"They'll Be Lined Up Against The Wall And Shot" ...Whew! How's that for a warning?

 

 

The last video was selected because I have had personal friends

who have been brainwashed by ideological subversion

...only they don't know it ...yet!

Why would Obama want to keep his visitors secret? ...we have the answer!

Remember this? (click on record to enlarge)

Excel sheet:

Obama now wants to hide his scumbags.

___________________________

Source: Pamela Geller

Obama's Secret White House Meetings: Seeks to Keep Visitor Logs Confidential

Despite the poo-pooing, it appears that those visitor logs and what they reveal are a bone of contention with the fascist in the White House. I suspect that the freedom of information act will become a relic of the past, much as freedom of speech will.
Judicial Watch had to sue to get the visitor logs made public. Why would Obama want to keep his visitors secret? Who is he meeting with, and why? He is meeting with worst scum of the earth. That's why. Enemies of America, haters of liberty, individual rights, haters of life and the pursuit of happiness.
WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: Farrakhan, Ayers, Wright, Sharpton, Jackson are in da house
and this Frequent White House Visitors and Radical Hate Sponsors Code Pink to Muslims: ‘Help Us Cleanse Our Country’...

Obama lawyers want more secrecy at White House WND
Say court precedents over FOIA application to visitor logs 'decided wrong'
The federal government is arguing that previous court rulings applying the Freedom of Information Act to records such as the visitor logs at the White House are incorrect, and President Obama's administration should be allowed to withhold from the public the information it chooses.
A new government brief filed in a court dispute over the records argues, instead, that people with questions about who visits the White House should go to the White House website and ask for the information, and if the president agrees, it could be released.
The April 21 brief filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia insisted the court should hold that "visitor records are presidential records, particularly given the fact that the White House is voluntarily disclosing the records to the public."
Further, the records assembled and used by the United States Secret Service are not even in the "custody" of the federal agency, since they are transferred periodically onto computer disk and given to the White House, the filing said.
"The Obama administration would undermine a key transparency law in order to keep White House visitor logs secret," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which has been fighting for more than a decade over visitor logs.
"Only the Obama administration could offer to release pre-scrubbed White House visitor logs while withholding tens of thousands of other records and call it transparency," he said.
"President Obama has violated his campaign promises of openness and transparency. We hope the court will do what is had done on previous occasions and uphold FOIA law," he said.
This visitor-log dispute with the Obama administration began last year when Judicial Watch first requested records of who is coming in and out of the White House, then filed a lawsuit.
Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan, political watchdog group, originally began seeking public disclosure of White House visitors 15 years ago. Through multiple legal victories, Judicial Watch uncovered records of Monica Lewinsky's visits during the Clinton administration and of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits during the Bush years.

Lying From The Top Down...so you wanted change?

Is there a new life form over at CNN?  Finally someone is making sense out of The Most Trusted Name In News...it makes sense to me! Cafferty Blasts Obama!  Wow!  Biff, bam, blast 'em!  And after you finish watching Cafferty's video check out yet another resurrection over at the New York Times, "Why Arizona Drew A Line".  What's going on with the main stream media?  Have they finally figured out the fallacies of the Left?  ~ Norman E. Hooben

_______________________

Lying From The Top Down

see 'change' picture at bottom of page

Cafferty Blasts Obama...ummm does that feel good!

__________________

The following should be a feature on 'Ripley's Believe It Or Not' ...believe it or not the following came from non other than the New York Times!  ummm, does that feel good!

---

April 29, 2010

Op-Ed Contributor

Why Arizona Drew a Line

By KRIS W. KOBACH

Kansas City, Kan.

ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.

________________________________

So you wanted change?  ...you got it!

One Chitty Deal! Will Round Two Be A Chitty Deal?

Hello, I am Winston Smith... Pennsylvania Admits Its 1984

I remember long before I had read Orwell's 1984 the talk that went around regarding Big Brother ...more like "big brother is watching" and it was sort of taken with a grain of salt. Now it has been so many years since I've read the book I cannot remember when it was...not sure if it was compulsory reading in college or I just read it at my leisure, but any event Winston Smith (a character in Orwell's 1984) is with us in 2010. The InfoWars commentary below brings back a picture of a sign looked at by Smith... but before I go on about the sign, and maybe it was what I had said just a few days ago that made the connection with the word, "Orwellian". Writing on another post I fielded these words, "I use to think that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the experts in deceit but along comes Obama and now the whole world is turned upside down...right is wrong, no is yes, no tax means more tax, and the list goes on..." and now the printed sign seen by Winston Smith, "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH". I hope you see the juxtaposition of his sign and my words...quite a similarity to say the least! So you see Winston is me and I am Winston...I couldn't have been more clearer. Right! Meanwhile back at the ranch, we now have a government that openly admits it's Orwellian control over individuals as pointed out in both the commentary and video below. ~ Norman E. Hooben

ps: Is Rahm Emanuel the guy that gives the daily hate speeches in 1984 ...think about it!

______________________

The following from InfoWars.com



Orwellian Big Brother Tax Collection Commercial Airs in Pennsylvania



Keith Farrell - Infowars.com May 2, 2010



We’re not living in an Orwellian Police state; it’s all just a conspiracy theory. However, that’s not what Pennsylvania’s government is telling their citizens. In what can only be described as a mafia-style intimidation tactic, the Pennsylvanian government is telling citizens there that they “know who you are”. The video shows a satellite image zooming in on and individual’s home while a computerized voice informs him that they know who he is and that he owes $4,212 in back taxes. The voice then proceeds to tell him that they can make it easy for him if he pays quickly. The ad then closes with a threatening message: “FIND US BEFORE WE FIND YOU”.

What is more disturbing than the ad itself is that governments are now finding it suitable to announce to us that we are living in an Orwellian police state and that we are all being monitored. “Pay up, or we will find you. We know where you live. We are watching you.” This commercial is a chilling confirmation that we are living in an Orwellian nightmare.

More about the tax amnesty here:

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/video/Bernie_Dagenais_Tax_Amnesty_04_02_10