Category Archives: politicians

Obama vs Santorum matchup would be good for the country, Kyle Scott, Political science professor, Duke University, Santorum message consistent with core Republican values

Obama vs Santorum matchup would be good for the country, Kyle Scott, Political science professor, Duke University, Santorum message consistent with core Republican values

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“He (Rick Santorum) had no problems with what I told him that I may be doing,”… Sheriff Joe Arpaio 

By  Kyle Scott, Political Science Professor at Duke University, and published in the Baltimore Sun February 14, 2012.

“An Obama-Santorum matchup would be good for the country
Obama vs. Santorum is the only contest where real issues would be the focus”

“Mitt Romney was the inevitable nominee — until he wasn’t.

In order to sustain a lead, a candidate’s message must resonate with the heart and the mind. Mr. Romney’s cakewalk to the nomination has been stymied by the inability to get anyone excited about his campaign. He has supporters but not believers.

Rick Santorum’s message resonates with voters’ hearts and minds (this week at least), because he is a true believer. He believes in his message, and his message is consistent with core Republican values. What gave Mr. Santorum the edge in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri can give him an edge in the general election against President Barack Obama.

Mr. Santorum speaks directly to issues that are most relevant to core Republicans. He focuses on social and cultural issues that evoke emotions, and emotions move people to vote, especially those who align themselves with a particular party. This has helped him do well in primaries and caucuses when core conservatives turn out to vote in greater numbers than independents.

Conventional wisdom states a candidate must win independents to win an election. But this is only true if independents show up to vote in large numbers.

Generally, independents are less likely to vote than party-identifiers. In 2008, Mr. Obama’s message and charisma evoked an emotional response from independents. But with the president failing to meet the expectations of many whom he energized in 2008, turnout among this bloc of voters is expected to be small in 2012, which means winning independents will be less important.

When independents stay at home, getting the party base to turn out becomes more important. Mr. Santorum has been able to do this, and Mr. Romney has not.

What pushed Mr. Santorum to the front in the most recent contests — and vaulted him into a tie with Mr. Romney in at least one national poll — was his ability to stay above the bickering and negativity that took place between Mr. Romney and Newt Gingrich. Mr. Santorum is not as susceptible to personal attacks, as he seems to have a clean personal life, as far as we know. This means to attack Mr. Santorum, one must attack his policy positions. This cannot be done in the GOP nomination process because to attack Mr. Santorum’s policy positions would be to attack the Republican platform.

This wouldn’t stop the president from criticizing Mr. Santorum’s policy positions in the general election, but it also means we would see a campaign in which policy would have to be discussed in a meaningful way. Could we be so lucky?

If Mr. Gingrich wins the nomination, the Obama campaign will go after his personal life and his over-the-top persona. If Mr. Romney wins the right to go up against the president, the focus will be on his tax returns, flip-flopping and his work at Bain Capital.

But if Mr. Santorum wins the nomination, he and the president will be forced to defend their respective parties’ views of what good government entails and which policies are best for the country. In other words, an Obama-Santorum matchup will focus on things that actually matter.

An election about issues is what this country needs. It may be too much to hope for, but it is a prospect we should all get excited about. To win the GOP nomination, Mr. Santorum must find a way to keep his campaign positive and issue-focused. Not only will it help him win the nomination, but it is the right thing to do.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-santorum-20120214,0,4766981.story

 

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.

2011 most corrupt politicians, Judicial Watch list, Obama Holder et al, Obama’s corrupt Chicago dealings continued to haunt him in 2011

2011 most corrupt politicians, Judicial Watch list, Obama Holder et al, Obama’s corrupt Chicago dealings continued to haunt him in 2011

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

From Judicial Watch December 26, 2011.

“Judicial Watch Announces Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2011”

“Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2011 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Former Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Attorney General Eric Holder
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
President Barack Obama
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Dishonorable Mentions for 2011 include:

Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY)
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius”

“President Barack Obama: President Obama makes Judicial Watch’s “Ten Most Wanted” list for a fifth consecutive year. (The former Illinois Senator was also a “Dishonorable Mention” in 2006.) And when it comes to Obama corruption, it may not get any bigger than Solyndra. Solyndra was once known as the poster child for the Obama administration’s massive “green energy” initiative, but it has become the poster child for the corruption that ensues when the government meddles in the private sector. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in September 2011, leaving 1,100 workers without jobs and the American taxpayers on the hook for $535 million thanks to an Obama administration stimulus loan guarantee.

Despite the Obama administration’s reticence to release details regarding this scandal, much is known about this shady deal. White House officials warned the president that the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program was “dangerously short on due diligence,” nonetheless the Obama administration rushed the Solyndra loan through the approval process so it could make a splash at a press event. The company’s main financial backer was a major Obama campaign donor named George Kaiser. While the White House said Kaiser never discussed the loan with White House officials, the evidence suggests this is a lie. And, further demonstrating the political nature of the Obama administration’s activities, the Energy Department pressured Solyndra to delay an announcement on layoffs until after the 2010 elections. Despite the public outrage at this scandalous waste of precious tax dollars, President Obama continues to defend the indefensible and has refused to sack anyone over the Solyndra mess.

President Obama continues to countenance actions by his appointees that undermine the rule of law and constitutional government:

Despite a ban on funding that Obama signed into law, his administration continues to fund the corrupt and allegedly defunct “community” organization ACORN. In July 2011 Judicial Watch uncovered a $79,819 grant to AHCOA (Affordable Housing Centers of America), the renamed ACORN Housing which has a long history of corrupt activity. In absolute violation of the funding ban, Judicial Watch has since confirmed that the Obama administration has funneled $730,000 to the ACORN network, a group that has a long personal history with President Obama.In 2011, JW released a special report entitled “The Rebranding of ACORN,” which details how the ACORN network is alive and well and well-placed to undermine the integrity of the 2012 elections – evidently with the assistance of the Obama administration.

Barack Obama apparently believes it is his “prerogative” to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law when it comes to appointing czars. According to Politico: “President Barack Obama is planning to ignore language in the 2011 spending package that would ban several top White House advisory posts. Obama said this ban on “czars” would undermine “the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In other words, Barack Obama believes he must ignore the U.S. Constitution to protect the U.S. Constitution. Many Obama administration czars have not been subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate as required by the U.S. Constitution. In 2011, JW released a first-of-its-kind comprehensive report on the Obama czar scandal, entitled “President Obama’s Czars.”

In an historic victory for Judicial Watch and an embarrassing defeat for the Obama White House, a federal court ruled on August 17, 2011 that Secret Service White House visitor logs are agency records that are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued the decision in Judicial Watch v. Secret Service. The Obama administration now will have to release all records of all visitors to the White House – or explain why White House visits should be kept secret under the law. The Obama White House continues to fight full disclosure and has stalled the release of records by appealing the lower court decision.(Judicial Watch gave Obama a “failing grade” on transparency in testimony before Congress in 2011. (Read the testimony in full as well as additional congressional testimony during a hearing entitled “White House Transparency, Visitor Logs and Lobbyists.”))

In 2011, the Obama National Labor Relations Board sought to prevent the Seattle-based Boeing Company from opening a $750 million non-union assembly line in North Charleston, South Carolina, to manufacture its Dreamliner plane. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) showing this lawsuit was politically motivated. Judicial Watch uncovered documents showing NLRB staff cheerleading for Big Labor, mouthing Marxist, anti-American slurs and showing contempt for Congress related to the agency’s lawsuit against Boeing, including email correspondence attacking members of Congress. And it starts at the top. Obama bypassed Congress and recess-appointed Craig Becker, who is connected to the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and ACORN, to the NRLB.

Obama’s corrupt Chicago dealings continued to haunt him in 2011.Obama’s real estate partner, campaign fundraiser and Obama pork recipient Antoin “Tony” Rezko was finally sentenced to jail this year as was former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is now set to serve 14 years for attempting to sell Obama’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. The FBI continues to withhold from Judicial Watch documents of its historic interview of then-Senator Obama about the Illinois corruption scandal. The FBI interview was conducted in December, 2008, about one month before Obama was sworn into the presidency.”

“Attorney General Eric Holder: Attorney General Eric Holder now operates the most politicized and ideological Department of Justice (DOJ) in recent history. And revelations from the Operation Fast and Furious scandal suggest that programs approved by the Holder DOJ may have resulted in the needless deaths of many, including a federal law enforcement officer.

Fast and Furious was a DOJ/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “gun-running” operation in which guns were sold to Mexican drug cartels and others, apparently in hopes that the guns would end up at crime scenes. This reckless insanity seems to have resulted in, among other crimes, the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed in a shootout with Mexican criminals in December 2010. Fast and Furious guns were found at the scene of his death.

The Fast and Furious operation by itself should have resulted in Holder’s resignation, but it is the cover-up that has prompted serious calls for Holder’s ouster.

On May 3, 2011, in a House Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Holder testified: “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” Newly released documents show he was receiving weekly briefings on Fast and Furious as far back as July 5, 2010. It appears Holder lied to Congress. (Judicial Watch sued the DOJ and the ATF to obtain Fast and Furious records. The Judicial Watch investigation continues.)

Unfortunately, when it comes to Holder corruption and abuse of office, Fast and Furious is just the tip of the iceberg.

On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that DOJ lawyers would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as applied to homosexual couples. DOMA had passed Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House. President Clinton signed the act into law on September 21, 1996.

Judicial Watch filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the DOJ (including one on behalf of the Family Research Council) for records related to this pro-homosexual marriage decision. This failure to defend this federal law is unprecedented and raises serious questions as to whether President Obama and Eric Holder are upholding their oaths of office and following the Constitution’s command to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The DOJ continues to stonewall the release of information regarding Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s participation in Obamacare discussions when she served as Solicitor General. In addition to forcing Judicial Watch to file a lawsuit to obtain this information, Holder’s DOJ thumbed its nose at Congress by failing to release this material to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Kagan’s judicial confirmation hearing. Holder continues to personally resist requests from Judicial Watch and Congress for additional information on this controversy. Kagan’s role in these discussions is especially significant now that the U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will consider challenges to the constitutionality of Obamacare in Spring 2012.

New revelations emerged in 2011 about the DOJ’s Black Panther scandal. Judicial Watch uncovered evidence that the liberal special interest group National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) may have had an inappropriate amount of influence on the DOJ’s decision to drop its voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense. This comes on the heels of sworn testimony that the Civil Rights Division of the Holder DOJ makes enforcement decisions based upon race.

Most recently, Judicial Watch obtained shocking documents suggesting the Holder DOJ is conspiring with scandal-ridden Project Vote (President Obama’s former employer and ACORN front) to use the National Voter Registration Act to increase welfare voter registrations. One former ACORN employee (and current Project Vote Director of Advocacy), Estelle Rogers, is even helping to vet job candidates for the Justice Department’s Voting Rights Division! (ACORN and Project Vote have a long record of voter registration fraud.)

Seeming to affirm ACORN’s hijacking of the DOJ, Holder recently said in a speech that he plans to use “the full weight” of the agency in 2012 to attack states that are enforcing laws that protect against fraud in the voting booths. This speech ended the pretense that the DOJ is independent from the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign – as it repeated almost verbatim the partisan arguments made by the Democratic Party against voter ID laws.

Holder must go. Pick your reason – Black Panthers, race-based decision making, abandoning the Defense of Marriage Act, Fast and Furious killings and lies, or turning the DOJ into an arm of the radicalized left – but Holder must go.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/

 

Sharon Bialek Herman Cain accuser, Bialek hugged Cain at Tea Party event, Schaumburg Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center

Sharon Bialek Herman Cain accuser, Bialek hugged Cain at Tea Party event, Schaumburg Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center

From the Chicago SunTimes November 8, 2011.

“Witness: Cain accuser hugged him during Tea Party meeting a month ago”

“The Cain Encounter …

They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends.

She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear.

She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.”

Huh?

“I don’t know if what she was giving him was a sucker punch, but he didn’t put his arm down while she was talking to him,” said the Sneed source.

◆The “he”… is GOP presidential contender Herman Cain, who has been accused of sexual harassment by several women.

◆The “she”… is Chicagoan Sharon Bialek, who held a news conference Tuesday as the only woman to PUBLICLY accuse Cain of sexual harassment.

◆The Sneed source … is WIND radio co-host Amy Jacobson, who tells Sneed she witnessed the Cain/Bialek encounter a month ago while backstage at the AM 560 WIND sponsored TeaCon meeting in Schaumburg Sept. 30-Oct. 1 at the Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center.

◆Quoth Jacobson: “I had turned on TV to find out who was Cain’s accuser, and I almost fell over when I saw it was Sharon Bialek accusing Cain of groping her genitals.”

“I was waiting for Herman Cain’s ‘Accuser No. 4’ to surface — and up pops Sharon!”

“I couldn’t believe it. I was shocked.”

“I recall Sharon was hell bent on going backstage at the TeaCon convention — where she cornered him,” said Jacobson.

“I was surprised to hear she claims she did not know Cain was going to be there. Cain was expected and was late.”

Bialek told the media on Monday: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”

◆The encounter: “It looked sort of flirtatious,” said Jacobson. “I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”

◆The introduction: “It all began when I took a convention break and joined my pals at the hotel bar. Sharon was drinking Mimosas with them. She said she was a Republican, a Tea Party member, had once dated [White Sox sports announcer’ Steve Stone] and had worked at WGN radio.”

◆The rendezvous: Sharon also said she was anxious to meet Cain again and had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago. But she never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.”

◆The upshot: Bialek has since applied for employment in sales at WIND radio and is scheduled for a second interview Thursday.

http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/sneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html

Ron Paul blames America for 9/11, GOP debate, Monday, September 12, 2011, Whose side is Paul on?, Left wing propaganda

Ron Paul blames America for 9/11, GOP debate, Monday, September 12, 2011, Whose side is Paul on?, Left wing propaganda

“With friends like the Saudis, who needs enemies?”

“You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
   For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
   But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
   An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
   An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy
sees!”…Rudyard Kipling, “Tommy”

“Militant Islam derives from Islam but is a misanthropic, misogynist, triumphalist, millenarian, anti-modern, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, terroristic, jihadistic, and suicidal version of it. Fortunately, it appeals to only about 10 percent to 15 percent of Muslims, meaning that a substantial majority would prefer a more moderate version.”…Daniel Pipes

If you want politically correct, go somewhere else.

The US defeated Nazi Germany and Japan and then helped rebuild the countries.
In 1990 Saudi Arabia asked for US troops to help stop the invasion of Kuwait and ultimately protect the Saudis.
The French, Germans and Russians were in bed with Saddam Hussein. I believe that the US invasion of Iraq could have been avoided if the United Nations had done it’s job.

I could have blasted Ron Paul in late 2008 when he stated that he would be laughed out of Congress if he challenged Obama’s eligibility. I did not let Mr. Constitution have it then. He was behaving like the rest of the sheep.

I agree with Glenn Beck, some of the statements made by Ron Paul make sense. However, Paul crossed over the line when he blamed America for 9/11. It was irresponsible and wrong!

Ron Paul mentioned the Saudis when he spoke of American Military Bases. His speech sounded more like left wing propaganda and employed selective references. Here are some facts regarding the Saudis.

From Daniel Pipes, winter of 2002/2003.

“DanielPipes.org looks at the Middle East, Islam, terrorism, U.S.
foreign policy, and related topics from the perspective of an American
with a Ph.D. in medieval Middle East history who now heads a
current-affairs think tank, the Middle East Forum.”
“The Scandal of U.S.-Saudi Relations”

 
“Consider two symbolic moments in the U.S.-Saudi relationship involving
a visit by one leader to the other’s country. In November 1990,
President George H.W. Bush went to the Persian Gulf region with his
wife and top congressional leaders at Thanksgiving time to visit the
400,000 troops gathered in Saudi Arabia, whom he sent there to protect
that country from an Iraqi invasion. When the Saudi authorities
learned that the President intended to say grace before a festive
Thanksgiving dinner, they remonstrated; Saudi Arabia knows only one
religion, they said, and that is Islam. Bush acceded, and he and his
entourage instead celebrated the holiday on the U.S.S. Durham, an
amphibious cargo ship sitting in international waters.

In April 2002, as Crown Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, the country’s
effective ruler, was about to travel across Texas to visit President
George W. Bush, an advance group talked to the airport manager in Waco
(the airport serving the President’s ranch in Crawford) “and told him
they did not want any females on the ramp and also said there should
not be any females talking to the airplane.”[2] The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) at Waco complied with this request and passed it
to three other FAA stations on the crown prince’s route, which also
complied. Then, when queried about this matter, both the FAA and the
State Department joined the Saudi foreign minister in flat-out denying
that there ever was a Saudi request for male-only controllers.

The import of these incidents is clear enough: Official Americans in
Saudi Arabia bend to Saudi customs, and official Americans in the
United States do so as well. And it’s not just a matter of travel
etiquette; one finds parallel American obsequiousness concerning such
issues as energy, security, religion and personal status. The Saudis
routinely set the terms of this bilateral relationship. For decades,
U.S. government agencies have engaged in a consistent pattern of
deference to Saudi wishes, making so many unwonted and unnecessary
concessions that one gets the impression that a switch has taken
place, with both sides forgetting which of them is the great power and
which the minor one. I shall first document this claim, then offer an
explanation for it, and conclude with a policy recommendation.”

“Starting in 1991, the U.S. military required its female personnel
based in Saudi Arabia to wear black, head-to-foot abayas. (This makes
Saudi Arabia the only country in the world where U.S. military
personnel are expected to wear a religiously-mandated garment.)
Further, the women had to ride in the back seat of vehicles and be
accompanied by a man when off base.”
“The pattern of Saudi fathers abducting children from the United States
to Saudi Arabia, and then keeping them there with the full agreement
of the Saudi authorities, affects at least 92 children of U.S. mothers
and Saudi fathers, perhaps many more. In each of these heartbreaking
cases, the State Department has behaved with weakness bordering on
sycophancy. To be specific, it has accepted the Saudi law that gives
the father near-absolute control over the movement and activities of
his children and wife (or wives). The department has made no real
efforts to signal its displeasure to the Saudi authorities over these
cases, much less made vigorous efforts to free the children held
against their American families’ wishes.”

“In Saudi Arabia, the U.S. government submits to restrictions on
Christian practices that it would find totally unacceptable anywhere
else in the world-starting with the U.S. president’s not celebrating
Thanksgiving in the Kingdom, as mentioned above. The hundreds of
thousands of American troops in Saudi Arabia in December 1990 were not
permitted to hold formal Christmas services at their bases on Saudi
soil; all that was allowed to them were “C-word morale services” held
in places where they would be invisible to the outside world, such as
tents and mess halls. The goal was for no Saudi to be made to suffer
the knowledge that Christians were at prayer.”

“With Jews, the issue is not freedom of religious practice in Saudi
Arabia; it is simply gaining entry to the Kingdom. In several
instances over many years, agencies of the U.S. government have
excluded Jewish Americans from positions in Saudi Arabia. Hunter
explains that a protocol prohibiting Jews being assigned to the
Kingdom was signed by the U.S. Embassy in Jeddah and the Saudi
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as a result of which the State Department
avoids sending Jewish employees to reside in Saudi Arabia.[11] Select
senior diplomats of Jewish origin may briefly visit the country on
official business but “no low or mid-level Jewish-American diplomat
was permitted to be stationed/reside in Kingdom” during Hunter’s
three-year experience.”

“Mail to U.S. military and official government personnel enters the
Kingdom on U.S. military craft, and American officials in Saudi Arabia
follow Saudi wishes by seizing and disposing of Christmas trees and
decorations and other symbols of the holiday. They seize and destroy
Christmas cards sent to (the mostly non-official) Americans who
receive their mail through a Saudi postal box, and even tear from the
envelope U.S. stamps portraying religious scenes.”

Read more:

http://www.danielpipes.org/995/the-scandal-of-us-saudi-relations

Congressman Paul Broun, Obama eligibility, US Constitution, Broun response, Broun Paul Boehner no more status quo

Congressman Paul Broun, Obama eligibility, US Constitution, Broun response, Broun Paul Boehner no more status quo

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

We have come to  expect anti American unconstitutional positions from the Democrats. The following actions and attitudes from Republicans are unacceptable.

When asked about challenging Obama’s eligibility during the certification of Electoral College votes in 2009.

“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”…Ron Paul, December 2008

The day of the reading of the US Constitution in the House of Representatives, Speaker Boehner allowed “citizen” to be used interchangeably with “natural born citizen.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner was interviewed by Brian Williams last friday after the reading of the US Constitution in the House Chambers and the shout of “Except Obama, except Obama” when the Natural Born Citizen clause was read. Williams continues the Orwellian tradition of the mainstream media of obfuscating the Obama eligibility issues by using citizen instead of Natural Born Citizen. Boehner, as Speaker of the House, should know better and should have corrected Williams. Otherwise, we have just another Pelosi look alike.

From The Post & Email February 2, 2011.

“I sent the following email to my U.S. congressman, Rep. Paul Broun:
Dear Rep. Broun,
I saw your interview following the SOTU with CBS.
I think it is imperative that just ONE elected Representative in D.C. stand up for the Constitution. I am PRAYING you are that hero. Barack claims that his father is Barack Sr., a British/Kenyan subject/citizen. It makes no difference where he was born, by our Constitution, he is not eligible as a dual citizen. He has admitted his dual citizenship on his own website, and in his own writings.”

“Rep. Broun’s response:
Thank you for recently contacting me with your kind remarks regarding the strong stances I have taken in Congress. Your words were very encouraging, and I am excited to hear that you are engaged in the political process.
In these tough times we must all work together to make America better for future generations. For my part, I will continue to fight for life, fiscal responsibility, and transparency in government. I hope that you will join this fight and encourage your friends and family to be as engaged as you are.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/02/02/constituent-to-u-s-congressman-be-a-hero/

The response from Congressman Paul Broun’s office appears to be a form letter, standard response. We need to contact Paul Broun and educate him. Once again, when you are discussing Obama’s eligibility issues with congressmen or those around you, keep it simple. While I agree that Obama is not a natural born citizen due to his father being British/Kenyan, it is subject to debate. Ask the non debatable question first.

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

Next mention that the Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, could find no birth certificate for Obama.

Then inform them that Tim Adams, who worked in a Hawaii elections office in 2008, has signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate in Hawaii for Obama in 2008.

If they mention the COLB, inform them it is a document that refers to another document and is not proof of birth in Hawaii.

Keep it simple and non debatable.

Charlotte NC Democratic Convention 2012, Obama on ballot?, Governor Beverly Perdue lauds decision, Hillary Clinton runs?

Charlotte NC Democratic Convention 2012, Obama on ballot?, Governor Beverly Perdue lauds decision, Hillary Clinton runs?

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Charlotte, NC has been chosen as the site for the 2012 Democratic Convention. I wouldn’t bet on Obama being on the ballot. The question is, will Hillary Clinton be too tainted by the Obama scandals to be a viable candidate?

From the Charlotte Observer February 1, 2011.

“Charlotte finally grabbed the brass ring today, beating out three rivals for the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

“I am thrilled to make sure you are the first to hear some very exciting news,” First Lady Michelle Obama said in an email to key Democrats. “Charlotte is a city marked by its Southern charm, warm hospitality, and an ‘up by the bootstraps’ mentality that has propelled the city forward as one of the fastest-growing in the South.

“Vibrant, diverse, and full of opportunity, the Queen City is home to innovative, hardworking folks with big hearts and open minds. And of course, great barbecue.

The DNC picked Charlotte over Cleveland, Minneapolis and St. Louis.

Charlotte leaders hailed the selection.

“We’re honored that the Democratic National Committee chose Charlotte,” Mayor Anthony Foxx said in a statement. “We have an unmatched opportunity to show the world what a beautiful, energetic, innovative and diverse city we are building in Charlotte.”

Gov. Bev Perdue called the decision “fantastic news for North Carolina regardless of your political party. A national political convention is a keystone event that will boost North Carolina’s economy, while showcasing Charlotte and our state to the nation and the world.”

The convention is expected to bring more than 35,000 delegates, media and other visitors to the city and generate more than $150 million in economic benefits. It also will bring international attention to a city that has long aspired to be “world-class.”

Foxx had called the convention “a game-changer, bringing new jobs, new spending and new businesses to our city, region and state.”

The convention will start on Labor Day, Sept. 3, 2012.

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine called it “a tough choice.”

“This process offered some great choices,” he said in an email to the DNC.

Republicans announced last May that their convention would be in Tampa the week before Democrats convene in Charlotte.

The convention will bring President Obama to a city and county that helped him become the first Democratic presidential candidate in 32 years to carry North Carolina and drive a wedge into an often solid-red South.

His 100,000-vote margin in Mecklenburg County helped him carry North Carolina by a scant 14,000 votes out of 4.3 million.”

Read more:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/01/2027540/charlotte-wins-2012-dem-convention.html