Sheriff DeMeo also explains that his deputies are empowered to refuse unlawful orders, if the orders violate the US Constitution, the Nevada State Constitution, local laws or policy.

PUBLIC LANDS: Sheriff DeMeo said that while Nevada is more than 90% federally managed, these Public Lands are actually owned by The People and the federal government is limited in their authority under the Tenth Amendment and states' rights.
Land ownership in Nevada is a complicated issue and the land is divided into "split estates", or land that has both private and government interests.   This means that while the private property owner holds title over his land that is Public Land (National Forests), he may or may not also own the water, mineral, grazing, oil, timber or wildlife rights on that property. Wayne Hage's book "Storm Over Rangelands" details the history of the laws that bind the Western States to federal land management.
Public Lands are lands owned by the people of the United States under our Constitution Section 8 Clause 17: 'To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;'
Sheriff DeMeo said that since the federal government has authority over 10 square miles, then the Public Lands are owned by the people for the benefit of all.
The federal government's jurisdiction and authority in Public Lands are important for all Americans to become aware of because the federal government is expanding its control and privately owned property across America is targeted by the Wildlands Project.
Sheriff DeMeo reported that after several disputes with the USDA's Department of Forestry and the Department of Interior's BLM, an understanding of jurisdiction has been accomplished to the satisfaction of his office.  In fact, the federal government has since established annual meetings, the Western Sheriffs Summit, between these agencies and western area sheriffs.
Sheriff DeMeo studied the Constitution in New Jersey when he was a police officer, as it was a requirement for promotion. He said that because nearly every encounter with the public involves some aspect of respecting the Constitution, he has added additional study of the Constitution to the Nye County Sheriffs training academy curriculum that was in place before he took office.
Additionally, he has given his deputies decision making authority based on the Constitution, the Nevada State Constitution, local laws and policy. They are empowered with the right to refuse unlawful orders.  Sheriff DeMeo issues Empowerment Cards to his deputies which set policy for deputies when they are in contact with the public and allows deputies to make field decisions as long as they do not violate the respective Constitutions, State Law and Policies.
Download Nye County Sheriff Empowerment Card (PDF)

Sheriff DeMeo created the Empowerment Cards for his deputies shortly after he entered office in 2003.  He attended a seminar given by Alan Brunacini of the Phoenix Fire Department who was the original author; DeMeo modified the cards to apply to law enforcement for his deputies to reference in the field.  Sheriff DeMeo is interested in encouraging his deputies to make decisions and to be leaders.
A Sheriff's Forum is held each month in Nye County and Sheriff DeMeo addresses all questions and concerns from the public.
Please visit for more articles.


+3 #1 Marie 2010-07-30 14:18
Thank you Sheriff DeMeo for doing what's right, for studying the constitution for the benefit of your constituents, and taking a stand against tyranny. We need more people like you. Makes me want to move to Nye County. I hope your community know how blessed they are to have you. I hope you stay Sheriff as long as possible. I would love to shake your hand.
+2 #2 Bruce 2010-07-30 14:54
As Marie stated above I hope your community realizes what a gift they have in your office. It is refreshing to hear a public official speak so well of the public. If seems law enforcement tends to forget who they work for. I too feel like moving.
+1 #3 Brandy 2010-07-30 17:52
Sure wish there were more like you around, Sheriff! Richard Mack and you are my new heroes. It is vitally important to educate the general public, and especially law enforcement officers about what rights are conferred by the Constitution, and about how blatantly our national leadership has been ignoring the document for the last several decades. Visit to share ideas with others show believe in preserving our freedom and reining in the out-of-control "servant" government. Kudos to Sheriff DeMeo!
0 #4 Lee 2010-07-30 18:47
Awhile back, Catherine Austin Fitts ( featured a segment on the pivotal role of the county sheriff to protect citizen rights from Fed. Gov't encroachment. This incident reinforces her advice. Each of us needs to be meet our county sheriff to verify that the sheriff is very clear about the nature of the law, and is fully prepared to enforce it.
If the Hage family is reading this, my heart goes out to you. The gov't's harassment dragged despicably long, which must have felt somewhat like torture. If I knew how to do so, I'd send you a sharp pro bono lawyer to pursue some of the untold damages of this fiasco. Even so, thank God for Sheriff DeMeo's efforts.
Thanks to for this interview, and to G. Edward Griffin for putting this link in your newsletter. To Sheriff DeMeo, thanks for being who are: an honorable man. God bless you!
0 #5 Magnolia 2010-07-30 20:01
Lee -- You are correct. Federal encroachment is the most serious matter that faces everyone of us. Sheriff DeMeo is almost standing alone fighting this battle.

For that, I strongly recommend everyone just read that new book out where a small town of American citizens stand up to federal tyranny & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. The same issues are there (high taxes, continual foreign wars & bureaucrats crossing the country harassing the People).

It's a must read to see what may be coming soon. It could be our hometown that takes a stand.
0 #6 allovertheplace 2010-07-30 20:46
Straight up, Sherriff DeMao! You are definitely not alone!

"One of the prettiest sounds on earth" is the Muslim call to prayer at sunset.

Stop The Islamization Of America

Thursday, July 29, 2010

The farmer in the dell, The farmer in the dell, Hi-ho, the derry-o, Your Country's going to hell

The followingt from Maggies Notebook

White House Budget $1.5B for Farmers: What Budget? Does WH Have Spending Power?

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, has told Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) the White House will find $1.5 BILLION for farmers suffering from disasters across the country, including for her state of Arkansas, from the budget. What budget? We don't have a budget. He means from Obama's stash, which comes from only the Almighty knows where.
White House

Lincoln successfully got the $1.5 billion of agricultural disaster assistance in a bill designed to aid small businesses. Republican blocked the vote. But apparently Rahm will find it, and provide it through "administrative assistance" from Obama's stash? 

Emanuel called Lincoln on Thursday morning to tell her the administration would find $1.5 billion within its budget to help farmers in Arkansas and around the country who are coping with natural disasters.
Emanuel promised to provide the assistance administratively to get her to agree to delete $1.5 billion in disaster relief assistance for farmers from small-business legislation. 
Emanuel’s intervention shows how closely the president and his senior aides are following the bill Democrats are trying to push through Congress. 
Since when does the Executive Branch have the right to spend? Again, from what Budget will Rahm find the $1.5 billion? Only Congress has the power to spend. The point is, if Congress does not agree to spend taxpayer dollars, the President cannot just take care of it himself.

Note: this has nothing to do with farmers getting money that may be due them. It has everything to do with how they get it. From what authority does White House have that power?


Anti-Deficiency Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) is legislation enacted by the United States Congress to prevent the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures (outlays) in excess of amounts available in appropriations or funds. It is now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341[1]. The ADA prohibits the Federal government from entering into a contract that is not "fully funded" because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract.
This Act of Congress is sometimes known as Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.
To some extent, but not entirely, it implements the provisions of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the "power of the purse") of the Constitution of the United States which precludes the expenditure of funds by any branch of the Federal government unless those funds have been appropriated by Congress. In part, the Act is actually inconsistent with the Constitution because it recites that expenditures without appropriations can be made where expressly permitted by Congress: the Constitution permits no such exception[citation needed].
Although the ADA and its predecessors are over 120 years old, no one has ever been convicted or even indicted for its violation.[2]. (Emphasis mine...may Obama be the first to be convicted.  ~ Storm'n Norm'n)
An important corollary of the constitutional provision is that departments and agencies of the government may not "augment" appropriations either by raising money instead of seeking and getting an appropriation or by retaining funds collected and using them instead of receiving an appropriation. This bar to augmentation of appropriations is regularly violated by the executive branch and often with the consent of Congress. Practices in the nature of revolving funds (funds that are kept liquid by the use of "income" realized by agencies) clearly violate the augmentation limitation.
A more subtle but important violation of the Constitutional provision occurred when Congress passed TARP. Congress never appropriated ANY funds to TARP and instead simply recited that the necessary funds would be "deemed appropriated" at the time they were expended. This "deeming" provision violated not only the cited provision of the constitution but a host of other provisions as well.

Bonus video...

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Barack and Michelle...absolutely galling!

This is worse than Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain." comment.  And worse yet, is that the Obama voters will look right through it all...Its what Obama calls transparency.  In other words, if an Obama voter looked in a mirror they'd miss seeing themselves for the reflection was in the way (I don't know if that came out right...I was trying to play on the oft used expression, "They can't see the forest for the trees are in the way.") ~ Norman E. Hooben

Cross-posted from Pundit and Pundette

Luxury-loving first family can relate to struggling Americans

I guess it would be crazy to expect the president and first lady to factor in the costs, to businesses and taxpayers, when they make a decision to go on a junket, whether it's a campaign stop at a New Jersey sub shop that will ensure a bad day for surrounding businesses, or a "mother-daughter trip" (note spin) to Spain that will cost taxpayers untold amounts in security and transportation. For a personal trip, entirely optional (and squeezed in before the real summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard).

Luxurious: The Obamas will spend four nights at Spain's most exclusive hotel, the Villa Padierna on the Costa del Sol near Marbella
It would fascinating to learn just how many hard-earned American tax dollars have been spent by the Obamas in their pursuit of the high life.

To be fair, though, the president has assured us that he can relate to Americans who are struggling financially:

President Obama says he can relate to the plight of Americans striving in the struggling economy to pay bills while saving for their kids' education.
He says he and first lady Michelle Obama took a hit like everybody else when the economy nearly collapsed, telling ABC that a college fund for daughters Malia and Sasha has gone "up and down" with the stock market.
Obama says the first couple is "not that far removed from what most Americans are going through." He tells the network "it was just a few years ago that we had high credit card balances, we had two kids, thinking about college. We had our own retirement accounts, wondering if we were going to be able to get enough assets in there."

Absolutely galling.

Obama risks death penalty...but for the least of his crimes he should be put away for a long time...its the law!

Recently I posted a commentary on OTM's (Other Than Mexicans) that were entering the country illegally.  In that post included a news story about two Hondurans who raped a 14-year-old Texas girl. The penalty for allowing (that is the person or persons responsible for preventing illegal entry across our borders and "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States" quote is from the law)   these two scumbags entry into the country in which bodily harm was committed is:
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
Remember now, I'm not talking about the two Hondurans here.  I'm talking about the people responsible for allowing the Hondurans into this country.  And that would be Eric Holder and his boss Barack Husein Obama.  We can multiply the punishment of 20 years for the thousands of similiar crimes committed by the thousands of illegal aliens that Obama and company refused to stop...and who continues to encourage to enter illegally as we speak.  So that looks like a slam dunk, Obama and company should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives...unless you get a soft judge who would make them serve 20 years concurrently.

So what kind of penalty would Obama and company receive for allowing that illegal alien to kill the rancher last March?  Bud Parker (see post below) says, "Obama risks the death penalty..." and after reading the law I would agree.  I'll tell you right now, If the Sheriff would deputize me I would be willing to make the arrest; apparently there is not any law enforcement officers willing to uphold their oath of office. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Obama Risks Death Penalty for Federal Law Violation

Few people are legal scholars.  I am certainly not one, but I can read and think.  Perhaps that makes me unique in today's society.  Regardless of that, Mr. Obama has decided to not only ignore the Federal Law regarding criminal alien immigration into this Nation, but his continual public statements attesting to that fact and his plan for Amnesty have placed him in violation of the United States Code.  That is Federal Law.

When the President comes on line saying that we will not guard the border and we are going to pass Amnesty for people that have violated the law by jumping the border, that encourages many other people to enter the United States without processing through a Customs Control Point.  That act is a violation of law.  Obama's encouraging, aiding, and abetting in the commission of that crime makes him culpable, also. 

For your reference this is the link to the appropriate US CODE.  I will extract portions of the code below.


§ 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties


Any person who—
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation
of law; or

engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—

in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned
not more than 5 years, or both;

in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
In summation, this federal law says that encouraging, aiding or abetting and alien to enter the USA illegally subjects you to criminal prosecution.  Various penalties are possible depending on intent and method.  Notice that the word "shall" is used throughout indicating that something is mandatory.

Further, it specifies that for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs constitutes an additional prosecutable offense.  If the alien simply arrives and does not harm anyone during their illegal stay the penalty is only 5 years.  If the alien causes serious bodily harm, 20 years for Obama.  Or, if the alien kills someone during their criminal stay in the USA the penalty for Obama (or anyone else who commits this crime) is that they shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.  For each person encouraged, aided, or abetted.

It seems as though our Elected Officials are not subject to the same laws that regulate our conduct.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

University Student Told To Change Beliefs Through Re-Education Brainwashing Program

The moment I saw the headline it reminded me of Margaret Sanger who called rehabilitative concentration camps for all "dysgenic stocks".  And who would of thought that Charles F. Potter was so influential in a Georgia remember him as the guy who said, “Education is a most powerful ally of Humanism... ”.  Potter was another advocate of brainwashing especially with children.  Must be the powers to be at Augusta University are admirers of Potter. I wish Jennifer Keeton success in her lawsuit and its a sour point in America that this has happened...I guess I may becoming a Sanger-Potterist because I think that the powers to be at the university should be the ones going to rehabilitative concentration camps.  ~  Norman E. Hooben

The following cross-posted from Pat Dollard

Augusta University Student Told To Change Beliefs On Gays Through Re-Education Camp-Style Brainwashing Program Or Be Expelled

July 27th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.
Fox News:
A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.
The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master’s degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she’ll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her “central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct,” according to a civil complaint filed last week.
“[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity,” the 43-page lawsuit reads.
Keeton, according to the lawsuit, was informed by school officials in late May that she would be asked to take part in a remediation plan due to faculty concerns regarding her beliefs pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.
“The faculty identifies Miss Keeton’s views as indicative of her improper professional disposition to persons of such populations,” the lawsuit reads.
The remediation plan, according to the lawsuit, noted Keeton’s “disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian ‘lifestyle,’” as well as Keeton’s belief that those “lifestyles” are cases of identity confusion.
If Keeton fails to complete the plan, including additional reading and the writing of papers describing the impact on her beliefs, she will be expelled from the Counselor Education Program, the lawsuit claims.
Keeton has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the “result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces,” according to the suit.
“She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created,” the lawsuit reads. “Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ’state of being.’”
In a statement to, Augusta State University officials declined to comment specifically on the litigation, but said the university does not discriminate on the basis of students’ moral, religious, political or personal views or beliefs.
“The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics,” the statement read. “The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics.”
David French, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the lawsuit against Augusta State University on Keeton’s behalf, said no university has the right to force a citizen to change their beliefs on any topic.
“The university has told Jennifer Keeton that if she doesn’t change her beliefs, she can’t stay in the program,” he told “She won’t even have a chance to counsel any students; she won’t have a chance to get a counseling degree; she’ll be expelled.”
Keeton, who is not available for interviews according to French, believes that people have “moral choices” regarding their sexuality, he said.
“A student has a right to express their point of view in and out of class without fear or censorship or expulsion,” French said.

Monday, July 26, 2010

The UN Is Plotting Against You ...and Obama supports their goals

The would be dictators are at it again (they never quit!).  Every citizen must understand that the United States Constitution reigns supreme over any treaty with other nations...and that includes would be nations like the UN.  The UN is not a sovereignty as in sovereign nation.  The US however, is a sovereign nation and its powers to rule come from the people as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the United States Constitution.  In the article below the author states,"The Obama administration strongly supports the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty..." but lets not overlook the secondary headline, "One-worlders are going after your guns".  The one world order sicko-idea has been addressed in this blog on numerous occasions and it is not just the Democrats.  The more familiar term "New World Order" has been around for a long time and some the culprits that support this end-game mentality include George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, Hilary Rodham Clinton, John F. Kerry, Henry Kissinger, George Soros, et al (including such corporations as the New York Times, TIME Magazine and more).  So when you get to the part in the editorial where they have the secret closed-door meetings (indicative of a hostile take-over) I hope that you are having your own closed-door meetings just like our founding fathers had at the Green Dragon Tavern ~ Norman E. Hooben

The following from The Washington Times

EDITORIAL: U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments

One-worlders are going after your guns

The United Nations is holding secret closed meetings to work out a global arms trade treaty. The agreement, which could be finished by 2012, is a threat to Americans' Second and First Amendment rights.
"Some type of micro-stamping regulations seems all but inevitable. It is very, very likely," the Heritage Foundation's Theodore R. Bromund, who tracks the U.N., told The Washington Times. "Restrictions on trade between private individuals are somewhat less than 50-50, but you surely can't rule that out. Some kind of gun registration and licensing system is an extremely likely probability." Registration proposals cover guns as well as individual rounds of ammunition.
The Obama administration strongly supports the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and no doubt will use the process to push for gun-control regulations that it can't get through Congress otherwise.
A lot of baloney is floating in Turtle Bay. Gun registration is being promoted despite evidence that the costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in solving any crimes or stopping criminals from getting access to guns everywhere it's been tried. "None of these treaties have a relationship to reality," Mr. Bromund explains. "Terrorists are still going to have access to guns because governments give them guns, and they are still going to be able to give them guns." As an example, he pointed out, "The FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from Venezuela."
As with everything that goes down at the U.N.'s headquarters on Manhattan's East River, America will pick up a disproportionate share of the tab to implement the treaty, with all those countries considered most "in need" taking another free ride. This is counterproductive even without the usual fraud and waste that hobble U.N. programs.
Gun rights aren't the only thing would-be globocops are targeting in the treaty. There is a U.N. discussion paper advancing "the reduction of violence in the media and in video games" as well as "sustained efforts at reeducation and reorientation of [member state] citizens." Whatever the plan, that can't be good for the First Amendment.
Any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will undermine freedom around the world. The right to bear arms is an individual's protection against oppression anywhere. It took herculean efforts by George W. Bush's administration to thwart this U.N. power grab a few years ago. Unfortunately, we now have a left-wing White House working to make this dangerous treaty a reality.

This just in... Don't believe 'em (see below), it's just a ruse to get your vote! These people believe in taking your guns away no matter what they say on the campaign trail... ~ Norman E. Hooben

Dems Lock N Load To Gain Gun Rights Vote - With Video

H-T to  Pat Dollard

Fox News:
With the mid-terms looming large in a year where incumbents are expected to take a beating at the polls many Democratic candidates are favoring gun rights, aiming to win endorsements or positive ratings from pro-2nd amendment groups.
University of New Hampshire Professor of Politics, Andrew Smith, says Democrats started moving away from a strong anti-gun stance in the 90’s when many in the party blamed the issue on massive political losses in Congress.

“I think it started with the 1994 elections where a lot of Democrats believe it was the NRA involvement in that election which caused the Democrats to lose the House and the Senate. So they backed off that issue,” said Smith.
The National Rifle Association, by far the most powerful pro-gun lobby in the country, spends massive amounts of money to protect the right to bear arms, donating cash to candidates and political action committees. While Republicans receive the majority of the organizations endorsements and money, over the last 10 years, the NRA has dramatically increased funding for Democratic candidates.
“I think finally the message hit home that it’s bad politics to be on the wrong side of the 2nd amendment at election time and I think you see that reflective in what’s been happening on this issue amongst Democrats in Washington, DC and state legislatures around the country.” said Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association.
“Gun ownership in the country amid labor unions folks runs from a low of 48% in California to a high of 60, 70, 80% in states like Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia. In the 2000 election, half of those union members had a firearm in their home voted for George Bush over Al Gore based on the gun issue and that cost Al Gore the presidency.”
According to the center for responsive politics, a non-partisan group that tracks political spending, during the 2002 election cycle the NRA put 8% of their federal campaign contributions toward Democrats. This election cycle, they’ve received 26% percent.
Though the NRA has yet to release many key endorsements heading into the fall elections some major races could be affected when the word comes down. In the midst of a tough re-election campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could get a boost as the NRA considers endorsing him.
In Indiana, Democratic Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth, a former sheriff, may win the organization’s endorsement over Republican Dan Coats.
The slow political shift has frustrated some Democrats that have long fought for tougher gun laws, like New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who’s husband was killed in 1993 when a gunman randomly fired into a commuter train. She wishes fellow Democrats would fight the pressure exerted by the pro-gun lobby.
“They’ve been very open about saying… ‘Carolyn, if the NRA comes against a bill, I gotta vote with the NRA.’ They’re not going to take that chance. I understand that,” said McCarthy of her Democratic colleagues. “Does it bother me? Of course, it bothers me because I’m not trying to take away anyone’s right to own a gun.”
Depending on where a given candidate hails from, gun rights can be a major issue.
Take the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire where hunting is popular and the 2nd amendment has long been prioritized as a critical personal liberty.
“It’s a freedom issue and that’s what this is about,” said Mitch Kopacz, president of Gun Owners of New Hampshire. “It’s the canary in the cage if you will, the firearms… for free speech and other issues. If we have firearms we still have the rest of our rights.”
While a contingent of voters will cast ballots strictly adhering to which candidate supports firearm freedoms, many others will prioritize other matters.
“Because the economy is bad and when the economy is bad all other issues get pushed to the side, including the issues about guns,” explains Smith. “So I think what you’re seeing with Democratic candidates is that the party has moved away from that more doctrinaire position against 2nd amendment rights.”

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Obama's Bold-Faced Lie

Isn't it time we do something with this anti-American Marxist-Muslim...we could let him serve the remaining time of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi's sentence now that he is part and parcel to the Lockerbie incident.  Yeah, it's Obama I'm talking about!  Wake up! ~ Norman E. Hooben

More at The Australian White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi

The following from Atlas Shruggs

Obama's Bold-Faced Lie: Backed Release of Jihadi Lockerbie Mass Murderer -- Demand Special Investigation, File Charge of Treason

Photo: Al Megrahi's hero's welcome back in Libya following his transfer (The Guardian)
Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan American World Airways' third daily scheduled transatlantic flight from London Heathrow Airport to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. On Wednesday 21 December 1988, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747-121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas—was bombed killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members.[1] Eleven people in Lockerbie, southern Scotland, were killed as large sections of the plane fell in and around the town, bringing total fatalities to 270. As a result, the event has been named by the media as the Lockerbie Bombing.
The Lockerbie Muslim bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA), was convicted of the murder of  270 people. Last September, he was released  ........... to cheers and crowds and open arms of Libyan President Qadafi. Heinous.
Back in September 2009, when the jihadi mass murderer, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, was released when he should have been executed, I called for Obama's impeachment, knowing full well that the Obama administration had to have known, had to have signed off on it, had to have approved it. At the time, the Obama spin was that Megrahi's release blindsided Washington, and that it was appalled by the decision.
LIE. This is another terrible betrayal and crime against the American people by the Post-American president.
Today, the Australian reported that the Obama administration secretly advised Scottish ministers that it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than to jail him in Libya. More of  Obama's  transparency.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
He knew. He knew. He didn't stop it. This would never happen under Bush.
Obama bold-faced lied. Where are our leaders calling for a special investigation into this? Where are the good and the decent and honorable elected officials who took an oath to protect and defend the American people? Who is watching out for the people? Americans were murdered in one of the most notorious  Islamic attacks  on America and the West, and Obama is compassionate to the jihadi?
Qaddafi lockerbie
Embrace: Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, (right), who was found guilty of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, is greeted by Libyan leader Gaddafi in Tripoli (photo here)
Here is what I said in September:
How striking that Obama would be seeking to prosecute CIA agents for keeping this country safe after the the most heinous attack on American soil in US history. It is breathtaking that Obama weeps immoral tears at the mass murderers that planned the invasion and takeover of the USA on 911. Now, 8 twisted years later, Obama will begin criminal proceedings to jail great patriotic Americans who worked to stop the next wave of 911 attacks on the greatest nation. Obama will appoint a special prosecutor; Holder, his chinless hatchet man, is on it.
What does it say about your President that he signed off on the release of a Muslim terrorist who took down Pan Am flight 103, killing 270 people, while at the same time going after CIA agents protecting this nation?
Here is what John Bolton said back in September:
Given this history, America obviously had a profound and continuing stake in Megrahi's status, after the conviction as well as before. Indeed, because of the Clinton concessions allowing for Scottish jurisdiction, the US victims' families were assured at that time that Megrahi would serve his sentence in Scottish jails -- not in a specially created "UN prison," as some proposed, and certainly not in Libya.
Now Megrahi's commutation from any incarceration makes a mockery of all these supposedly good-faith arrangements.
It is simply inconceivable that Britain and Scotland would free Megrahi if President Obama had clearly and forcefully articulated his opposition.
Here, the White House's public explanation has been inconsistent. First, spokesmen quickly asserted that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had worked for "weeks and months" to avert Megrahi's release, and that Attorney General Eric Holder heard about clemency for Megrahi as early as June. Some contend that Obama's national-security transition team was briefed well before the inauguration.
Yet now the administration spin is that Megrahi's release blindsided Washington, and that it is appalled by the decision.
Obama White House backed release of Lockerbie jihad bomber Jihadwatch Find out why this is completely unsurprising in The Post-American Presidency. "White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi," by Jason Allardyce and Tony Allen-Mills in The Australian, July 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya. Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
What about compassion for the 270 people al-Megrahi murdered in the name of Islamic jihad?
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer. The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.
In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.
The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."...
UPDATE: Alex Salmond calls for release of Lockerbie files
The Scottish first minister has called on the UK and US governments to publish all of their documents relating to the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The Sunday Times claimed to have seen a letter from the US administration to the Scottish government before the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
It said the US government did not want Megrahi released from prison.
But it said a compassionate release would "preferable" to transferring Megrahi to a jail in Libya.
Alex Salmond said the documents would "vindicate" the Scottish government

The following comment from
Obama White House Backed Release of Lockerbie Jihad Bomber
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future "frank and open communications" with other governments.

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

The note added: "Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."....

Posted by Robert Spencer
Amplify'd from
Find out why this is completely unsurprising in The Post-American Presidency. "White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi," by Jason Allardyce and Tony Allen-Mills in The Australian, July 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya. Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
What about compassion for the 270 people al-Megrahi murdered in the name of Islamic jihad?
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

Quote Of The Week ...from Ayn Rand

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
- Ayn Rand, “Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon,” The Los Angeles Times, Sept. 9, 1962

Cross-posted from Western Rifle Shooters Association

The Commander In Chief Shall Not Be Given To Any But A Natural-Born Citizen ~ John Jay, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural-born citizen. ~ John Jay, the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
The Post Email

British school project declares Obama born in Kenya


(Jul. 23, 2010) — A “school linking project in both Britain and Kenya”  named “Plan” reportedly lauded the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the U.S. presidency, with the Kenyan children celebrating that he was born in Kogelo, Kenya, Africa. The report, which links
According to Wikipedia, Barack Obama Sr. donated land he owned to build two schools in Kogelo Village which were renamed "Senator Obama Primary and Secondary School," respectively.
back to the organization’s main website, states that “More than 50 schools in Kisumu, Kenya, about 30 miles from where Obama was born and where his grandmother still lives in the village of Kogelo, have linked to British partners as part of the scheme.”
“Plan” is a project which raises money to sponsor children in poor areas of the world.
The area in Kenya boasts two schools named after Barack Obama Jr.  The village reportedly “had no electricity, but it was connected to the power network immediately after the 2008 US presidential election”  as they expected an influx of tourists to the region.
An African newspaper reported that Obama’s father was born in Kogelo Village, but also stated that “According to Luo customs, a child belongs to the father, hence the strong bonds of kinship to the American president-elect in Western Kenya.”
Another article refers to Obama as Kenya’s “son.”
The “Plan” operates “development programmes in 49 of the world’s poorest countries,” including the United States.
A website about the Kisumu region of Kenya states:
Congratulations to Barack Obama,son of Kisumu, for getting elected to the highest and most powerful office in the world,The President of United States of America.  Obama’s father was born in Kisumu, Kenya. It is a pride for Kisumu and whole of Africa.
A Kenyan travel website is offering an “8 Day Barack Obama’s Kenya Roots” tour.
Following the 2008 U.S. presidential election, residents of Kogelo Village celebrated Obama’s putative win.  According to the BBC, “Although they were thousands of miles away from the US, it was still a very personal win for them as they truly consider Mr Obama a son of Kogelo.”
Kenya will be voting on adopting or rejecting a proposed new constitution soon.  An Obama visit to Kenya has reportedly been promised if the new constitution is passed after the August 4 vote.  Obama instructed the U.S. ambassador to Kenya to “support” its passage.  While visiting Kenya in June, putative Vice President Joseph Biden commented that he “wanted the ‘right climate in Kenya and described the proposed constitution as a ’single unique opportunity.’  Obama’s State Department had pledged $2,000,000 in support of the new constitution, which would allow abortion to be legalized for the first time in that country’s history and which has prompted a congressional investigation.
Polls are indicating that the new constitution will pass, but that violence could result.
According to an African online news site, “Obama has been consistent in his push for a new constitution. In June he dispatched Vice-President Joe Biden to Nairobi to encourage President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga to soldier on with the Yes campaigns.”
The scheduled vote on the Kenyan constitution is the same day which Obama has stated is his date of birth, as shown in an article from the Los Angeles Times which states that both of John McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens but qualifies Obama as eligible for the presidency based on only one U.S.-citizen parent, for which no proof is provided.
John Jay, the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, wrote in a letter dated July 25, 1787 to George Washington regarding the qualifications of the president:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural-born citizen.
Last fall, plans were announced to erect a cultural center at Obama’s “ancestral home in Kogelo.”  If Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims, why is there no monument or plans for a cultural center there?  Would that not also have been an “ancestral home”?  Where are his Hawaiian relatives, and where are his Hawaiian roots?
For that matter, where are his American roots?
Why are Biden and Obama so interested in what goes on in Kenya?  Why are they meddling in that country’s political affairs?