Saturday, February 27, 2010

An interesting Kennedy-side-show...aah, I mean side story...really, really

Massachusetts, Kennedy...yikes! Here we go again. If the folks only knew that 100% of their problems are caused by the the nincompoops that they elect for office. First off, before I go on about the Kennedy Clan, the people need to investigate Delahunt, and from what I read, there's already enough poop to put the guy away...but we know that will never happen because Massachusetts has a corrupt judicial system (Remember Teddy Boy's punishment? or should that be reward for murder?). Now I feel that I can say whatever I want about the Kennedys, for I not only lived in Massachusetts I actually knew a Kennedy (maybe that's a stretch, but I at least shook Bobby's hand while he asked if my dad was the fireman with the same see he knew my dad, but that's another story). Meanwhile, the Kennedys never did one ounce of good for the people of Massachusetts. Every time I ask anyone the question, "Has Kennedy (take your pick) done anything good for the people of Massachusetts?" Invariably, the answer is always the same, "Yes, he's done hundreds of good things." Oh, yeah, name one! Then its either a sour look on the person's face or in one really, really important supporter's answer, "I'll go look it up." (I can't mention that really, really important person's name because it's too close to home, if you catch my drift.) Sometimes I even get Mass. people giving credit to Teddy Boy for something that he had no hand in doing...I believe it was some Florida politician that gets the real credit...again, that's another story but it does prove an enormous point, that the people in the Bay State are as informed as to what is really, really going on as are my dog, two cats, and a horse. Oh, and before I forget, I once put my question to a newspaper (really, really pro Kennedy) and instead of looking up in their vast archives that one bit of good I was looking for, they banned my question before readers had a chance to respond. So before I give away too much information to the already informed Massachusetts voters lets get on with the side show...aah, there I go again, I mean, "side-story". This side-story folks, should put away all doubts that the Kennedys are the biggest hypocrites that ever slid down and archbisop's croiser (I did have to mention that clerical angle because they once had the archbishop in their pocket, but that's another story). ~ Norman E. Hooben

ps: If you find yourself having to go look things up trying to find something good...I win my case! You simply don't click off Google or put the book away and smarten up.

The following courtesy of Maggie's Notebook.

Joseph P. Kennedy III May Seek House Seat: Delahunt Retires Kennedy III Emerges?

Joseph P. Kennedy, III, one of the twin sons of former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II may run for the U.S. House 10th District seat in Massachusetts in November. Rep. William Delahunt is sending signals that he may not seek re-election. The Kennedy-Free Congress may be a short-lived memory. Democrat operatives are believed to be making it happen. Young Joe has little to lose, other than the Kennedy legacy. No Kennedy has ever lost an election in Massachusetts.

Joseph P. Kennedy, III

J.P. Kennedy, III is 29 years old. A Massachusetts Democrat leaked the story today that he is considering a run. Kennedy the Even Younger is a graduate of Stanford University and, of course, Harvard Law. He is a prosecutor in Barnstable County, and registered to vote in Cape Cod. The 10th District represents the South Shore and Cape Cod. Don't miss the story of Joe III's mother a few paragraphs down.

Delahunt, who has not faced a serious challenge since 1996, told the Boston Globe on February 13th, he is considering retiring. He is under pressure for his failure to investigate University of Alabama Huntsville murderer, Dr. Amy Bishop in 1986 after she shot and killed her 18-year-old brother Sean when Delahunt was a Massachusetts District Attorney. Bishop shot and killed three of her peers at a UAH department meeting in early February. Three additional persons were wounded, two of them critically.

The circumstances around Sean's death should have called for an investigation, instead then-Police of Chief Polio spoke by phone with then-District Attorney William Delahunt, and when Polio got off of the phone, Amy Bishop was allowed to go home - no further investigation, no charges - even though a car dealer salesman told police Bishop walked into his showroom minutes after the shooting, still armed with her shotgun, and acted in a threatening manner. There was never a follow-up interview with the saleman, and recent reports say that the autopsy report lacks pertinent data. As District Attorney, the autopsy was under Delahunt's oversight. Bishop's mother was well-known in Braintree and some believe her influence shutdown a investigation.

Massachusetts Democrats are said to trying to broker an "endorse Joe III and retire" plan for Delahunt. Joe the Younger is said to be a bright star among the other Kennedys in his generation, and he will no doubt be a front runner from the moment his candidacy is announced.

An interesting Kennedy-side-story: Joe III's father, Joe II divorced his mother, Sheila Rauch Kennedy after 12 years in 1991. Joe II asked the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston to annul the marriage on the grounds that he was not mentally capable of entering the marriage in 1979. Sheila Rauch, an Episcopalian, refused to agree to the annulment.

Joe II married Beth Kelly, his former staffer anyway, in a civil ceremony in 1993. Rauch later discovered that the Boston Archdiocese granted Kennedy the annulment secretly in 1996. Rauch appealed the annulment to the Vatican and in 2005, the Vatican reversed the annulment. Astonishing that an Episcopalian woman could fight the power of the Kennedy's and a powerful diocese...and win.

Republican Jeffry Davis Perry, currently a third term Massachusetts State Congressman announced his U.S. House candidacy on February 2nd. He will kickoff his race, and his first fundraiser for the Massachusetts 10th District on March 5, 2010.
Question: How does an advocate of baby killing get elected to Congress?
Answer: By living in Massachusetts!

Joe Kennedy

Mad man Gaddafi spewing off at the mouth, "Muslims must go to all airports in the Islamic world and prevent any Swiss plane landing."


Colonel Gaddafi calls for jihad against Switzerland

Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has called for a jihad or armed struggle against Switzerland branding it an "infidel state".

Colonel Gaddafi calls for jihad against Switzerland
Libya's relations with Switzerland broke down in 2008 when one of Colonel Gaddafi's sons, Hannibal, was arrested in a Geneva hotel and charged with assaulting a member of his staff. Photo: GETTY
He said Muslims everywhere had a duty to act against the country, which he claimed had been destroying mosques.
"Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against (the Prophet) Mohammad, and God and the Koran," he told a meeting in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.
In his rambling address he added: "The masses of Muslims must go to all airports in the Islamic world and prevent any Swiss plane landing, to all harbours and prevent any Swiss ships docking, inspect all shops and markets to stop any Swiss goods being sold."
Libya's relations with Switzerland broke down in 2008 when one of Colonel Gaddafi's sons, Hannibal, was arrested in a Geneva hotel and charged with assaulting a member of his staff.
He was detained for two days before being released, but in protest Libya cut oil supplies to Switzerland, withdrew billions of dollars from Swiss bank accounts and arrested two Swiss businessmen working in the North African country.
Gaddafi told supporters the Swiss referendum last year, in which 57.5 per cent of voters called for a ban on the construction of minarets, proved it was an "infidel state".
The federal government had however urged voters to reject the vote, warning it would contravene religious freedom.
But Gaddafi said: "Let us fight against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression."
The Libyan dictator, who has been in power since 1969, said what he was proposing was not terrorism and he condemned the work of al-Qaeda branding it a "kind of crime and a psychological disease".
He told the crowd: "There is a big difference between terrorism and jihad which is a right to armed struggle."
The Swiss Foreign Ministry refused to comment on his remarks.

"TG" the corrupted regulator - "BHO" the corrupted dictator

Backtracking to January.  In case you missed the following article (posted January 7, 2010) I'm cross-posting it here just for you (am I a nice guy or what).  As you know I was opposed to the appointment of Timothy Geithner from the very begining so lets take a look at this "Corrupted Regulator".  And less we forget, his boss is a corrupted dictator.  As you read the author's list of criminal charges that Geithner should be faced with, don't you think something is terribly amiss here. Why haven't these charges been brought not only against the boy wonder but against his holier than Thou supervisor, BHO?  The answer is, "Complacency."  "Not I.", you say.  Think about it.  What have you done about it other than reading this essay?  Have you ever called or wrote to your elected representatives?  Have you done likewise to your local news media?  If you were an Obama voter, can you explain why Obama selects the people with questionable allegiance to the United States of America.  Did you know that Obama has no allegiance to the United States of America?  Although the following article is all about Geithner you should not read it without including Barack Husein Obama, the greatest hoaxer of all time. ~ Norm
Trilateral Geithner: Corrupted Regulator?
By Patrick Wood, Editor January 7, 2010

Timothy Geithner is a rising star within the membership of the Trilateral Commission: He is highly educated, has extensive regulatory experience, and is willing to bend, break or obscure the rules to favor his global elite bosses.
In November 2008 when Geithner was President of the NY Federal Reserve, just before becoming Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, recently discovered e-mails reveal that Geithner and the NY Fed pressured the bailed-out AIG into keeping it's mouth shut about which banks were receiving taxpayer funds in exchange for toxic assets known as "credit swaps." (This story was made possible by copies of e-mails between Fed and AIG officials that were recently secured by California Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA.))
Furthermore, the NY FED and AIG then conspired to officially hide the event when AIG was required to make a regulatory filing to the SEC on December 24, 2008: The Fed crossed out the reference on its records and AIG excluded the facts on their filing.
In November 2008, the NY Fed was officially in charge of negotiations between AIG and those banks that were "to big to fail." More than a dozen banks, including Goldman Sachs and Societe Generale SA, received payments of $62.1 billion from AIG for worthless mortgage-backed contracts. What a sweetheart deal they got, too: 100 cents on the dollar!
No wonder that Geithner wanted to hide the details.
On behalf of the taxpayer, AIG was supposed to negotiate steep discounts for these worthless contracts. Yet, in October, the NY Fed had ordered AIG to not seek discounts from the banks, which directly dinged taxpayers for at least $13 billion.
Around November 24, 2008, when Geithner learned that Obama intended to nominate him for the top Treasury job, he was officially recused from matters dealing with specific companies. In other words, he ran like a rabbit and insulated himself from any further involvement that might be discovered during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Geithner successfully obscured his still-hidden dealings with AIG and was subsequently confirmed to be the head watchdog and guardian of America's money center.
This level and sophistication of corruption is without parallel in the history of the world. It is calculated, brazen and blatant. 
Remember that in September 2008, then-Secretary of the Treasury Henry "Hammerin' Hank" Paulson demanded $700 billion in bailout funds from Congress with no strings attached. Paulson literally extorted the money by claiming that America would completely collapse in days or weeks if he didn't get the money authorized immediately. The fact that Paulson was formerly CEO of Goldman Sachs, a company with heavy representation in the Trilateral Commission, didn't deter his demands nor Congress' total capitulation to them.  
U.S. taxpayers should demand that Congress immediately start impeachment proceedings to remove Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. Perhaps the threat of a publicly-broadcast Senate trial would motivate Obama to fire him before other incriminating evidence could be presented.
From a layman's perspective, criminal charges facing Geithner might start with something like these:
  • Perjury - lying to and withholding information from the U.S. Senate while under oath
  • Theft - illegally diverting billions of Treasury funds to selected global banks 
  • Conspiracy to conceal a criminal act - coercing AIG to file false regulatory statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
  • Malfeasance - commission of an unlawful act in the course of an official capacity
The August Review has long pointed out and documented cases where members of the Trilateral Commission have discovered ways to raid the U.S. Treasury for private gain. A few of these articles include:
It should be reiterated that all bankers and corporate executives are not greedy and corrupt. In fact, the vast majority are loyal Americans, law-abiding, family oriented and civic-minded. The small group of internationalists who are members of the Trilateral Commission are the polar opposite of mainstream America and live and operate as if they are above the law and any accountability to the people of the countries where they have business interests. From its founding in 1973 by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission has never had more than 400 members at any one time; of those members, only about one third are directly connected to banks and global corporations. Since Commission membership is drawn from Europe, Asia and North America, U.S. membership is obviously quite small.
The August Review's 2009 article Obama: Trilateral Commission Endgame was not widely criticized when it reported that about 12 percent of the U.S. membership had been appointed by President Obama to top-level positions in his administration: Timothy Geithner, Susan Rice, Gen James Jones, Thomas Donilon, Paul Volker, Adm. Dennis Blair, Kurt Campbell, James Steinberg, Richard Haas, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke. Another Trilateral member, Robert Hormats was appointed later in 2009.
If America is to survive this pandemic of high-level corruption, then this Trilateral Commission hegemony must first be jetisoned from all positions and departments of our government; merely electing another party in November 2010 will not accomplish this. 

Friday, February 26, 2010

Is This A Single Digit Issue...ya might want to ask Obama

President F***k You Flips Off the American People

What a punk. How does this President of the United States handle a challenge? He gives you the finger.


Finger red

Today's piece of cheap theater orchestrated by the boulevardier-in-chief was his feeble attempt at bipartisanship. The fraud and his goons spent the year behind closed doors and attempted to ram this poison down our throats, but Americans woke up (thanks to L-Dopa) and fought back. Despite the pathetic attempt to paint the Republicans in a bad light (he finally agrees to an audience with Republicans but it has to be shot live), it was he and his quislings who looked small and untrustworthy. This little circus was very telling. Watching O look down his nose, literally, at the earnest congressman gathered, caught Obama in a very ugly light. His condescension was as obvious as his middle finger.
He loves the drone of his own voice, and we were forced to sit through more verbal diarrhea than any long practicing proctologist should have to stand, but for me the money shot was when President STFU responded like the Chicagoland gangster that he is to the reasoned argument of Paul Ryan.
According to Senate Republicans, President Obama spoke for 119 minutes, other Democrats for 114 minutes, and Congressional Republicans for 110 minutes. Republicans came armed with facts, the Democrats came with folksy, anecdotal stories. These guys should be writing scripts for Lifetime television.

This is no accident. President Finger is a vile little man, ain't he?


Watch his numbers after this little stunt. Glub glub flub.

Typical O-ugliness:

UPDATE: 2/26 - I told ya so.


"Only a few generations have been granted a role of defending freedom in it's maximum hour of danger."

"You are that generation! This is your role! Now is that time! Freedom must be defended from every assailant, in every corner of this country...from outside the country, from inside the country, and especially from the government that wants to take it away from us... God bless you." ~ Judge Andrew Napolitano

Remember my comments from yesterday? No. Then let me repeat them here word for word.

"You know there's not a day that goes by that we don't hear of something illegal or shady back-door dealings that goes on with this usurper. Oh yes, we also hear about November of 2012 so we can get him out of the White House, but that's not going to do, he has to go NOW! If the American people allow this guy to continue, we will no longer have a country we can call America...and if that's not reason enough to trash this guy now, nothing is! So help us God!"

That part that says, "...he has to go NOW!" should read, "...they have to go NOW!" (the they includes the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, ...and you know the rest of th0se anti-American assailants.) and after watching this video if you don't agree with me then let me repeat the latter part, "So help us God!" ~ Norman E. Hooben

For Part One in this series click here.

Maybe, Just Maybe, This is the kind of 'change' we need. - A story worth followng, "R.I. town becomes ground zero in war on teachers"

Source: People's World

R.I. town becomes ground zero in war on teachers

CENTRAL FALLS, R.I. - Some 1,000 teachers and supporters from Rhode Island's labor movement packed a town park here Tuesday night in a rousing show of support for nearly 100 teachers and school personnel threatened with firing by the school superintendent, Frances Gallo.

But that did not deter the school board from voting, 5-2, to OK the firing of every teacher at the only high school in this impoverished, majority minority, former mill town. As the names of 74 classroom teachers, plus reading specialists, guidance counselors, physical education teachers, the school psychologist, the principal and three assistant principals, were read aloud, the teachers, many wearing red - one of the school's colors - stood up, some crying.

In the audience also were students like 17-year-old Kelyn Salazar, a Central Falls High junior, who told a reporter, "It's not motivating me to come to school anymore." At the rally earlier, she told the crowd the teacher firings would hurt students academically and emotionally. It "makes my heart break into pieces," she said.

The firings were hailed by right-wing anti-union groups such as the Muskegon, Mich.-based "Education Action Group Foundation," which said it is putting up a billboard in Central Falls backing the superintendent's action. This group boasts that it publishes two anti-union blogs, and It has ties to the Michigan Republican Party and billionaire Dick DeVos.

The mass teacher firings also drew immediate praise from U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan. In comments his aide e-mailed to the Providence Journal that night, Duncan said he "applauded" the school board for "showing courage and doing the right thing for kids."

Duncan's support for the mass firings will be seen by many as a slap in the face to teachers, their unions and the entire labor movement. The impact could extend far beyond those directly involved in education, as labor is widely recognized as the crucial factor to Obama's 2008 victory in some key states.

Gallo said she made the move because teachers refused to accept her "transformational" plan to remedy the school's low test scores and graduation rates. But Central Falls Teachers Union President Jane Sessums told a reporter, "We don't take lightly that our scores are low. Everyone acknowledges that we have work to do." The union, part of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, says it agreed with the transformation concept but objected to the superintendent's "take it or leave it" approach.

Last August, Duncan announced requirements for $3.5 billion in Title I School Improvement grants to "turn around the nation's lowest performing schools."

Each school district applying for the funding is required to implement one of four "rigorous interventions."

First on the list is a "turnaround model" that calls for replacing the principal and at least 50 percent of the school's staff, and adopting a "new governance structure" and "new or revised instructional program."

Number two is the "restart model" - close "failing" schools and reopen them under the management of a charter school operator or "management organization."

Number three is simply labeled "school closure" - close "failing" schools and transfer the students to other schools in the district.

Last on the list is the "transformational model" - 1) developing "teacher and school leader effectiveness," which includes replacing the principal, 2) implementing "comprehensive instructional reform strategies," 3) "extending learning and teacher planning time and creating community-oriented schools," and 4) "providing operating flexibility and sustained support."

Any district with nine or more schools affected is not allowed to use any single strategy in more than half of its schools.

Chicago, where Duncan was schools chief before his current job, has been a laboratory for those models, with 85 school closings in the past few years, massive shuffling of students among schools, and wholesale firings of everyone from teachers with Master's degrees to cafeteria "lunch ladies."

In a statement issued Wednesday, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said, "We are disappointed that U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan didn't get all the facts-or even speak with teachers-before weighing in on the mass firing."

"Everyone involved, including teachers, has a responsibility to improve the quality of education at Central Falls High School," Weingarten said. "We are surprised that Superintendent Frances Gallo, who wants to fire every school employee, has not accepted any responsibility herself, especially since she has been at the helm for three years."

The union head also expressed disappointment that Gallo and the state education commissioner had rejected Weingarten's offers to meet to resolve the situation, and had also rejected a mediation proposal by former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, now an independent and front-running candidate for governor. The union has a track record of success in collaborative problem-solving.

Photo: PW/Susan Webb


  • Ref:"•As a parent, and as an Obama supporter, ..."

    I had a hard time getting by that much of your statement. What? Are you also insane? I don't care how you felt about Obama throughout his campaign all up and to his election. Sure, he was sounding just great...going to "build this nation back up from the bottom up and not the top down" (that should have told you right there and then that something was amiss, he stole those words from FDR's 1932 speech, 'The Forgotten Man') So what does Obama do? He starts out at the top...taking care of his banker friends first and never getting to the bottom (that's us folk, the bottom). And being of sound mind I analyze just what has Obama done for us little far, NOTHING! (Notice that was a BIG nothing.) Oh yeah, there was a little something good that came out of all his tax increases; he taxed me right out of smoking...been trying to quit anyway. Whoever you are, you better start watching what it is he is doing and not what his smooth-talking lips are saying. Tell me, "Are you really that easilly misled?"

  • As a parent, and as an Obama supporter, I'm outraged by Secretary Duncan's endorsement of this action. This is the sort of thing that, if not checked, may bring about terrible defeats for Democrats this year and a terrible setback for the labor and other people's movements. President Obama needs to start pressing his Cabinet appointees to get with a progressive program such as he originally espoused. And that means we in progressive movements need to press him to do that.

  • Devastating news !

    The high anticipations of a year ago are crashing with unexpected results from every direction.

    Something is way wrong!

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Obama Threatening To Pass Anti-.... Hold it right there! Why are we letting him do this?

Source: Gun Owners Of America H-T to Texas Fred

You know there's not a day that goes by that we don't hear of something illegal or shady back-door dealings that goes on with this usurper.  Oh yes, we also hear about November of 2012 so we can get him out of the White House, but that's not going to do, he has to go NOW!  If  the American people allow this guy to continue, we will no longer have a country we can call America...and if that's not reason enough to trash this guy now, nothing is!  So help us God!  (That's right, Obama, "God" and not allah!) ~ Norman E. Hooben
Remember people, Obama is not the boss, you are!  Throw him out with the trash as he did with the Dali Lama (Link)

Obama Threatening to Pass Anti-gun Health Care by Cheating
Thursday, February 25, 2010

He's like a playground bully -- on steroids!

According to a recent poll, only 23% of the American people want Congress to pass the anti-gun ObamaCare bill.

And the President's response to this? He believes Americans are just too stupid to understand what geniuses like him, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are trying to do for us.

So what is Obama's current plan?


ObamaCare is already the product of fraud, secrecy, bribery, and corruption. But Obama is preparing to ratchet up this corruption to a whole new level.

In 1974, Congress created a special process for balancing the budget. Senators could reduce the deficit with a simple 51 votes in the Senate, rather than getting the 60 needed votes to stop a filibuster. Under the rules, this process -- called "reconciliation" -- can ONLY be used for balancing the budget.

To repeat, it cannot be used for anything other than reducing the deficit. By contrast, ObamaCare would INCREASE the deficit by at least $500 BILLION.

So what does Obama do (with the help of crooked accountants at the Congressional Budget Office)?

He lies.

He fraudulently pretends the anti-gun ObamaCare legislation would reduce the deficit. And he does this by hiding costs and pretending he's going to make cuts he never intends to fully implement ($465 billion in Medicare cuts).

And he intends to use this fraud scheme to cram ObamaCare down the throats of the American people against their will.

Americans don't want the increased taxes and gun control that have been injected into the bill. Remember, Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to claim his legislation fixed the problems that Gun Owners of America had with this legislation.

But in reality, the bill still allows the ATF to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans.

ACTION: Please contact your two senators and your representative. Tell them that using the budget-balancing "reconciliation" process to pass ObamaCare is nothing but cheating.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send a pre-written message to your legislators.

----- Pre-written letter -----
Note: You can copy and paste this into Microsoft Word or any word processor.


ObamaCare is already the product of fraud, secrecy, bribery, and corruption. But Obama is preparing to ratchet up this corruption to a whole new level.

In 1974, Congress created a special process for balancing the budget -- with a simple 51 votes in the Senate, rather than the 60 needed to stop a filibuster. Under the rules, this process -- called "reconciliation" -- can ONLY be used for reducing the deficit.

To repeat, it cannot be used for anything other than reducing the deficit. By contrast, ObamaCare would INCREASE the deficit by at least $500 BILLION.

So what does Obama do (with the help of crooked congressional accountants at the Congressional Budget Office)? He lies. He fraudulently pretends ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. And he does this by hiding costs (the $247 billion "doc fix") and pretending he's going to make cuts he never intends to fully implement ($465 billion in Medicare cuts).

This "reconciliation" scheme is nothing more than a fraud on the American people, who, according to every recent poll, oppose ObamaCare by overwhelming majorities.

Understand this: I strongly object to this "cheat scheme."

Majority Leader Harry Reid has tried to claim his legislation fixed the anti-gun problems in ObamaCare. But in reality, it will still allow the ATF to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans.

Please oppose the use of "reconciliation" to pass ObamaCare.


FREE SPEECH...on the way out!

This is just the beginning...wake up America! It's Obama!

February 25, 2010


Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was scheduled to speak today at a National Prayer Luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base. But the invitation was recently withdrawn by the chaplain’s office because Perkins has spoken out in favor of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy.”

Addressing this issue is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

The decision to silence Tony Perkins, an ordained minister and Marine veteran, represents political correctness at a dangerous level. There are legitimate reasons to accept and reject the current policy regarding gays in the military. No one, therefore, should be censored from speaking at any private or public forum—much less a military instillation—because of his or her views on this subject. While the most immediate issue is the blacklisting of Perkins, the larger issue is the “chilling effect” this decision will have on the free speech and religious liberty rights of all those who serve in the military, especially clergymen.

As a religious leader, and as a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, I am doubly troubled by this outrageous decision. Accordingly, we will call for an investigation of this matter. The damage to Perkins cannot be undone, but steps can certainly be taken to ensure that something like this never happens again. I will now contact Major General Darrell D. Jones, Commander of the Air Force District of Washington, at Andrews Air Force Base asking for a probe into this matter. It is important that the Public Affairs Office at Andrews hear from Catholic League members about this very disturbing issue.


Susan A. Fani
Director of Communications
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10123
212-371-3394 (fax)

Warning! May Be Harmful To The Eyes

First the warning story...and you should crap your underwear (No apologies here! There is no better way to describe it!) when you see what's happening to our military's missle defense. See below.

From the Wilson County News (Texas)
Wilson County News

Beirut native warns U.S. about radical Islam

Beirut native warns U.S. about radical Islam
WCN/WILLIAM J. GIBBS JR.• Reprints at San Antonio resident Nabil Aramouni, 46, displays an image of what the American flag could become if radical Islam continues to threaten the American way of life during his presentation May 27 at the Wilson County Republican Women’s Club meeting in La Vernia. Aramouni, a native of Beirut, Lebanon, immigrated to the United States during the 1980s so he could attend college.
William J. Gibbs Jr.
Wilson County News
June 17, 2008

LA VERNIA -- Imagine living in a place where you were denied food, services, and the furtherance of your education simply because of your spiritual beliefs.

Imagine night after night sitting awake with your gun in your lap, in an attempt to protect your home and family during a 16-year civil war that was provoked by the anger of radical Islamic factions trying to take over the government.

Imagine having to undergo 11 surgeries following a bombing that occurred while you were attempting to save the lives of an entire family.

These experiences were a memorable part of Nabil Aramouni’s upbringing in Beirut, Lebanon. The 46-year-old San Antonio resident said America might become such a place if Americans remain ignorant of the true nature of radical Islam, and how it is destroying the country from within. He voiced these concerns during a lecture titled “Are We to Consent to the Crescent on Our Flag?” at the May 27 meeting of the Wilson County Republican Women’s Club here.

Aramouni believes that while Muslim nations have not been successful in physically conquering the United States, the economic conquest has already begun.

“The price of gas is dominated by the Middle East,” he said. “Making prices higher puts an economic burden on us.”

According to Aramouni, the domination philosophy behind radical Islam is driven by the concept of Sharia law. Founded on the ancient principles of the Koran and Sunnah, Sharia law influences every aspect of Muslim life.

“Where Muslims exist, under Sharia law, the religion should be Islam,” he said. “Basically, they’re trying to take over in that way.”

Aramouni says those who wish to advance radical Islam are also attempting to do so by simply outnumbering their opposition. Fluent in Arabic, he often overheard some of the messages from the Lebanese imams in the mosques at night.

“They told people to ‘go and produce, have more kids. Don’t worry about the number of kids you have, we need to outnumber the Jews and the Christians,’” he said.

According to the Population Reference Bureau, there were more than 4.7 million Muslims living in the United States in 2005. That same year, there were a total of more than 1.3 billion -- about one in every six -- people worldwide who identified themselves as Muslim.

Because of the numerous governmental changes in Lebanon throughout time, Aramouni said, Arabs began to slowly infiltrate the Middle East’s only Christian country, bringing Islam with them. Squabbles throughout the years built up to a civil war, which lasted from 1975-91.

During the civil war, the rift between Muslims and Christians continued to grow. According to Aramouni, Beirut was split east and west, Christian and Muslim, respectively. Government-issued identification specified each person’s religious beliefs.

“During the war, we as Christians could not go into the Muslim area,” Aramouni said. “The American University of Beirut is in western Beirut, which is the Muslim area. I could not go there or I would have gotten killed.”

Christians were also restricted in obtaining bread, water, and electricity, which made life even more difficult for Aramouni, who is one of seven children.

“When I was a Boy Scout, we broke into a bakery to get flour and water so we could make bread for us to eat,” Aramouni said. “My dad knew a Muslim Sunni who would bring water, flour, and rice to the border at night for us.”

Aramouni, like many other teens and young adults determined to fight for their country, volunteered for Lebanon’s Civil Defense Army. This move proved tragic, as it almost ended his life when he was 21. While en route to a house fire in which three children and their mother were trapped, the fire engine was bombed and Aramouni was critically injured.

“[The bombers] did not care,” Aramouni said. “They knew very well it was a firetruck.”

While in his hospital bed, during the course of 11 operations, Aramouni said he became a born-again Christian. Shortly after his release, he fled to the United States so he could attend college. He has since become an American citizen.

“Christians in Lebanon lost not by the physical war, but by the economic and psychological war,” Aramouni said. “Resistance was there, but they won the war by
having everything expensive and cutting power and water.”

While Aramouni admits that there are some Muslims who are genuinely good, friendly people, he said those who subscribe to the views of radical Islam are intent on taking over Lebanon and other countries like it.

“At one point, they want to push out the president and have an Islamic president and have the Islamic country of Lebanon,” Aramouni said. “What year is that going to be in the United States?”

At the end of his presentation, Aramouni displayed a picture of the American flag in its present form. Then, he displayed another flag where the crescent and star symbol depicted on national flags such as Algeria, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Turkey replaced the 50 stars.

“What will we do to stop [this] from happening?” Aramouni asked. “I hope our flag will never change.”

Now...Are you ready for this? Story from Atlas Shrugs



The goals of the New World Order are one World Government, One world currency, and ONE WORLD RELIGION. Are they preping us to become Muslims? Muslims are SO easy to control after Friday Prayers, are content to stay uneducated and poor. Perfect for the New World Order 3rd world slaves. Just visit any Islamic Paradise and get out of the tourist areas. Most of these countries reached the ultimate level of civilization for their times. Now look at them. What do they ALL have in common?

Jack Wilson

This is despicable. Just like during the primary debates with Hillary, Barry is flipping America off right in the open. How can anyone look at his actions and say that he is not muslim? This guy is a blank slate for his believers to project their desires on.

I was just looking for words to say while signing in and believe me you wouldn't want your drunken sailor boy friend to hear them...Yes this is despicable and every other friggin' adjective you can put on it. This crap has got to stop and the sooner the better...November can't come soon enough!


At first, I looked at the logo as having unintentional similarities to the islamic crescent and star.

But now, the more I see it... That is definitely an intentional crescent and star. What purpose, besides islam, would those two coupled symbols have in the field of missile defense systems? Any? Does anyone know?

I can understand the star - striking and destroying missiles in the upper atmosphere or even in space. Even the blue field within the crescent could be explained as sky. But why isn't the earth, presumably the circle inside the crescent filled? Why is the atmosphere around the 'earth' crescent shaped (see the MAS logo) instead of symmetrical?

Other examples of the crescent surrounding earth symbol, check Alex Rawls' comment (#65) at Gateway Pundit.

I suspect this design was created by a muslim artist, and probably given preference in the name of diversity.


America DOES have a muslim president.

Coming To The Big House (SCOTUS) ...2nd Amendment stuff...stuff you need to know

Personally I think the upcoming hearing is a complete waste of time. The Supreme Court cannot apply the 2nd Amendment to the States... It is not written in the Constitution! The Constitution gives the citizens (not the states) the right to bear arms...and that right shall not be infringed. Period! Any judge who rules against the citizens rights should and must me fired...not impeached, FIRED! Fired, imprisoned for life, and lose all benefits and retirement pay...this is serious stuff and must be dealt with seriously to prevent future judges from tampering with one of our basic rights. In order to preserve the Union we must first preserve our freedom; one cannot exist without the other...wake up SCOTUS ! It's all about freedom! ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source: Winds Of Change

The Path Not Taken: Will the Supreme Court Apply the 2nd Amendment to the States?

No, you're not mistakenly on Volokh - here's a thoughful legal analysis of upcoming 2nd Amendment litigation from commenter Roland Nikles:

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court struck down a Washington D.C. gun control ordinance and confirmed that the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants an individual right to bear arms. It's about more than well regulated militias. The question now is does the Second Amendment similarly restrict state and local government gun control statutes. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on this question Tuesday, March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago.

This case will make a big splash in the news, so here's a quick primer. The Bill of Rights binds Congress. The second amendment applied in Heller because Congress is in charge of the District of Columbia. In order to understand the issue before the court you must know that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first ten amendments adopted in 1791) does not apply to the states as such. See, e.g. U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) 92 U.S. 542. Instead, the court has selectively made provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This substantive due process analysis asks the question whether a particular right is so fundamental that it is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" so that it must be binding on the states. For example, in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 at 324-25 (1937) the court found that the fifth amendment right against double jeopardy is of such a fundamental nature that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus binding on the states.

The court did not need to take this path of substantive due process analysis. (Frost). It could have, and probably should have said that the Bill of Rights is binding on the states by virtue of the privileges and immunities clause in the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If there is a second amendment right to bear arms as a U.S. citizen, which the court has found in Heller, the court's analysis might be that states may not abridge the "privileges and immunities," broadly understood as rights, granted by the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms. However, this argument is foreclosed without some serious backtracking because for the past 139 years, since The Slaughterhouse Cases, the court has gone down a different path - the path of substantive due process.

In McDonald the NRA is challenging the gun control measures of the cities of Oak Park and Chicago. The substantive due process path the court has taken for the past 139 years presents a problem for the claimants. Is the right to own a gun without registration so fundamental that it is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty?" The answer to this question is not so clear. Based on substantive due process analysis, you might think that the concepts of federalism, state rights, and public interest to exercise the police power to control gun violence should trump an individual's right to pack a Saturday night special in a crowded bar without a permit. For this reason, the NRA in McDonald is asking the court to overturn 139 years of constitutional doctrine, to go back to the road not taken in The Slaughterhouse Cases, and make the second amendment directly applicable to the states through the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

The popular view is that Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would be willing to do this. They are not fans of substantive due process analysis. Among other things, substantive due process analysis has been used to create rights that are not enumerated anywhere in the constitution, e.g. the right of privacy (Griswold, Roe). The whole movement of originalist interpretation has fought against this. It may be that these four justices would be willing to go back 139 years, declare the path of substantive due process a mistake and a dead end, and make the entire Bill of Rights applicable to the states through the privileges and immunities clause. This would invite attack on all of the substantive due process cases based on "privacy" and other unenumerated rights.

Throwing out 139 years of constitutional history would be a revolutionary act. The implications would be far reaching and unpredictable. For this reason, my money is on Kennedy joining the liberal wing of the court and rejecting the privileges and immunities argument in this case. If so, the likely outcome will be that the 2nd Amendment will not be made applicable to the states because the right to be free from gun control legislation is not so fundamental as to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Stay tuned.


"If so, the likely outcome will be that the 2nd Amendment will not be made applicable to the states because the right to be free from gun control legislation is not so fundamental as to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Which flies directly in the face of the entire explicitly stated intention and text of the Bill of Rights. The Right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights because it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. If you can argue that away you can argue any of the rest away. Hence if the 1st or 4th or 5th amendment are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, the 2nd must be by nature of the others. This seems to me inescapable- if you consider these rights fundamental, resulting in their inclusion in the bill of rights... or if you consider them fundamental because they are in the bill of rights, either way I don't see how you can take some but not all without doing away with equating the bill of rights as fundamental to human liberty.

Yeah, it seems to me the goalie is defending against a wide shot when the attack is coming right down the middle.

Mark and Demosophist:

Mark is correctly expressing the rationale to extend the 2nd Amendment to the states through substantive due process analysis. Based on Heller I think we can say that Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor will defer to the states. It will be very interesting to see where Kennedy comes out on it. One outcome may be Kennedy joins the Stevens group for the "privileges and immunities" clause argument and that he joins the Scalia group for the incorporation through substantive due process clause, as Mark suggests.

The Right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights because it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

Well, to be a bit clearer this sounds a little clouded to me. If it were implicit why bother to make it explicit? That is, the whole notion that the Bill of Rights isn't binding on the states without the concepts expressed in the 14th Amendment has its origins in the long history of slavery, and the fairly obvious fact that these rights were not considered implicit for slaves. Clearly this was a flaw, but it's not entirely clear that it was a flaw in the law. Viewed this way the 14th Amendment merely makes clear what ought to have been clear all along. And assuming we, as a society, have caught up to the original intent... the clauses referenced in the 14th are somewhat redundant.

I wanted to say thanks to Roland for this. We've crossed swords on other topics, but this is an excellent framing of the issues. The explanation leaves me glad to be a member of the NRA, but somewhat puzzled why it takes a left of center attorney to explain the stakes more clearly than they do...

Second Tim's points. Thanks, Roland.