Thursday, July 2, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The ONLY President Who Told the Truth
I have always held President John F. Kennedy in high regards. I think he was the last GOOD president we've ever had. From the moment he took office until the moment he was killed, he was all about taking care of the United States needs. He didn't play the kiss-ass game with other countries. When in 1962, the U.S.S.R. moved nuclear missiles into Cuba to intimidate us and scare us, he did not back down and thus the Cuban Missile Crisis began. Russia was the one to back down, not us.
Today, all Obama seems interested in is making us look like a bunch of rich, no-good, lazy Americans who do nothing but take, take and take more. He announced we're no longer considered a Christian nation. Well, I don't know what country's Constitution HE'S reading but mine says, we ARE a Christian nation. We were founded for religious freedom, for God's sake!!! We are free to worship (or not worship) any God we choose but that doesn't mean we're not still a Christian nation. He's so full of shit, that's why his eyes are brown!
However, this President told the truth! He might have been a slut puppy, sleeping with anyone in a dress, but HE put US first. You have to admire this man!
Today, all Obama seems interested in is making us look like a bunch of rich, no-good, lazy Americans who do nothing but take, take and take more. He announced we're no longer considered a Christian nation. Well, I don't know what country's Constitution HE'S reading but mine says, we ARE a Christian nation. We were founded for religious freedom, for God's sake!!! We are free to worship (or not worship) any God we choose but that doesn't mean we're not still a Christian nation. He's so full of shit, that's why his eyes are brown!
However, this President told the truth! He might have been a slut puppy, sleeping with anyone in a dress, but HE put US first. You have to admire this man!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
A School Teacher Bashes Obama!!!
A School Teacher Bashes Obama
Mr. Obama:
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your
conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are
not an adequate representative of the United States of America
collectively or of me personally.
You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim
world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President
of the United States of America .. You are responsible to the
citizens of the United States ... You are not responsible to the
peoples of any other country on earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for
the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not
care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the
First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the
consideration of the peoples of Europe ? Are you brain dead? What
do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand
or know the history of the 20th century?
Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United
States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not
read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the
United States ? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics
and the principles governing this country, at least until you came
along, come directly from this heritage.. Do you not understand this?
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all
Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the
king of Saudi Arabia . You don't show Great Britain , our best and one
of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to
the king of Saudi Arabia . How dare you, sir! How dare you!
You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest
generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time
to visit a mosque in Turkey . You offended our dead and every veteran
when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the
German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?
I am convinced that you and the members of your administration
have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should
be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the
American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real
thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines,
Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses.
What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in
bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in
automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand
the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to
save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that.
Who authorized that? I surely didn't!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210
million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million
more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives
have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who
authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this
group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right
now.
I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead
and not caring about what you idiots do.
We are watching what you are doing and we are getting
increasingly fed up with all of you.
I also want you to know that I personally find just about
everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my
sensibilities.
I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not
get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
Sincerely, Every real American
P.S. I rarely ask that emails be 'passed around'...PLEASE SEND THIS
TO YOUR EMAIL LIST...it's past time for all Americans to wake up!
Ms Kathleen Lyday
Fourth Grade Teacher
Grandview Elementary School
11470 Hwy. C
Hillsboro , MO 63050
(636) 944-3291 Phone
(636) 944-3870 Fax
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your
conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are
not an adequate representative of the United States of America
collectively or of me personally.
You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim
world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President
of the United States of America .. You are responsible to the
citizens of the United States ... You are not responsible to the
peoples of any other country on earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for
the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not
care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the
First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the
consideration of the peoples of Europe ? Are you brain dead? What
do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand
or know the history of the 20th century?
Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United
States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not
read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the
United States ? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics
and the principles governing this country, at least until you came
along, come directly from this heritage.. Do you not understand this?
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all
Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the
king of Saudi Arabia . You don't show Great Britain , our best and one
of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to
the king of Saudi Arabia . How dare you, sir! How dare you!
You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest
generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time
to visit a mosque in Turkey . You offended our dead and every veteran
when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the
German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?
I am convinced that you and the members of your administration
have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should
be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the
American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real
thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines,
Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses.
What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in
bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in
automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand
the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to
save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that.
Who authorized that? I surely didn't!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210
million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million
more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives
have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who
authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this
group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right
now.
I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead
and not caring about what you idiots do.
We are watching what you are doing and we are getting
increasingly fed up with all of you.
I also want you to know that I personally find just about
everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my
sensibilities.
I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not
get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
Sincerely, Every real American
P.S. I rarely ask that emails be 'passed around'...PLEASE SEND THIS
TO YOUR EMAIL LIST...it's past time for all Americans to wake up!
Ms Kathleen Lyday
Fourth Grade Teacher
Grandview Elementary School
11470 Hwy. C
Hillsboro , MO 63050
(636) 944-3291 Phone
(636) 944-3870 Fax
Questions and Answers About Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.
EXCLUSIVE: Minn. lawmaker vows not to complete Census
Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.
In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times "America's Morning News," Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become "very intricate, very personal" and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau's door-to-door information collection efforts.
"I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home," she said. "We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."
Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is "misreading" the law.
She sent a portion of the U.S. legal code that says anyone over 18 years of age who refuses to answer "any of the questions" on the census can be fined up to $5,000.
The Constitution requires a census be taken every 10 years. Questions range from number of persons in the household and racial information to employment status and whether anyone receives social services such as food stamps.
Mrs. Bachmann said she's worried about the involvement of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, in next year's census.
Homeland Insecurity - Pentagon Pulls Description of Protesters as "Terrorists"
HOMELAND INSECURITY
Pentagon pulls description of protesters as 'terrorists'
But term apparently used by law enforcement 'regularly'
Posted: June 19, 2009
8:13 pm Eastern
Pentagon pulls description of protesters as 'terrorists'
But term apparently used by law enforcement 'regularly'
Posted: June 19, 2009
8:13 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The Department of Defense has withdrawn a training manual question that linked protesters across the United States to terrorism, but there's evidence coming to light that describing Americans as terror suspects, or "low-level" terror suspects, is routine.
According to the letter from the Northern California ACLU, the DoD's "Annual Level 1 Antiterrorism (AT) Awareness Training for 2009" tells department personnel "that certain First Amendment-protected activity may amount to 'low-level terrorism.'"
Specifically the training "Knowledge Check 1" asks, "Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?"
The multiple choices are: Attacking the Pentagon, IEDs, Hate crimes against racial groups and Protests.
The correct answer in the training course is "Protests."
Now, according to a Fox News report, the Pentagon has withdrawn the question.
A spokesman told the network the question didn't make it clear what the difference was between violent and illegal actions and peaceful protests, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
"They should have made it clearer," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk told Fox. He declined to specify when the line would be crossed from one into the other.
But he said all of the 1,546 people who took the exam and saw the question will be notified of the "error" and told that there is a difference between lawful objections and violent unrest.
The whole episode developed just weeks after a scandal erupted over a Department of Homeland Security report that described as "right-wing extremists" those who oppose abortion and support secure national borders.
The Department of Defense situation was revealed by blogger Dennis Loo at Salon.com.
He cited an ACLU complaint demanding that the DoD change its instructions and those who have been given the training be told of the modifications by "sending out corrective materials."
Loo reported at the time that the use of the term apparently is routine.
"I have just learned of a scholarly conference paper presented earlier this year that underscores the fact that the DoD training's use of 'low-level terrorism' is hardly an anomaly. 'Low level terrorism' is a term regularly being used by state security agencies," he wrote.
Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, has told WND that as part of his organization's research for its lawsuit over the DHS "extremism" report, it has discovered additional information that it is withholding now but will include in a pending amended complaint.
Thompson said one of the things that sparked the organization's curiosity was a reference by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in the original report to not only government resources but also non-governmental resources.
Thompson said the information he has "creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs."
On the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based activist group that leans strongly left, there are boasts about the organization's effort to "train" a number of "local, state and federal law enforcement officers" about terror suspects, "hate crimes" and similar topics.
"We focus on the history, background, leaders and activities of far-right extremists in the U.S.," the website says. "Training sessions last from two to four hours and are tailored to fit the requesting agency's requirements."
Further, whatever the relationship may be between the DHS and the SPLC, the DHS has given several hundred million dollars in recent years to set up Fusion Centers – a focused investigatory facility – in several locations around the nation. And it apparently was out of one of those centers that came a recent state report in Missouri that identified people with third-party political candidate bumper stickers as suspect in the war on terror.
The SPLC said it has worked within a "groundbreaking partnership with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) that culminated in new courses on hate and bias crimes. … Courses are offered both online and in the classroom, and teach officers to recognize and respond to hate crimes. Academic and continuing education credit is granted by California State University, San Bernardino to officers who complete the online course.
"Intelligence Project staff also offer in-person trainings on extremist activity to law enforcement and offer their expertise to educational and other groups," the SPLC said.
The SPLC also writes of its "Hate Crime Training" work.
"Intelligence Project staff have been involved in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's hate and bias crime 'train-the-trainer' program since its inception in 1992. FLETC trains personnel for more than 75 federal law enforcement agencies and provides services for local, state and international agencies.
"FLETC invited Intelligence Project personnel to help develop and write courses for a training program to improve the recognition, reporting and investigating of hate crimes. A member of the Intelligence Project staff taught one of the program's first pilot classes in New Jersey in 1994 and continues to instruct FLETC classes today," the SPLC says.
The concept of "hate crimes" is being pushed through Congress, with hundreds of thousands of letters opposing it as bigoted having been delivered to members of the Senate through a write-in campaign.
Under the measure pending in a Senate committee and scheduled for a hearing next week, crimes based on the "perception" of sexual orientation would be prosecuted as more serious than the same physical action without the "perception" of sexual orientation.
Several House members who have been critical have been Reps. Steve King of Iowa and Louis Gohmert of Texas. King offered an amendment that stated nothing in the law could be used to protect pedophiles from criminal charges, but majority Democrats refused to accept it.
"Legalize the Constitution" bumper sticker
Gohmert, a former judge, said that could make it the Pedophile Protection Act, because when something is not specifically stated in a law, a judge would look at the "intent" of the writers, and in this case they had the opportunity to make sure pedophiles were not protected and chose not to do that.
The earlier DHS report was "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." WND has posted the report online for readers to see.
The report linked returning veterans with the possibility of terrorism, and when it was released it created such a furor for Napolitano she has given several explanations for it, including that she would have reworded the report and that it was issued by a rogue employee.
She later apologized to veterans for having linked them to terror.
But Thompson noted that the report also targeted as "potential terrorists" Americans who:
- Oppose abortion
- Oppose same-sex marriage
- Oppose restrictions on firearms
- Oppose lax immigration laws
- Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
- Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
- Are suspect of foreign regimes
- Fear Communist regimes
- Oppose a "one world" government
- Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
- Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more
Thompson told WND no apology has been offered to the members of any of those classes of citizens.
Thompson said the original "extremism" report was "the tip of the iceberg. … Conservative Americans should be very outraged."
The Thomas More Law Center filed its lawsuit against Napolitano and the DHS on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Inc. and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.
It alleges the federal agency violated the First and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights of the three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that DHS encouraged law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.
Back in the U.S.S.A.
by Peter Schiff
June 20, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Euro Pacific Capital
Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: “the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying ‘You see, without me you couldn’t walk.’” That maxim is clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed this week by the Obama Administration.
In seeking to undo the damage inflicted over the past decade by misguided government policies, the new regulatory regime would ensure that the problems underlying our financial system will only get worse. As was the case with the deeply flawed Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of 2002, or the misguided provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001, such as the torturous anti-money laundering requirements, the move will further burden the financial services industry with unnecessary regulation that will drive up costs, lower quality, and shelter the biggest and least innovative companies. Ultimately, the structure will put the entire U.S. financial industry at a global competitive disadvantage.
The underlying problem is that the excessive risk taking which brought about the crisis was not market-driven, but a direct consequence of government interference with risk-inhibiting market forces. Rather than learning from its mistakes and allowing market forces to once again control risks and efficiently allocate resources, the government is merely repeating its mistakes on a grander scale – thereby sowing the seeds for an even greater crisis in the future.
As is typical of government attempts to control economic outcomes, Obama’s plans focuses on the symptoms of the disease and not the cause. The American financial system imploded for two reasons: cheap money and moral hazard – both of which were supplied by the government. Under the proposed new regulatory structures, these toxic ingredients will be combined in ever-increasing quantities.
The proposals most notably involve extra regulatory oversight of financial entities that the government deems “too big to fail.” This implies that it is desirable to have such entities in the first place, and that the government will continue to back those large organizations that fall under its protection. These “too big to fail” firms will enjoy a competitive advantage over smaller firms in attracting capital, as lenders will perceive zero risk in extending them credit. This will cause these firms to grow even larger, producing even greater systemic risks and larger losses when the next round of bailouts arrives. Meanwhile, smaller firms which seek to expand, and which propose no systemic risks, will face greater challenges as higher capital costs render them less competitive.
by Peter Schiff
June 20, 2009
Copyright © 2009 Euro Pacific Capital
Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: “the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying ‘You see, without me you couldn’t walk.’” That maxim is clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed this week by the Obama Administration.
In seeking to undo the damage inflicted over the past decade by misguided government policies, the new regulatory regime would ensure that the problems underlying our financial system will only get worse. As was the case with the deeply flawed Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of 2002, or the misguided provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001, such as the torturous anti-money laundering requirements, the move will further burden the financial services industry with unnecessary regulation that will drive up costs, lower quality, and shelter the biggest and least innovative companies. Ultimately, the structure will put the entire U.S. financial industry at a global competitive disadvantage.
The underlying problem is that the excessive risk taking which brought about the crisis was not market-driven, but a direct consequence of government interference with risk-inhibiting market forces. Rather than learning from its mistakes and allowing market forces to once again control risks and efficiently allocate resources, the government is merely repeating its mistakes on a grander scale – thereby sowing the seeds for an even greater crisis in the future.
As is typical of government attempts to control economic outcomes, Obama’s plans focuses on the symptoms of the disease and not the cause. The American financial system imploded for two reasons: cheap money and moral hazard – both of which were supplied by the government. Under the proposed new regulatory structures, these toxic ingredients will be combined in ever-increasing quantities.
The proposals most notably involve extra regulatory oversight of financial entities that the government deems “too big to fail.” This implies that it is desirable to have such entities in the first place, and that the government will continue to back those large organizations that fall under its protection. These “too big to fail” firms will enjoy a competitive advantage over smaller firms in attracting capital, as lenders will perceive zero risk in extending them credit. This will cause these firms to grow even larger, producing even greater systemic risks and larger losses when the next round of bailouts arrives. Meanwhile, smaller firms which seek to expand, and which propose no systemic risks, will face greater challenges as higher capital costs render them less competitive.
If the government did not provide these bailouts or guarantees, then the market itself would ensure organizations did not grow beyond their ability to attract capital. It is only when market discipline is overcome by government guarantees that systemic risks arise.
Obama proposes to entrust the critical job of “systemic risk regulator” to the Federal Reserve, the very organization that has proven most adept at creating systemic risk. This is like making Keith Richards the head of the DEA.
| |
Given the Federal Reserve’s disastrous monetary policy over the past decade, any attempt to expand the Fed’s role should be vigorously opposed. Through decades of short-sighted interest rate decisions, the Fed has proven time and again that it is only able to close the barn door after the entire herd has escaped. If setting interest rates had been left to the free market, none of the excesses we have seen in the credit market would have been remotely possible.
The perverse result will be that our government and the Fed gain more power as a direct result of their own incompetence. Such was also the case with Freddie and Fannie, which should have been allowed to fail, but were nationalized instead, leaving them in a position to do even more damage. The new round of regulations ignores them completely. Along those lines, ratings agencies such as Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s that completely missed the mark were also spared. Perhaps this special treatment is a way of ensuring that Treasury debt maintains its bogus AAA rating.
Unfortunately, despite their intent, my guess is that the new regulations will most severely impact smaller firms, like my own, that never engaged in reckless behavior. This will further reward those “too big to fail” firms, whose economies of scale and cozy relationships with regulators leave them better positioned than their smaller rivals to absorb the costs of the added red tape.
With the transition now fully under way, I propose we end the pretense and rename our country: “The United Socialist States of America.” In fact, given all the czars already in Washington, we might as well go with the Russian theme completely: appoint a Politburo, move into dilapidated housing blocks, and parade our missiles in the streets. On the bright side, there’s always the borscht.
June 20, 2009
Welcome to Wake Up, America!
This is a brand new blog that focuses on the political climate in America and in the world as a whole. One by one our Constitutional rights are being taken away and we need to do everything in our power to make sure that each and everyone of them is upheld and respected in criminal, civil and especially in family court. As a mother who had to deal with the system and knows just how badly our rights are disregarded in that arena, I have made it my mission to make everyone in America realize just how dangerous CPS agencies are to our way of life.
We do not have the right to raise our children as we see fit anymore. Homeschoolers are being targeted as well as certain religions, especially the ones that are not mainstream "religious" organizations such as Wiccan and other neo-pagan religions. For example, a 13 year old boy complained to his teacher that his parents made him go to church too much in a week (3 times to be exact - Sunday morning and night and Wednesday night services) and she encouraged him to call CPS. They removed him from the home and then made them promise they would not make him go to church more than once per week in order to regain custody of him. This is utterly ridiculous. I'm almost 49 years old and if I had done this to MY mother and grandmother, I wouldn't have been able to sit for a month! And rightly so! In another case, a mother had her child taken because she took her to the park and the child got a sunburn.
These are not isolated cases. Just last week an illegal immigrant gave birth and a nurse called CPS and reported her for endangering her newborn son because she could not speak English. The child was taken and placed into a foster care home. These things are happening every single day in America. In fact, I have another blog entitled "CPS - A System Out of Control" dedicated to fighting CPS agencies.
So while this blog will deal with politics mainly, it will also cover laws and bills in the works that deal directly with this corrupt, broken system. If you have any news articles or other information regarding these issues that you would like to share, please feel free to email me at bwalexander3@yahoo.com.
We do not have the right to raise our children as we see fit anymore. Homeschoolers are being targeted as well as certain religions, especially the ones that are not mainstream "religious" organizations such as Wiccan and other neo-pagan religions. For example, a 13 year old boy complained to his teacher that his parents made him go to church too much in a week (3 times to be exact - Sunday morning and night and Wednesday night services) and she encouraged him to call CPS. They removed him from the home and then made them promise they would not make him go to church more than once per week in order to regain custody of him. This is utterly ridiculous. I'm almost 49 years old and if I had done this to MY mother and grandmother, I wouldn't have been able to sit for a month! And rightly so! In another case, a mother had her child taken because she took her to the park and the child got a sunburn.
These are not isolated cases. Just last week an illegal immigrant gave birth and a nurse called CPS and reported her for endangering her newborn son because she could not speak English. The child was taken and placed into a foster care home. These things are happening every single day in America. In fact, I have another blog entitled "CPS - A System Out of Control" dedicated to fighting CPS agencies.
So while this blog will deal with politics mainly, it will also cover laws and bills in the works that deal directly with this corrupt, broken system. If you have any news articles or other information regarding these issues that you would like to share, please feel free to email me at bwalexander3@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)