FUNGAZI.COM

The word “Hispanic” was invented by federal government’s bureaucrats in preparation for the 1980 U.S. Census. They were looking for a descriptive term by which they could identify diverse and growing segment of the nation’s population ethnically rooted in numerous countries that included Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the South American countries, and just about any country where the dominant language spoken happened to be Spanish. At the time, nobody really knew what the word “Hispanic” actually meant or who, specifically, might be included in that category. However, by the mid-1980′s the term became so widely used that it was included in the Oxford English Dictionary where it was vaguely defined as “pertaining to Spain and it’s people.” Webster’s New World dictionary followed suit by claiming that the new word defined anything related to the country of Spain or Portugal. Following the adoption of this new term, during the 1980 U.S. Census approximately 12% of the nation’s Portuguese and 15% of the Brazilian population living in the U.S. identified as “Hispanic.” Ten years later, during the 2007 census, those responses fell to 1% and 4% respectfully. As the United States government became more involved in the civil wars of Latin America during the 1980′s and that involvement fanned the flames of public resentment, the term “Hispanic” was rejected by many in favor of the term “Latino,” which, to them anyway, seemed to better define the indigenous connotation of a people whose origins derived from Latin American countries ethnically tied to Spain. As it now stands, the term “Hispanic” and the term “Latino” are regarded as being somewhat synonymous and they have both become widely acceptable and interchangeable without regard for the fact that both terms remain essentially vague and there is still no clear specificity as to what constitutes a thing, a person or a group of people under either term. Both terms remain, to this point in time, so vague and ill-defined, that Angelo Falcon, president of the National Institute for Latino Policy in New York, has been recently quoted as saying, in respect to those terms, “It really depends on how you feel about yourself.” Following that rather imprecise train of logic, it can be assumed that an individual can ascribe to the racial category “Hispanic” or “Latino” regardless of their true origin, and allowing for the fickleness of human nature, an individual could consider themselves as being “Hispanic” on a Monday, become a “Latino” by Wednesday and before the conclusion of the weekend find themselves a Caucasian.

To the best of my foggy recollection, when I sat through a semester of Cultural Anthropology approximately thirty years ago, the anthropologists of the time loosely categorized human beings into the three primary categories, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. I also recall that some allowance was made for Inuit’s (Aleuts), the indigenous people inhabiting the Arctic regions of Canada, Greenland, and Alaska and another allowance was made for the indigenous Native American Indians of North America. Briefly following the conclusion of my participation in that required educational effort, the conclusion, I should also note as marking the point where I quickly forgot most of what had been painstakingly taught to me, I understand that the study of anthropology underwent somewhat of a revolution during which the handful of formerly acceptable racial classifications grew to include as many as thirty different groups of people. At some period following this explosive growth of racial categories, the entire concept of racial categorization became questionable, was subjected to numerous inquiries and following that, became so embarrassingly confused that all attempts to categorize the diversity of human beings encountered by anthropological scholars appeared somewhat futile and the effort came to an abrupt and grinding halt. Following the conclusion of that branch of study, the textbooks used in college classes on Cultural Anthropology began to relate that modern scientific studies failed to provide proof of the existence of any definite genetic racial division, with the added claim that the entire concept of “Race” was nothing more than a cultural, political, and economic concept with no sound scientific basis as previously believed. Many scholarly attempts to resurrect the concept of racial categorization on the basis of sound genetic and biological evidence derived from research and studies in strict adherence to scientific methods, following rigidly applied scientific procedures yielding identical results many times over, were routinely disregarded despite their scientific validity, and the scientific careers of numerous brilliant scholars and researchers were ruined by their publication of those discoveries. Despite the overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicating the valid existence of defined racial categories, few anthropologists alive today are willing to dispute the popularly accepted notion that the entire concept of “Race” is little more than a scientific myth. Modern anthropologists are nearly unanimous in their rejection of the term “Race” and prefer to categorize the diverse physical variations evident among human beings under the collective and much more politically correct term “ethnic group,” or “ethnicity”.

The division of humanity into racial categories, formerly a scientific effort reserved for dedicated anthropologists, geneticists and biologists toiling away in research laboratories has entirely deserted the field of science and is now (at least in the United States) subject to the sole authority and determination of federal bureaucrats assigned to work in the United States Census Bureau and the Federal Office of Management and Budget. Accordingly, in the effort to please everyone while simultaneously avoiding offense to the extreme sensibilities of all interested parties, most especially those of great political influence, these federal bureaucrats have reached the sage determination that the word “Race” is defined according to each individual’s personal sense of identity. In fact, the Federal Office of Management and Budget has determined that, for the purpose of the U.S. Census, the term “Race” has nothing to do with scientific, anthropological, biological or genetic studies whatsoever, but is a definition of social, cultural and ancestral characteristics entirely subject to each individual’s personal sense of identity.

Following the obviously derailed train of thought leading to the bureaucratic redefinition of “Race” as outlined above, the Federal Office of Management and Budget issued a proclamation on October 30, 1997, detailing their revision of the statistical policies covering Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. Their proclamation is forever enshrined in the Federal Register according to the date it was issued, and that document established the existence of five minimum categories for the collection of data. Those categories include, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. Furthermore, allowances were provided for the two rather curious categories, “Hispanic or Latino” and “Not Hispanic or Latino.”

Information contained in the supplementary information section of the document described above discloses that individuals responding to inquiries about race are allowed to select more than one racial category if they desire to do so, however, the authorities obliged to concoct this determination resisted the suggestion to include the category “multiracial” for reasons not clearly given. They further suggest that respondents whose origin would indicate their ancestral lineage was derived entirely from individuals born, or originally coming from Guam, Samoa, the island of Carolina, Fiji, Kosraean, Melanesia, Micronesia, Northern Mariana Island, Palau, Papua, Ponapean, Polynesia, Solomon Islands, Tahiti, Tarawa Island, Tokelau, Tonga, or the island of Yap would be categorized as being Hawaiian. Presumably, while not mentioned in the directive, such individuals could conceivably choose to describe themselves as being “Hispanic or Latino” if they so desired. I view the clumping together of these numerous groups as an obvious indication of their overall lack of political power in the federal government but that is a digression I prefer not to follow at this point and they are not the only group subjected to this clumping. Another curious discovery made in the supplementary information section was the determination to not add a separate category for individuals of Arab or Middle Eastern descent. While the document alludes to comments in favor of adding this category as a means to monitor discrimination against this segment of the population, the determination was made to exclude the category and no further explanation was given. The document concludes with the claim that the standard categories included were the product of the agencies desire to “provide a common language for uniformity and comparability in the collection and use of data on race and ethnicity by Federal agencies.” Furthermore, it was additional stated that the categories included meet the minimum requirements necessary for the collection of data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance.

Presumably, the bottom line in all of this is that when it comes down to a question of race in America, you are what you think you are, you can freely claim to be a member of any racial group you desire to be ascribed to and the overall validity of racial data as reported in statistical publications printed by the United States government are irrefutably meaningless and nonsensical.

While the conclusion given above should be entirely obvious to anyone willing to look into the readily available and well substantiated relevant facts, that conclusion also points out some definite inconsistencies in the federal and state laws vigorously enforced for the benefit of individuals deemed “protected” as a result of their alleged ‘minority status”. If modern science has reached the determination that the entire concept of “Race” is little more than a myth defining a diversity of cultural, political, and economic differences, then it would seem to follow that all men are truly equal despite how they are viewed by society, despite the pigmentation of their skin, and despite the geographic origin of their ancestors. If we accept that premise as being factually accurate and we also reject the scientific validity of all racial categories, then it would seem to logically follow that the federal government’s futile attempts to regulate and prohibit racial discrimination or to enforce any the race based legislation, numerous examples of which have been enthusiastically amended onto our nation’s constitution, constitute our government’s effort to regulate something that is factually non-existent and by light of the fact that these laws relate to fallacies discarded by the government itself as well as the scientific community as a whole, every example of race based legislation should be removed from our nation’s legal system and the original statement of our founding father’s should suffice to cover all contingencies. “All men are created Equal.”

While this might seem like an entirely harebrained idea to some, I am entirely serious on this point. Billions of American tax dollars are wasted every year in the pursuit and defense of racial litigation in cases of no real merit. Redundant agencies exist at all levels of state and federal government, employing millions of clerks, bureaucrats and legal personnel, all dedicated to the pursuit, punishment, enforcement and resolution of imaginary racial problems and inequities that cannot exist because the entire concept of race itself is a complete myth and has no scientific basis for validity. Every year, millions, if not billions of American tax dollars are wasted in the pursuit discussions of racial equality, investigations of racial inequity and legislative acts aimed at solving mythical problems related to a concept that has been repeatedly shown to not exist. If they have accomplished anything at all, the money wasted in these efforts, the redundant agencies, the legislation, and all of the high-minded, moralistic determinations and speeches given with regard to the entire concept of race and racial equality have resulted in an exacerbation of the divisiveness this nation now faces and the former unity that once made us so strong has been fractured by the squabbling masses of minority special interests far more interested in superiority than equality.

The words of Thomas Jefferson when he penned the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 should be considered entirely sufficient to cover all contingencies met and questions arising in cases of discrimination or allegations of unfair treatment, and no higher standard, further elucidation, or interpretive explanation should ever be required in this regard.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Technorati Tags

Latino, Hispanic, race

digg this | del.icio.us

This morning I sat down in front of the monitor, brought up the Google search page and entered a comment alleged to have been made by Barack Obama regarding his selection of Sotomayor to check the validity of the statement, and to see in what context that comment was made so I could get a better understanding of the reasoning behind it. The search returned 2,410,000 entries indicating that I am not the only person on the planet curious about the topic, and the eighth entry on the first page returned caught my eye because it carried the title “Republican Bigotry Rearings its Ugly Head… Again.” I clicked on the link to see what it had to say and it led me off to a discussion forum called “My SA,” subtitled “San Antonio’s Home Page,” that appears to be owned and maintained by the San Antonio Express-News in San Antonio, Texas. Instead of being dropped off at the beginning of the discussion I landed on the 29th page where an apparently frequent contributor posting under the screen name EstebanErik (aka, Pooh-Bah) added his two cents about Sotomayor’s claim that her ethnicity somehow renders her more qualified and capable for the Supreme Court position than white candidate. I won’t getinto a discussion of her feelings on that particular opinion just yet, but EstebanErik’s forum entry reflects an opinion is one that seems to be shared by a lot of racial minorities and liberal academics around the country, and in my opinion, it is significant because it is so completely illogical and yet it is widely accepted.

For the sake of clarity, I need to back up a bit and explain that EstebanErik’s entry was in response to an earlier posting by another individual who expressed the opinion that Sotomayor’s words, “seem to indicate that she thinks her Latina heritage and female gender makes her a better judge than a white male.” This contributor than goes on to say, “What would you call it? Imagine if Sam Alito said that his Caucasian background and his maleness made him a better judge than some Hispanic female. What would you have called him besides racist and a misogynist? I really don’t care about a judge’s race or gender. I care that they understand the Constitution. Men and women of all races and ethnicities have the capability. It matters what they do, not where they come from.”

To the comment above EstebanErik responded, “you forget what she said is perfecty acceptable in academia. When the radicals of the 1960s took over academia you had a lot of Orwelliian things happen. That is why her comments about her Raza making her a better judge will not draw ire.
Black power good
Brown power good
Yellow power Ok
White power totally racist its that simple”

I will include the link to the “My SA” Discussion Forum Thread’s first or twenty-nine pages at the conclusion of this posting for anyone who feels a compelling desire to follow the entire evolution of the conversation, however, that conversation is not the subject of concern explored in this posting. In my characteristically meandering style today’s exploratory writing is intended to solidify and express a few aspects of my perspective regarding the human attribute normally referred to, and defined as “racism.” Furthermore, I will attempt to accomplish my exploration by using illustrations gleaned from current events, thereby enabling me to express my views on what our society refers to as racial issues, while at the same time, expressing my opion on specific events currently going on around us.

Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is relevant to this exploration not simply because she a liberal female, and not because she was born in New York of Puerto Rican parents. I can even overlook the fact that Puerto Ricans have suddenly been added to the diverse ethnic mixture of individuals (formerly considered “Caucasians”) who now claim to be a separate and distinct racial group called “Hispanics,” despite the fact that I find it somewhat disturbing that so many minorities view themselves as “African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans or Hispanic-Americans first, and only as “Americans” after the fact. However, that is a digression I will avoid at this point and I will get back on topic by addressing the current controversy stirred up surrounding a talk given by Sotomayor’s at U.C. Berkeley in 2001 in which she commented on Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s statement that, “a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion in a case.” Sotomayor addressed that observation with the comment that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Considering the context in which the statement was made I honestly do not see it as being specifically offensive. The pigmentation of my skin may be fairly light by comparison to others but my hide is somewhat thicker than most and I am not prone to being easily offended by comments including real or imagined racial denigrations regardless of context. I am not convinced that life experience of Latin females are any more or less rich than the life experience of anyone else regardless of race, but the life experiences of the daughter of a tool and die maker with a third grade education, a girl who overcame many obstacles and defied the odds against her to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and receive a JD from Yale Law School, might have a bit more under her belt than, for example, the overly pampered son a prominent Sacramento attorney who has never faced hardship or adversity at any point in his life or the privileged offspring of a magnificently wealthy Chicago family, guaranteed a high level of attainment by the outstanding opportunities reserved for those born of great wealth and social stature. My dear departed mother was fond of repeating the axiom that “adversity builds character,” and to a degree I admit to giving weight to this old saying. Human beings, as individuals, are the sum total of all that they have seen and experienced throughout their lives, and the determinations made by individuals are made on the basis of those life experiences. An individual privileged by great wealth will have one set of experiences and another individual born of more modest means will have another set of experiences, however, while the exact number of each person’s set of experiences might be the same, or somewhat close, those experiences will be decidedly different in nature and substance, and the impressions left on the individual living through them will be undeniably different. This is not to say that one is “better” or more “right” that the other because those are relative terms subject to wide interpretation and I don’t intend to go down that road. The essential point of all this is that, while Sotomayor could have left off the racial endorsement included in her 2001 comment, there is a lot of truth between the lines of her statement. “Adversity builds character,” and a young girl, forced to overcome the multitude of obstacles she faced in the 60′s and 70′s who not only succeeded, but succeeded well might just have a lot more character than a stodgy old white guy who has basically had everything handed to him on a silver platter because he was lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family with great social status and a heaping measure of political influence. In accordance with the personal considerations outlined above, I have to admit that the recent hysteria expressed by the politically conservative movement’s loudest and most vocal mouths appears to be unwarranted at first glance.

My primary concern about Sonia Sotomayor, in the event she is confirmed and ultimately takes a place in the U.S. Supreme Court, has nothing to do with her perception that she embodies a lifetime of rich experiences because I am convinced that she does, furthermore, I am not concerned by her qualifications for the position. Her past achievements and the prior judicial positions she has held indicate qualifications equal to some of the other Associate Justices now sitting in the U.S. Supreme Court. The woman is qualified if you stick with the same standards that other Supreme Court Associate Justices have been judged. My Concern with Sonia Sotomayor has to do with her personal identification of herself as a “Latina” and a “Hispanic-American,” rather than an American. This concern is based on the personal perspective that people who so proudly identify themselves by race first and nationality only as an afterthought oftentimes allow their own sense of racial pride, and their affinity for the specific racial classification in which they base their own personal identity, to cloud their judgment in a manner that favors racial privilege over equality. In the specific case of Sonia Sotomayor, if the richness of her life’s experiences and the many adversities she has been forced to overcome have resulted in the formation of personal perspectives filled with negativity and animosity for this nation’s Constitution, authored entirely by white males to serve the needs of the predominantly white citizenry that filled the colonies at that time, then it is doubtful that she can be trusted to effectively serve in a judicial position of such importance.

Article III, §1, of the U.S. Constitution provides that “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 2 of Article III further stipulates, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” However, while the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is relatively limited in scope, the true importance of the Supreme Court’s most pressing obligation is through that court’s service as an appellate court. Because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation, it provides the last and final court of appeal for cases coming out all courts below it, and it is the obligation of the Supreme Court Justice and Associate Justices to determine the constitutionality of the decisions reached in the lower courts. By extension, the U.S. Supreme Court holds the authority to interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution.

There are a great many schools of thought related to how the United States Constitution should be interpreted. Some demand that interpretations be made in the context of history behind the provision under scrutiny, others that a provision must be interpreted in the context of the other provisions related to it and still others who want to debate their interpretation of a given provision in light of where it appears in the document as a whole. There have been some who ascribed to a developmentalist approach, arguing that the Constitution is living document or a work in progress that can be added to as they see fit and the need arises, while others approach the task from the doctrinalist position by carefully examining past interpretations for clues to their specific questions. Other schools of thought include the structuralist, strict constructionists and textualists, all of whom seek to interpret the document according to a variety of different ways while using a multitude of diverse strategies. The numerous schools of thought, and the widely varying philosophies evident in this regard can be somewhat confusing, and trying to make sense of them all inevitably leads to a major headache brought on by the futility of the task until the dawn finally breaks and the true realization finally becomes clear that all of the seemingly opposing schools of thought have one common goal and that goal is not to interpret the actual meaning of a constitutional provision, but to distort the true intent of the constitutional provision in question in such a manner that it becomes applicable to some stretch of legal reasoning our founding fathers never conceived of when they wrote the original document.

It should be pointed out the most of the individuals that have sat in positions of authority in the Supreme Court in recent history to not limit their efforts to one style of interpretation or another. There are exceptions to this statement, but for the most part these judges have demonstrated a fickle ability to mix and match interpretative philosophies with astonishing speed and regularity in order to achieve their goal and the end result is that 222 years after the original document was first signed into law, the simple document that once guaranteed a form of government through which the people could “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” has become a horrendously unfathomable complexity of annotations and conflicting amendments effectively designed to strip away our formerly “inalienable” rights while replacing the form of government “by the people” with a despotic tyranny overseen by a never-ending stream of self-serving political elitists with unspoken agendas that yield more inequity than justice, far too little tranquility, almost no liberty and a rapidly declining rate of prosperity from sea to shining sea. Admittedly I have woefully digressed.

If Sonia Sotomayor ascribes to the simple minded statement of EstebanErik, and like him, she suffers the delusional belief that white people are intrinsically racist, while the hateful and racially motivated actions of Black, Hispanic and other racial minority extremists are to be excused for any reason then she should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, regardless of her academic achievement and her many law degrees, if she believes that sort of nonsense she is not honestly qualified to be a judge in any federal or state court and should never be placed in a position of any authority over other people.

Unfortunately, the one really controversial case that Sotomayor participated in does not indicate much distance between her and the fool EstebanErik I quoted towards the beginning of this narrative. The case I am referring to is Ricci v. DeStefano, a highly controversial case involving affirmative action in the new Haven, Connecticut fire department. In that case the city of New Haven decided to throw out the results of a firefighter exam because it allowed only one Latino and no African Americans to be promoted. Because its union contract required promotions to be based upon examinations, the City contracted with an outside agency to develop the exams, which were then administered to all qualifying applicants. Since the city of New Haven has a regulation on the books known as the “rule of three,” dictating that once the test results are certification and known to be accurate, the department sponsoring the test must promote the applicants achieving the top three scores, the expectation of all parties concerned was that this rule would be applied as it has been repeatedly in the past and the three top scoring applicants would be immediately promoted. Apparently the New haven regulation also provides that if additional vacancies exist beyond those filled by the top three applicants, those additional vacancies can be filled, more or less, at the discretion of the city officials and in consideration of their desire to promote minority applicants as they see fit. Following the outcome of the test, the city held hearings to consider the possibility that the tests were racially biased and while one experienced firefighter testified that the exams were comparable to those he had taken in the past, a City official testified that if the board chose to certify the results, then the city could be subject to a disparate impact suit from the minority applicants who did not qualify for promotions. To make a long story short, the city decided not to certify the results of the test. Subsequently a group of firefighters, both white and Hispanic, filed suit against the City and its officials, alleging that the City’s action violated Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. Throughout the lengthy process of litigating this matter a multitude of interested parties became involved on both sides of the equation and a legion of sound arguments were heard by the court. By the time the case landed in the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the hands of Circuit Judges, Rosemary Pooler, Robert Sack and Sonia Sotomayor, it carried with it a host of valid and very credible questions regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause and the validity of the action taken by the city of New Haven. Contrary to the expectation that a prolonged period of scholarly review was in order, the Second Circuit quickly responded with a perfunctory unpublished opinion denying the claim of the firefighters and upholding the actions of the City of New Haven. The brief two page opinion consisting of two or three paragraphs made no reference whatsoever to the constitutional principles upon which the case was founded. The general consensus of the firefighters and at least one senior judge on the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit felt that the three-judge panel on which Sotomayor played a significant role, essentially blew off the opportunity to do the right thing in the case because of their personal empathy for minorities outweighed their desire to provide justice. Following that decision an article in National Review magazine criticized Sotomayor in particular for her failure to even address the issue at hand, pointing out that while she demonstrated her empathy for the minorities favored by her part in the decision, she obviously had no empathy for the more senior and more qualified white males who were cheated out of the promotions they so obviously earned, deserved and would have been given if the city officials disregarded race entirely and awarded the promotions on the basis of qualification as they should.

In concluding this posting I should add that, if appointed, Sonia Sotomayor will not be the first Hispanic to sit in the Supreme Court because, despite what the news media currently claims that honor went long ago to Benjamin Cardozo, but Sonia Sotomayor may prove to be the most disastrous Hispanic ever to be selected for a seat in the Supreme Court, and considering the person nominating her, I suppose that the American people should expect no less. After Sonia Sotomayor we may be delighted to welcome more stodgy old white guys with privileged pasts.

As promised the link to the “My SA” Discussion Forum Thread is below.

“My SA”

Technorati Tags

Barack Obama, Sonia Sotomayor

digg this | del.icio.us

With all of Barack Obama’s socialistic new policies, ridiculous legislation proposed and passed through congress relatively unnoticed by the American public and the state of California melting down in more ways than anyone can imagine, there is a constant and never-ending supply of topics to write about and a limited amount of time to address them in the manner each is due. Because of the huge array of worthy targets and the weight of other obligations, I am forced to pick and choose, and occasionally, something that really catches my eye ends up getting buried in the stack and forgotten. Normally when these mislaid pieces are rediscovered at a later date I simply discard them, but once in awhile I will uncover some forgotten item that screams out for comment regardless of how old it might be. This posting is about an incident that occurred back around the middle of April and I was motivated to save it because it demonstrated a potential change in tactics by the pro-illegal alien advocates and because it received no press coverage beyond the local area where it occurred.

On Thursday, May 16, 2009, the mail delivered to the Weld County Sheriff’s Office, located in the county seat of Greeley, Colorado, contained an exciting surprise for the local authorities. An envelope containing a handwritten letter in Spanish demanded that the 58 inmates being held in the Weld County Jail while waiting for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to pick them up so they can be deported from the country, be released or multiple bombs would be set to go off around the city of Greeley on the following Monday (April 20, 2009) with the intention of killing judicial and law enforcement personnel. Along with the threat made towards the county government employees, the letter was quoted in a press release given to the Greeley Tribune as saying that the bombs would be situated with the “intent to kill the most number of Americans.”

According to the reports carried in the Greeley Tribune as well as those carried in the Loveland Daily Reporter, the Weld County Sheriff’s Office expressed a serious desire to apprehend the author of the threatening letter and warned the area residents to remain alert to any suspicious activity, but beyond that it appears that the threat was perceived as being somewhat less than entirely credible. Other than the three very brief articles carried in the Greeley Tribune and one article in the Loveland Daily Reporter on the day the threat was received, the story of the bomb threat was completely ignored by the remainder of this nation’s newspapers.

In the third week of April, the week in which the bomb threat appeared in the Weld County Sheriff’s inbox, the American news media were laughing their liberal asses off at the futility of the conservative malcontent’s waving teabags around to protest the increased tax burden that is sure to follow Obama’s multi-trillion dollar spending spree. Where space allowed, the liberal propagandists included a slew of “news” articles microscopically examining their somewhat myopic opinion that the Republican Party has been forever vanquished, is rapidly dwindling in size, and has lost all sense of reality. The human interest story of that week, a story that was carried in newspapers nationwide, was about the 300 Afghan women who marched in protest of the Afghan government’s passage of the Shia Family Law. The Shia Family Law is a legislative act of the Afghan government that criminalizes a married woman’s refusal to have sex with her husband unless she can prove that she is physically ill at the time of the refusal. The act also sanctioned the marriage of children to adults, gave fathers ultimate custody rights over their children and prohibited women from leaving their husbands house for any reason without first obtaining his permission. The displeasure of the women is easily understood, and yet crowds of angry Afghan men shouting “Whores” accompanied the 300 women as they made their way through the streets of Kabul under a constant barrage of rocks thrown at them be the angry men despite the presence of Afghan police.

Despite the worthy nature of the coverage dedicated to the Afghan women’s protest, and the space set aside to satisfy the liberal’s need to vent their animosity against all things conservative, virtually every major news paper in the country filled in their remaining space with minor Obamanations of little interest to anyone, warm up stories designed to prime the public’s pump for later releases of hysterical allegations of government sanctioned torture, and meaningful tidbits such as the story of the woman who discovered the questionable likeness of Barack Obama burnt into a piece of her morning toast. The liberal press, despite their dedication to keeping the population of America truly informed, failed to see any real value in reporting a radical pro-illegal alien extremist’s threat to kill the judges and law enforcement personnel of the 12th most populous city in the State of Colorado.

Alternatively, they may have recognized the incident as a potential change in the strategy of illegal alien advocacy groups and feared that national coverage would unleash a panic, or they may have recognized the incident as a potential change in the strategy of illegal alien advocacy groups for which they have demonstrated their unwavering support and purposely withheld the story (also known as “Censorship”) out of concern that national coverage might detract from their carefully crafted portrayal of illegal aliens as being a well-mannered, law abiding, hard working attributes to American society.

In light of the liberal news media’s consistent and nearly comprehensive refusal to publish any adverse information or reports related to the actions of illegal aliens in this country, I would have to make the educated guess that the story of the Weld County bomb threat was purposely withheld by the liberal press from national news coverage because it would detract from the false image of illegal aliens that newspapers around this country have so carefully crafted over the last five years.

With Obama and the Democrats controlling the U.S. Congress poised to slam illegal alien amnesty down the unwilling throats of the American populace at some point in the near future, the liberal press is cautiously attuned to the need to maintain the false image they have worked so long and hard to create. News coverage of incidents such as the Weld County bomb threat, the increase in the rate of sexual assault on minors by illegal alien predators, the constantly growing number of U.S. homicides attributed to illegal aliens along with the increased number of tragic automobile fatalities caused by drunk illegal aliens seriously detract from the news media’s phony portrayal, and it is quite possible that if the American people could wrap their simple thought processes around the unreported fact* that more than 4000 innocent Americans are killed every year by illegal aliens it might damage the liberal’s effort to provide the estimated 20+ million illegal aliens currently residing here in violation of American law, with full blown amnesty and generous entitlement programs for which the American tax payer will foot the bill.

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute has estimated that 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders come across U.S. borders illegally per day. In her study of 1,500 illegal alien sex offenders she discovered that they had a combined total of 5,999 victims for an average of 4 victims apiece. She further broke down the numbers by pointing out that 35 percent, were child molestations, 24 percent, were rapes and 41 percent, were sexual homicides and serial murders. 6% of the rape victims were also mutilated by their attackers.

In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. That study disclosed that the 55,322 illegal aliens in the study represented a total of 459,614 arrests, or nearly eight arrests per illegal alien. The 459,614 arrests represented a total of 700,000 criminal offenses or 13 offenses for each of the 55,322 illegal aliens in the study. Furthermore, the study concluded that 36% of the 55,322 illegal alien participants had at least five previous arrests.

The only thing that has changed since the testimony of Representative Steve King was first given, the study of Deborah Schurman-Kauflin was concluded, and the Government Accountability Office published the results of their study in 2005, is that the number of illegal aliens coming into this country without legal authorization has increased, the accumulated number of children traumatized forever by illegal alien sex predators has increased, and the accumulated number of American citizens killed and raped by illegal aliens has also increased. The only thing that has truly decreased in the United States of America is the number of times the words “Illegal Alien” are published in the liberal controlled news media.

The liberal press is fond of keeping us all up to date on the latest statistics indicating how many American teenagers are considered grossly fat from pigging out on too many French fries, the miniscule (by comparison) number of accidental firearm fatalities, and mostly unsubstantiated estimates on the numbers of homeless people, people without medical insurance, the unemployed and so on, but they are amazingly silent on the horrendous slaughter of American citizens by illegal alien criminals. What Possible justification could exist for their silence on this obviously very relevant statistic? If you have a half dozen functioning brain cells remaining in your head the proper response to that question should be relatively easy to figure out. In the meantime, the Weld County Sheriff’s Office might want to consider taking bomb threats written in Spanish a bit more seriously.

*
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. That translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001. During his testimony, Rep. Steve King also stated the shocking statistic that eight children are victimized by illegal alien sex predators every day in the United States.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ia05_king/col_20060505_bite.html

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens, amnesty, Barack Obama, Steve King, news media

digg this | del.icio.us

In the effort to maintain some semblance of awareness regarding current events, the diverse political perspectives of numerous political parties operating within the U.S., and to closely follow the American news media’s increasing attempts to influence the public perception of political events and personalities, I subscribe to countless newsletters and regularly check the updated contents of an entire legion of web sites maintained by news agencies, political parties, special interest groups and a few hundred syndicated RSS feeds coming out of news-related sites, weblogs and other online publishers. One of the many email newsletters I receive, on a near daily basis comes from GOPUSA, and one of the items I recently received as a result of their numerous emails was an advertisement paid for by a group called the “Pray in Jesus Name Project.” That advertisement, which is the topic of this posting, contains the allegation that the Obama administration seized and burned the privately owned Bibles of American soldiers in Afghanistan.

To the best of my ability I have scoured the net investigating this allegation and I have not found anything to substantiate most of the claims made. The Bibles were printed by an American evangelical group, they were shipped to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan with the intention that he or his fellow soldiers pass them on to the local residents. An American military Chaplin explained to these soldiers that the U.S. Central Command’s General Order Number 1 prohibits proselytizing the Afghan people for conversion to Christianity. The obvious justification for this prohibition is to avoid outraging the religious sensibilities of the local inhabitants well known for their hysterical tendencies in response to real or imagined insults of a religious nature. Furthermore, the laws of Afghanistan are such that a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is a crime punishable by death. Considering the facts, the U.S. Military, caught up in a war effort that is entirely controlled by politically correct Washington liberals that have denied all along that the root problem of Middle Eastern terrorists is the religion of Islam, the U.S. Military commanders obviously made the wisest decision possible and confiscated the translated Bibles from the soldiers before they could be handed out.

The one pertinent fact not disclosed by the individual who wrote the “Pray in Jesus Name Project” advertisement about this incident is that the entire thing was over and done with prior to the end of George W. Bush’s final day in office as U.S. President. It logically follows that Barack Obama had nothing to do with the matter when it happened. Furthermore, as much as I enjoy poking holes in Barack Obama’s numerous lies, conscious omissions of the truth and his blatant incompetence as the leader of the greatest nation on Earth, in this particular instance, I can find no evidence of his involvement. If there is evidence of Obama’s involvement in this incident I can’t find it and if anyone out there knows of anything that can be independently substantiated to prove otherwise, please contact me and I will update this posting accordingly, but until that point in time, I have concluded the story is baloney.

With that conclusion being stated, I must add that it is my firm conviction that Obama is a fake, a scoundrel of the worse sort and ultimately that he is the enemy of the American people, our freedom and our liberty, however, if I and other individuals, similarly convinced of the nefarious agenda of Barack Hussein Obama, do not maintain the highest standard of credibility possible, then we become just as bad as he is, and by the dishonest acts and words of his opponents Barack Obama and the liberal’s socialist agenda is enhanced. The last thing we should be doing is furthering the goals of the liberal socialists by destroying our own credibility.

Technorati Tags

Barack Obama, American Military, Afghanistan

digg this | del.icio.us

The liberal news media’s effort to distract the attention of the American people away from the true nature of Barack Obama’s ill-conceived national security decisions and the efforts of those who oppose them

The New York Times, modern liberal socialism’s protecting archangel, has reduced the ongoing debate regarding the Guantanamo detention facility and the interrogation techniques used against known terrorists to the level of an opportunistic publicity stunt by desperate Republicans struggling to reverse a protractedloss of political influence. The Time’s dishonest portrayal of the debate between Barack Obama and the Über-liberals on the one side and former Vice-President Dick Cheney, many conservatives and quite a few Democrats on the other side, serves merely to distract the population’s attention away from Obama’s shift to an unsettling national security policy based on appeasement and political correctness while condemning, and in some cases, entirely eliminating, the proven and undeniably effective policies initiated by the Bush administration, policies which it should, in all fairness, be noted as keeping this nation free of all further terrorist attacks following the unwarranted attacks of September 11, 2001.

The speech given by Barack Obama on Thursday, May 21, 2009, was characteristically articulate and eloquent. It embraced the full oratorical skills of a man who is obviously growing more confident in the use of his teleprompter and has, at his disposal, some of the best speech writers in American history. However, despite the sterling quality of his well-practiced delivery, the content, both literal and implied, contained far too many inconsistencies, half-truths and glaring omissions to escape notice.

Shortly after he began reading from his teleprompter, Barack Obama made the following curious statement; “For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The matter of fact manner in which this comment was made left me dazed at the callous depth of his insult to the American soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the fight against terrorism prior to his election. With overwhelming arrogance he erased the purpose of their great sacrifice on behalf of the American people by proclaiming that everything done, before he entered the picture, was a futile and wasted effort. I can’t help but wonder, what soldier, worthy of the call to arms, would be willing to face the potential of an untimely death in mortal combat on behalf a nation led by a man so fickle in nature as to capriciously discount the very meaning of their brother’s acts of heroic sacrifice.

The implied link between the well publicized abuses at Abu Ghraib and the interrogation techniques used against recalcitrant terrorists at the Guantanamo detention facility was entirely disingenuous because there is no real comparison or factual link existing between them. The criminal abuses practiced at Abu Ghraib were fully addressed according to the protocols of military justice and the perpetrators of those crimes received harsh punishments for their actions. No Democratic intervention or goading was required to motivate the U.S. Military’s effective and comprehensive investigation of those abuses, or the pursuit, apprehension and swift punishment of the guilty parties following the conclusion of that investigation. No effort was made by the U.S. Military or the Bush Administration to gloss over, reduce the severity or mitigate the public’s perception of the crimes that were committed at Abu Ghraib. However, as the investigation irrefutably concluded, and testimony later substantiated, those abuses were perpetrated in violation of all established procedure and policy and the perpetrators acted, without military authority, not on behalf of the U.S. Government or of the American people, but as individuals fully conscious of the fact that their actions were wrong. The linkage that Obama attempted to establish when he casually and conveniently mentioned Abu Ghraib and the interrogation techniques used against a limited number of highly committed terrorists at the Guantanamo detention facility is non-existent and his attempt to link them together before the American people is utter nonsense.

During his speech Barack Obama repeatedly claimed to have prohibited the use of the Guantanamo interrogation techniques used against terrorists, including water boarding, sleep deprivation and other unplesentries, but the simple fact of the matter is that he has not entirely eliminated any of those practices. Despite the horror he expressed at the use of those techniques and the finger of shame he directs at the Bush administration for approving their use against the religious zealots fervently committed to killing innocent Americans when ever and where ever possible, Barack Obama did not entirely prohibit what he now refers to as “torture,” what he actually did was to reserve to himself the right to order the use of those same torture techniques whenever he deemed their use appropriate. In simple terms, Obama’s feelings of horror and shame are not extended to the suffering of these depraved scum bags so long as he can personally give the order to inflict pain. The water board, the restrictive restraints and all the other implements used are not being chucked into some dumpster behind the Guantanamo facility; actually they’re all being packed up and shipped to the oval office for Obama’s personal use and at his discretion alone.

He went on to discuss the memos and documents issued by the Bush Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel which he released a few week ago and claimed that it was not because he disagreed with their content or because he rejected the rationale behind them, however, he stated, he released them because the information they contained, information related to the interrogation techniques being used in specific cases at Guantanamo was already widely known. While this is accurate to a certain degree, what Obama failed to mention was that the information was widely known because his fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate had leaked the information to the press in their never ending effort to smear George W. Bush with as much mud as possible. Furthermore, while he mentioned the release of the memos related to interrogation techniques he neglected to mention that he did not authorize the release of any information obtained through the use of those interrogation techniques. Information that allowed American law enforcement agencies the opportunity to apprehend terrorists within the U.S. before they could take additional American lives, and information that helped our soldiers overseas to destroy, capture and disrupt the plans of terrorists before they could be carried out. Furthermore, the information obtained during those interrogations gave this nation’s intelligence community the leads they needed to unravel the financial network funneling money from thousands of different sources into the coffers of terrorist groups around the world. Barack Obama is quick to condemn and cast shame on the Bush administration but it is a cheap shot considering the fact that he has been in office a mere four or five months and the brilliance of his superior combat strategy up to this point in time, remains undemonstrated.

Obama alleged that the highly effective interrogation techniques used against a small number of terrorists at Guantanamo served as a recruitment tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, that the knowledge of their use somehow increased the will of our enemies to fight against our troops and absurdly enough, that they made it less likely for our enemies to surrender to American troops. All of these allegations are false, and not only are they false, they are patently absurd. The Islamic fundamentalists employing terrorist tactics against our soldiers abroad and here in the United States do not surrender when surrounded if they are armed and awake at the time of their capture. They are assured by their religious conviction that, if killed in the pursuit of their enemies’ death and destruction, they will ascend to their heavenly reward. Their belief in the reward of Jihadist martyrs is fundamental and intrinsic. It is the sole motivating factor and the only logical explanation for why a human being would strap on a suicide bomb and walk into a crowd of people before pushing the button to detonate the bomb that kills the person wearing it as well as those around him. The Islamic religion is the only recruitment tool required to motivate these people to acts of terrorism. There were literally hundreds of terrorist acts perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists against American citizens before the first terrorist arrived at Guantanamo including the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil that claimed thousands of innocent lives years before any terrorist was strapped down to a water board. The United States of America is not a Muslim nation and the people living here are not subject to myopic Muslim religious laws common in backward Muslim nations. For that reason, and that reason alone, the Islamic fanatics have branded the people of the United States as Satanists and they have convinced their ignorant followers that we should all be put to death. The existence of the Guantanamo detention facility does not influence the fundamentalist’s religious sense of obligation or their burning desire to kill us. Obama’s claims in this respect are false and he is fully aware of their falseness. This fact is made evident by his own words and statements where he has stated that he was raised in their culture, he has been educated in their schools and mosques, and he knows how they think.

Obama expressed his desire to move the Guantanamo inmates to one of this nation’s “super max” prison facilities. He stated that this would be an ideal alternative to the Guantanamo facility because no one has ever escaped from an American super max prison. There are currently a number of super max prisons being used in the U.S. at this time. The inmates of these facilities are constantly locked down in individual cells that essentially constitute solitary confinement for each inmate housed in them.

The United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX), a super max prison in Florence, Colorado, currently warehouses the following convicted Islamic terrorists

Omar Abdel-Rahman – 1993 World Trade Center bombing
Wadih el-Hage – 1998 United States embassy bombings
Zacarias Moussaoui – September 11, 2001 attacks
Richard Colvin Reid – the Shoe Bomber
Ramzi Yousef – 1993 World Trade Center bombing
Jose Padilla – Convicted of aiding terrorists
Mahmud Abouhalima – 1993 World Trade Center Bombing

While it is undeniably true that no prisoner has escaped from an American super max prison since they were first put into use in this country in 1983 following the murder of two prison guards at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois, that does not mean that escape is entirely impossible. Admittedly the redundant security systems have greatly evolved since these facilities first came into use, and escape would be extremely difficult, but I would not entirely rule out the possibility of it happening at some point.

All prisons and all security systems, regardless of redundancy or the high tech gadgetry employed, erode over time, and the effectiveness of these facilities and their systems are only as strong as attentiveness and competence of the prison guards who use them and the installers and maintenance personnel who check and repair them. The prison guards, installers and security system maintenance personnel may take their occupations very seriously, but they drive into work every morning from home, work through their respective shifts and return home at the conclusion of their work period. The inmates, on the other hand, are present at the facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and because they have little to distract them, they can and often do dedicate every second of every day to observing what goes on around them, including the movement of guards and staff and the maintenance of security equipment. Despite the best efforts of prison guards everywhere, communication systems between inmates are highly developed and information is passed from one to the other with regularity and speed. Tidbits of information are collected, sifted, analyzed and prioritized. None of it is recorded on paper, but nonetheless, all of it is remembered. As the inmates compile their collected information, comprehensive images of the prison’s security systems, the movements of guards and the procedures they follow in response to various incidents, all become known by the inmates. As the inmate’s knowledge of these systems and activities becomes more and more comprehensive with every passing minute, the overall security of the prison begins to erode and the potential for escapes and other concerted activity by the inmates increases. While it may be true that in the brief 26 year history of American super max prisons no inmate has successfully escaped, this does not mean that it is entirely impossible for an inmate to escape. It merely means that no escape has happened up to this point in time.

Alcatraz prison became a federal prison in August 1934. While it was not a super max prison by today’s standards, it was considered escape proof by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and by the U.S. government. During the maximum security prison’s 29 years it has been claimed that none of the inmates ever successfully escaped. However 36 prisoners were involved in 14 escape attempts, 23 inmates were captured in the process while still inside the prison, six inmates were shot and killed during escape attempts and two reported drowned in the strong currents of San Francisco Bay during their escape attempt. In 1962, John Paul Scott escaped by swimming from Alcatraz and made it the rocks at Fort Point before he was apprehended and returned to the prison. Of the two inmates who were reportedly drowned during their attempted escape, items used by these two inmates during their escape attempt were later located near the beach on nearby Angel Island. The bodies of the two escaped prisoners were never recovered and the report of their death by drowning was pure speculation on the part of the prison authorities. The prison on Alcatraz Island was closed by the decision of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy on March 21, 1963.

Interestingly enough, I discovered that Time Magazine published a letter from one of it’s readers in the Nov. 6, 1933 edition, shortly after the federal prison on Alcatraz Island was first opened. That letter reported that on Thursday, Oct. 19, 1933, Miss Doris McLeod, starting from pier 45 on the embarcadero swam to Alcatraz and back to the South End Rowing Club in two hours flat. Another girl made a similar swim on the same day in a mere 57 minutes and a third, Miss Anastasia Scott, daughter of an Army sergeant stationed on the island negotiated the distance, starting from Alcatraz and ending up at the San Francisco mainland, in 47 minutes earlier in the same week. The letter also related that the same feat was accomplished in 1923 by Mabel Green. Obviously, swimming the distance from Alcatraz Island to the mainland or to one of the nearby islands was not quite as far fetched as the prison authorities or the federal government would have liked us to believe and the possibility that the two final escaping prisoners, whose equipment was later found on Angle Island, may have actually survived the swim and avoided apprehension appears to be more possible than the prison officials or the U.S. government would want us to believe.

The simple fact of the matter is that the only completely guaranteed manner by which our government can truthfully state that no escape is possible is execution. Barack Obama can relocate the Guantanamo terrorist inmates to the most secure super max prison existing but he cannot guarantee that they will not eventually escape and kill more American citizens as they have publicly and repeatedly sworn to do. The only certain and 100% guaranteed way to eliminate the constant threat these vicious animals pose to this nation and the people who live here is to execute them. To date, no executed prisoner in recorded history has returned to life and we can be safely assured that none ever will. Execution remains the only truly safe and escape-proof solution for dealing with savages intensely committed to killing other human beings.

Undoubtedly, I could go on endlessly pointing out the numerous inconsistencies and outright falsehoods contained in Barack Obama’s May 21, 2009 speech, but this posting is already too long and I have probably lost most of its readers long ago, so I will bring it to an end quickly.

Barack Hussein Obama is lying to the American people on a daily basis. The changes he is making to this nation and the policies implemented by him are effectively dismantling the overall security of this nation and his actions are putting the American people in a position of grave danger from those who are firmly committed to our destruction. Despite everything he claims, we can negotiate with them until we are blue in the face, we can funnel great sums of tax payer dollars to them until our national treasury is nothing more than an empty box, we can empathize with their plight, become more aware of their culture and cover their collective asses with well intentioned kisses, but it will not stop them from killing our soldiers or our citizens and it will not distract them from their religious obligation to destroy our nation and kill all of the American people. Barack Obama is either purposely lying or he is exceptionally delusional, but regardless of which might be the case, he is putting the American people in danger and posing a threat to the security of this nation. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney may be negatively regarded by many Americans, the American news media certainly wasted no effort at destroying his character, but his warnings to the American people regarding the actions of Barack Obama are accurate and should be heeded. Obama is dangerous; his actions are weakening the security of our nation and the potential for terrorist attacks against innocent American civilians increases every day that he remains in office.

Technorati Tags

Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Guantanamo, torture, American Military, Islamic terrorist, terrorists, al Qaeda, George Bush

digg this | del.icio.us

On September 11, 2001, 19 deranged Islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon followed the order of their al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, to strike the people of the United States of America with a series of coordinated suicide attacks. On that sunny Tuesday morning the al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners filled with innocent men, women and children and intentionally crashed those airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.

Shouting praise to their savage deity, the terrorists that hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 crashed the large commercial jet into the side of World Trade Center’s North Tower at 8:46 a.m., instantly killing the five Islamic terrorists and all 87 civilian passengers and crew on board. 1,366 innocent civilians located within the strike zone itself or trapped on North Tower’s floors above the area of impact were killed. Later reports speculated that many of the victims were killed instantly by the impact but it was clearly evident that many were not. Those trapped above the point of impact suffered horribly in the ensuing fire immediately engulfing the structure and ending 102 minutes later when the entire building collapsed at 10:28 a.m.

As many as 600 people located in or above the impact zone were killed after United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. that morning. The five Islamic terrorists and their unwilling 60 passengers were killed instantly upon impact and it is believed that the majority of the South Tower victims located in the impact zone may also have died instantly. Miraculously, 18 people who were located in the impact zone of the South Tower survived the attack and safely evacuated the building. Those trapped above the impact zone died in the ensuing fire or as a result of the building’s collapse at approximately 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact.

341 firefighters and 2 paramedics from the New York City Fire Department, 23 New York City Police officers, 37 Port Authority Police officers, and 8 emergency medical technicians from private emergency medical service companies courageously responding to desperate calls for assistance were killed as they attempted to rescue survivors and fight down the blazing infernos.

Witnesses gasped in horror as 200 trapped victims of that morning’s atrocity escaped the intensity of the hellish fire threatening to consume them by jumping from the many broken windows of the doomed towers to their death on the asphalt streets and nearby rooftops far below.

The five Islamic terrorists that seized control of American Airlines Flight 77, its 53 passengers and 6 crew members, crashed the commercial jet into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia at 9:37 am, instantly killing themselves and all 59 innocent civilians on board. The plane clipped several light posts and a portable generator prior to impacting the 1st floor level of the structure and penetrating 310 feet into the building before erupting into a massive fireball that rose 200 feet above the building. At the time of the impact, it is estimated that as many 18,000 people were working within the building. Seventy civilians and fifty-five military personnel working in the Pentagon at the time of the attack were killed and another 106 people were hospitalized with injuries.

United Airlines Flight 93 was taken over by four Islamic terrorists 40 minutes after it took off from Newark International Airport. During a 2002 interview between an al Jazeera journalist and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaeda mastermind who was responsible for organizing the attacks freely admitted that the primary target of Flight 93 was the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C.; however, as the terrorists fumbled over the complex controls, the passengers, using their personal cell phones to contact their families and loved ones discovered the fate of the other hijacked planes and quickly ascertained that they would meet a similar end if action were not taken. The cowardly hijackers faced by the intent passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 as they attempted to retake the plane, purposely crashed the aircraft into a field located in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The plane struck the ground nose first at a speed of 563 miles per hour, instantly killing the four terrorists and all 40 civilian passengers and crew on impact. Debris was scattered as far as eight miles away and the voice recorder that later revealed the courage of the passengers on board was found buried far beneath the 30 foot deep crater resulting from the planes high speed impact.

Four hours after the first group of Islamic terrorists took their seats on American Airlines Flight 11 leaving Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts an estimated 2,998 innocent civilians from as many as 90 different countries were dead and more than 6,291 innocents were injured.

Within hours of the attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had managed to locate the luggage of Flight 11 terrorist, Mohamed Atta, after it was discovered that the bag was not loaded onto the plane following his connecting flight from Portland. That mislaid suitcase contained papers that revealed the identity of all 19 hijackers and gave the authorities important clues about the terrorist’s plans and backgrounds. Subsequent interrogations of USS Cole bombing suspects, apprehended after the bombing of the U.S. Navy destroyer on 12 October 2000 in the Yemeni port of Aden, revealed that the 19 Islamic terrorist hijackers participating in the September 11, 2001 attacks were linked to the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden, an organization known by the name al-Qaeda.

Within days of the attacks American intelligence and law enforcement authorities had accumulated enough evidence to establish clearly and irrefutable that al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, bore responsibility for the devastating attacks. This was further substantiated by later discoveries made by British intelligence.

The attacks that claimed the lives of thousands of innocent civilians on September 11, 2001 were the result of a religious decree of holy war against the West and Israel. This “fatwa” as it is called was published by Osama bin Laden on February 23, 1998 and began with the paragraph that follows below:

“Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)”; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-’Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.”

Additional Excerpts from bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa:

“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

“We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.”

Barack Hussein Obama, the man who now claims to be the President of the United States, as well as the majority of Democratic politicians falsely claiming to represent the will of the American people in the U.S. Congress, have publically expressed their embarrassment and shame for the actions of the courageous American soldiers and intelligence personnel that our great nation charged with the moral duty of pursuing the vicious thugs responsible for the cowardly attacks that claimed so many innocent lives on that bright Tuesday morning eight years ago.

Barack Hussein Obama and the other cowards of the Democratic Party are overwhelmed by their pathetic desire to apologize to the entire Muslim world for what they perceive as the overly harsh nature of this nation’s entirely justified, legitimate and moral response to the unwarranted savage attacks launched against our nation and the thousands of innocent deaths that were taken.

Unlike the uncivilized and barbaric nation’s of the Middle East, where unbelievers are beheaded and young girls, victimized by rapists, are stoned to death at the command of perverted Muslim clergy, the United State of America is a free nation where liberty prevails and the every individual is guaranteed by God the inalienable right to express their opinion without regard for how despicable, distasteful or false that opinion might be. The American people are confident in their great nation’s ability to withstand the feculent pontifications of every feeble-minded fool who manages to get elected to high public office, including those of Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow conspirators in the Democratic Party.

Barack Hussein Obama and the sycophants surrounding him can bow and scrape and prostrate themselves before anyone they please. They can apologize, beg, whine like spoiled children, and drench the entire world with their tears of remorse for what little benefit they can gain, but regardless of whatever authority they can muster or high office they tenaciously hold to They do not speak for this American citizen, they do not speak for the millions of my fellow countrymen who are utterly disgusted by their abysmal treachery, and they do not speak for the millions who misguidedly supported them and have since realized the grievous nature of their error.

History will judge Barack Hussein Obama’s treachery against the American people and time will cover his tracks with mud while the free people of the United States of America will continue to grow and prosper long into the future and the enduring concept of true liberty will spread across the entire planet like an intractable weed engulfing all it finds and ultimately, that simple concept, the dream and desire of all good men, will annihilate the superstitious ignorance the Muslim clerics now carefully cultivate.

This nation will survive Barack Obama and all who are like him because our nation is too great to succumb to the arrogance of fools and phonies and the concept of liberty lying shielded within our hearts and souls is the eternal and lasting dream off all good men.

Technorati Tags

Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden, terrorists, al Qaeda, Democratic Party, 9/11/2001

digg this | del.icio.us

I don’t know what’s worse, listening to the Democrats lying about who knew what the CIA was doing to the captured terrorists that more than half the nation thinks ought to dragged out and shot without a trial or listening to the pathetically nasal whining of the Republican leadership about who really leads the party and what they have to do to become relevant again.

Everybody in Washington D.C. and most of the population of the U.S. knew that when a suspected terrorist was captured by any American authority, from the CIA all the way down to the animal control officer for the city of Pasadena, that terrorist was in for as much suffering as anyone could possibly imagine, up to and including water boarding and bamboo slivers under the fingernails. Muggers, rapists and thieves caught by the cops in any major metropolitan city get treated just as bad as we’ve treated the terrorists so anyone who thinks they would be treated with the respect of a visiting dignitary has got to have his or her head completely up their ass. Of course we tortured them. We were as discreet about it as possible but after 9-11, everybody was salivating over the very idea of doing nasty things to terrorists and it was entirely expected. Pointing fingers now is not only disingenuous, it’s downright infantile. Nancy Pelosi needs to understand that she has absolutely no credibility whatsoever and she ought to swallow her tongue because after listening to her multiple and varied accounts of the briefings she received, most Americans want to see her strapped down to the Guantanamo water board, and not because we want to know the truth that we’ve already guessed correctly, but just to her shriek. We’ve heard enough about the interrogations. We don’t need anymore.

As for the Republican Party’s sense of direction, forget about it. If they have to figure out what to do to become relevant again they might as well shoot themselves in the head because they are hopelessly lost and will never recover no matter how much they start to look like the Democrats. This, now that I mention it, is exactly why they lost in the first place. Two completely different political parties with radically opposing views worked well for this country. Two shades of grey with minimal variation between them simply don’t cut the mustard. The Republican Party will never find a decent conservative candidate to run for office because they are afraid to look a real conservative in the eye and admit in their liberal hearts that this is what the nation needs most. The Republican Party hasn’t lost their sense of direction, they’ve become bipolar. Not only do they lack relevance, they also lack spirit, credibility, honesty, integrity, perseverance, bravery, common sense and the will to lead. In simple terms – they’ve become Democrats and nobody is going to vote for them until they become conservatives again. Listening to their internal conflicts is embarrassing. They need to grow a spine and start acting like conservatives, until then just shut up and keep their tumultuous internal conflicts to themselves. If you have to talk about who’s leading the charge, you have no leadership.

As long as I’m ranting on about the un-newsworthy garbage clogging the airwaves and news papers while generally considering Nacy Pelosi, I might as well throw in the media coverage of that satanic looking furry little creature that Obama & family are now claiming is a dog. Complete nonsense. That animal is no more a dog than a sea urchin is a fish. A malamute is a dog, a beagle is a dog, a basset hound is a dog, a wiener dog is a dog, a mastiff is dog, even a freaking poodle is a dog, and any crossways offspring resulting from their chance encounters with one another would also be considered be a dog. The thing Obama claims as a pet is not a dog, I could personally make a better dog out of cucumber; it might be a curly haired socialist plot, it’s almost certainly a sexual deviant of some kind, but for certain, it is not a dog and I don’t want to see pictures of it or hear about it unless it gets hit by a car or dies from some painfully gross disease.

While this posting may be short, it is definitely to the point and that about sums it up for me this afternoon. I feel so much better now.

Technorati Tags

Nancy Pelosi, Obama’s pet, Republican Party, Democratic Party, torture

digg this | del.icio.us

In the final months of the 110th session of the U.S. Congress, and as George W. Bush was packing his things to head back to the Lone Star state, economic panic hit the United States like a giant plummeting comet. The ensuing radiance of this comet’s trail, as it streaked across the American sky amazingly, and very conveniently cast a well focused spotlight on Barack Hussein Obama, who, again very conveniently, seemed to be the only candidate running for office that was well prepared for its arrival, and like a comic book super-hero, he miraculously lassoed the invading threat and rode it all the way into the oval office. In order to keep this entire chapter of American history in it’s proper perspective, it is important to bear in mind that while this “perfect storm” had been brewing for quite awhile, the actual panic didn’t get under way until September, 2008, when the loss of confidence by U.S. securitized mortgage investors spiked over the top resulting in a world-wide liquidity crisis. From “point A” where the problem was a relatively unknown threat to “point B” which is right now, a brief period of seven or eight months has passed.

Relatively speaking, seven or eight months is not a long period of time. The historic U.S. stock market crash of October 29, 1929, kicked off the “Great Depression” that continued unabated throughout Herbert Hoover’s single term of office as well as through Franklin D Roosevelt’s first term of office and part of his second term of office before, twelve years after it appeared, in 1941, it finally became one of the first U.S. casualties of World War II. Interestingly enough, none of Hoover’s programs and changes, implemented with the intention of ending the depression, had any real affect, and when you get right down to it, the multitude of sweeping programs, new regulation and legislation implemented by Franklin Roosevelt’s liberal administration really had no impact on the depression. Despite the glowing speeches, great thoughts, valiant efforts, sweeping reforms and the brightest minds working for a solution to the problem of the Great Depression, nothing that anyone did put even the slightest dent in its thorny hide. The only thing that finally stopped the Great Depression was the incredible increase in American manufacturing demanded by the war effort.

Honestly speaking there is no comparison between the Great Depression and this nation’s current economic crisis. The impact of the Great Depression fell on everyone and its impact was substantial across the entire nation and world. The impact of the current economic crisis is very sporadic and most of the high stress points are well defined while a good portion of the nation remains relatively unaffected. California, Oregon and Michigan have been hit the hardest, with Washington, parts of Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Alabama being only somewhat impacted. On the other hand, states such as Illinois, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Iowa, Nebraska, and Montana have, for the most part, escaped the adversity. In some California counties, the unemployment rate has exceeded 25% and in other locations the foreclosure rate on home mortgages is approaching 9%. In Wyoming there are only two counties where the unemployment rate has exceeded 8% and the entire state’s average unemployment rate is only slightly above 5.5% which would be considered great for most other states under the most normal of economic conditions. Given the high degree of hysteria in Washington D.C., the flurry of drastic action, the takeover of the banking industry, the automobile manufacturers and an economic recovery plan that has already gone through an estimated $7 to 9 trillion dollars and will keep the American taxpayers in debt for decades to come, the vast majority of the nation has not been affected to any real degree.

While there is no denying the fact that serious economic problems exist in the states of California, Oregon and Michigan, there is good reason to question whether the adversity demonstrated in those locations is the result of a national economic crisis or more possibly the result of their own mismanagement, poor planning and incompetent political leadership.

The economy of Michigan has been almost entirely dependent on the automobile manufacturers for many years and it comes as no great surprise that those automobile manufacturing firms, which have been teetering on the verge of bankruptcy for decades, have finally slipped over the edge and have taken the entire state economy down with them. Only an ostrich with its head buried in the sand all the up to the silly birds wings would find Michigan’s current predicament surprising. If the U.S. government hadn’t of been constantly propping up Michigan’s automobile manufacturers with tax payer money, they would have fallen flat on their faces more than a decade ago. Michigan didn’t require a national economic collapse to find ruin; the state has been, on its own merits, headed into economic collapse for many years.

In a similar manner, the formerly thriving economy of the state of Oregon was primarily the result of its logging industry and the forest products produced as a result of clearing the state’s once vast areas of thickly forested land. As the state’s environmental groups gained political influence and their environmental legislation imposed increasingly tougher and tougher restrictions on the area’s primary source of revenue, the profits of the logging industry began to plummet and the unemployment rate began to escalate. The obvious consequence that should have been entirely expected by all parties concerned was the loss of state revenue and the steep, spiraling descent of the states economy into inevitable ruin. Oregon didn’t need the excuse of a national economic crisis to declare adversity because they sharpened and wielded the ax with which they then used to lop off their own head. Regardless of what the federal government is or is not doing with respect to the economy, when a state deprives itself of its own primary source of revenue, economic ruin soon follows.

California’s economic situation puts it in a class all to itself. A completely and irrefutably insane rate of uncontrolled government spending on a veritable cornucopia of social welfare programs, an estimated six to seven million illegal aliens gobbling up every state government entitlement program they can weasel their way into, state government employee unions endlessly tapping into the state’s treasury for higher wages, exorbitant health care benefits, and entirely inconceivable pension plans, an extremely hostile attitude towards all forms of business, government mismanagement bordering on criminal negligence and an entire legion of highly questionable practices, political decisions and economic policies have combined to bring the formerly “Golden State” of California to it’s current and long expected state of inevitable financial ruin. Of the three most distressed states in the Union, California is the least surprising of all, and as I have personally stated numerous times in past postings, the state of California should be used as a classroom demonstration of the best strategy imaginable for destroying prosperity and fostering economic ruin.

The expansion of state government in California rivals the expansion of the federal government itself. Redundant agencies and departments abound across the state and despite the economic adversity; many of them are still actively hiring new employees into their ranks as their endeavor to inflate their importance. There are state boards whose members receive three figure salaries and lush retirement packages for meeting once a month to discuss important life and death situations like the effectiveness of garbage collection.

There is a union dominated educational system that accounts for the states largest single expenditure, provides teachers at all levels of instruction with the highest pay scale and best benefits in the nation and still averages a 50% drop out rate in some areas while across the board turns out more uneducated high school students, incapable of simple reading or math skills and wholly unprepared for the working environment they will ultimately face, than any other state in the entire nation. In fact when one looks for an honest comparison to California’s educational system the most likely candidate and the closest comparison would be somewhere in Mexico, and in all honesty, that statement may be unfair to the teachers in Mexico.

It would be difficult to imagine any how any state in the U.S. could become more openly hostile to business than the state of California has become over the years. Stiff environmental legislation enacted over a period of many years has made it all but impossible for manufacturing companies to earn a profit or in many cases to even exist within the restrictive confines of government regulation. The list of substances and chemicals banned to for industrial use but still available in most hardware and home supply stores is mind boggling. While exceptions exist, providing high permitting fees are paid, most manufacturers have given up and left the state for other, less regulated locations and they have taken their jobs with them. The restrictive environmental regulation is nearly impossible for most large companies to keep up with and most have been forced to hire entire departments for the sole purpose of keeping track of new developments requiring compliance under the threat of stiff fines. Small businesses, which are the actual bread and butter of most state revenue have escaped most of the environmental regulation problems but are succumbing just as quickly to the numerous demands for higher and higher taxes imposed on them by state, county and city governments and on top of the higher taxes is a massive increase in the multitude of licenses and permits they are required to pay for annually simply to keep their doors open. California’s Worker’s Compensation insurance costs are the highest in the nation and the state now boasts the highest average sales tax in the nation. Electricity prices have increased by 50 percent, and the states high cost of living index, reflecting higher than average costs for housing, gasoline and food, all place a demand on employers to pay higher wages for workers than what similar companies in other states are required to face. A poll conducted by business advocacy groups in 2003 indicated that more than half of the states businesses had received offers to relocate from other states willing to dole out significant benefits, tax breaks and in some cases subsidized relocation costs. I would be understating the case to say that many of the state’s businesses have considered such offers, because the fact of the matter is that virtually every business than can relocate to another state either already has or soon will be and those that have ignored the offers are going bankrupt in droves.

I could go on and on about California government’s economic death wish. There is no end to the plentiful examples, the government waste and incompetence or the mismanagement of state funds, furthermore, there is no end to the state politicians exacerbating the situation, even now as it slips beneath the waters of insolvency and drowns in the putrid effluvium of its own excess. This nation’s economic crisis did not increase California’s slide into financial ruin, but California’s economic instability certainly accelerated the nation’s economic decline and as I have stated in the past, the United States of American would benefit greatly by giving the “Golden State” back to Mexico. If the federal government, under the leadership of Barack Obama, continues to emulate the insane excesses practiced by the state government of California the nation is certainly doomed, because if California has clearly demonstrated anything of merit, it is that you cannot spend your way out of debt.

Despite the economic hysteria pumped up to fever pitch by the news media, the people of this nation would do well to take stock of their actual economic condition and realize that for the most part, their problems are their own and have been festering for years due to their own neglect and unwise political decisions. The states that have been impacted the least have the capacity to remain unaffected to the point that they can resist federal regulation that will certainly drag them down. Their business climate remains healthy and for the most part they are as prosperous today as they were five years ago.

Economic reality dictates that success brings prosperity and a sure sign of failure is economic collapse. California, Michigan and Oregon are clear examples of failure and it logically follows that the government of those states played a significant role in their failure. To correct the problem we shouldn’t throw more money at incompetent state governments that have proven to be a large part of the problem. If we are to do anything at all, it should be to purge those governments of the corrupt and incompetent leadership who encouraged the problems and may have benefited personally from their creation. Rewarding incompetence only serves to encourage more of the same and it is unfair to the rest of the nation.

While Washington’s political crowd have never been know for their exceedingly high intelligence, they would be prudent to look toward the sleepy center of this nation for an economic model worthy of emulation while resisting the impulse to throw their lifelines into places like California where those lifelines can be quickly wrapped around an anchor chain on it’s way to the murky, cold bottom.

Technorati Tags

economy, Barack Obama, California, Michigan, Oregon, Mexico

digg this | del.icio.us

The National Research Council has estimated that immigrant households create a net fiscal burden on all levels of government of $20.2 billion annually and that the average immigrant to this country will continue to be a drain on the American economy for the first 22 years after his or her arrival. Furthermore, the earning level of an immigrant’s children will remain so low that they will not be able to pay back the burden imposed by their parent’s first 22 years of government subsidized existence in this country for another eighteen years. Simply put, each immigrant represents 40 years of tax burden for every working citizen in the United States.

Immigrants (legal and illegal) have repeatedly and substantially proven to be a major financial drain on our Medicare system, government subsidized food assistance programs, state and federal prison/court systems, and the American educational systems at every conceivable level. Furthermore, the astronomical amount of state and federal money futilely poured into half-hearted and entirely incompetent immigration enforcement programs was not included in the National Research Council’s estimate of the financial impact of immigrants and if it were thrown into the equation it would easily double the amount of the overall burden now being shouldered by the American tax payers.

In my honest opinion the National Research Council has purposely under estimated the true cost of immigration on American tax payers to avoid the outrage that would ensue if the actual financial impact of their presence were known. Financial data collected from a variety of different government web sites indicate a much larger impact than the National Research Council is willing to admit. While it is a fairly easy matter of adding up the numbers given, in some cases the financial impact is a lot tougher to calculate when no direct expenditures are tracked. For example, how does one go about calculating the financial impact of the more than one million sex crimes committed every year in the United States by illegal aliens, or how does anyone affix a value to the more than 5000 American citizens slaughtered every year in this country, for the most part by illegal aliens driving uninsured cars while drunk out of their minds?

$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally.

$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens.

$3 Million Dollars a day is spent to incarcerate the illegal aliens that make up more than 30% of this nation’s federal prison inmates.

$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.

$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Immigration, and particularly illegal immigration has been having a profoundly adverse financial impact on this nation’s economy for decades and now that the United States of America is gazing into the blood-shot eyes of economic collapse and something has finally got to be done about our sorry state of affairs, the pathetically sorry excuse for a human being that was slapped into the oval office by a majority of America’s most ignorant voters has reached the determination that one of the best ways to save this nation’s tax dollars for their future use by the incoming hordes of illegal aliens is to stop the U.S. government’s financial support for the treatment of American soldiers wounded and disabled while faithfully and patriotically serving their nation’s best interests.

Regardless of whether military service is voluntary or involuntary, the men and women who answer their America’s call to service may be making a selfless personal sacrifice motivated by patriotism, or they may be trying to kick start their lives by learning a useful trade or by earning the miniscule educational benefits that four years of honorable service gets them, but reckless personal abandon, or the desire to spend the remainder of their lives strapped immobile to a hospital gurney does not motivate young people to join the military. Soldiers do not chose to go to war, they play no part in the decision to wage war and if the truth be told, few American soldiers, if given the opportunity would vote for a war when one did not exist. Politicians in Washington D.C. make the decision to wage war, they are the ones who direct our troops into battle around the world, and they are the ones who later tie their hands behind their backs with rules of engagement that our enemies are not compelled to observe as they slaughter our forces and then dash back into their protected mosques or hide behind the crowds of their women and children.

The United States government has a moral obligation to pay for service-connected injuries for the men and women who risked their lives serving this nation and it is irrefutably unconscionable for any two-bit hack politician or phony American president to suggest anything less. Barack Obama’s proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to the veterans’ private insurance plans is an insult to every man and women that has ever served in this nation’s military. It is an insult to the spouses, the children and the parents of all current and former military members that have been forced to endure the sub-standard wages, the personal sacrifices demanded and the emotional cost of facing potentially traumatic loss in times of combat. The average illegal alien in the United States is receiving more free money from the federal government’s social welfare programs than the average buck private receives in compensation for putting his life in jeopardy on behalf of his nation.

Barack Obama’s proposal is a loud and clear message to all American citizens, both military and non-military, that the United States of America feels no compelling reason to honor any moral obligation it incurs when the funding required to pay that obligation can be used to pay for social welfare programs and other forms of bribery aimed at winning over the support of future Democrats. Barack Hussein Obama is determined that the complete destruction of the United States of America will be his lasting legacy, and in his first four or five months as President, he has made a lot of progress towards that goal.

It will take the American people decades to repair the damage that Obama has done in the last four months alone. How far will the American people let him go before they reach the decision that this make-believe president needs to be flung out of office? If we need to cut costs in this country we should start with the people who are here illegally. By the time we are done cutting there we will find that there is no need to cut anything else except maybe the pay of the traitors sponging off of us all in the U.S. Congress.

Technorati Tags

Barack Obama, American Military, illegal aliens

digg this | del.icio.us

Nancy Pelosi is the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, she also ranks third in the line of presidential succession making her the highest-ranking female politician in United States history, and since 1987 she has represented the 8th Congressional District of California covering four-fifths of the City and County of San Francisco, California. The area that Nancy Pelosi represents has long been considered a safe harbor for Democratic politicians. Democratic politicians have maintained a position of superiority throughout the area since 1949. With a scant 13% of the district’s population registered as Republicans, no Democratic candidate running in the state’s 8th Congressional District has faced a serious challenge for many years. In fact the 8th Congressional District is so safe for Democrats that during the June 2, 1987 special election that first landed Pelosi in the U.S. Congress she needed no campaign funds to easily defeat her Republican opponent.

Pelosi may be the nation’s most powerful female politician and she may exert the strongest influence currently existing within the Democratic National Party, but after a political career noted by her willing and conscious acceptance of illegal campaign donations in 2002, successfully pushing through earmark legislation to benefit her advisor and former campaign treasurer at the expense of the American tax payers in 2003, excessive use of tax payer funds for her own personal benefit especially noted by her unrestrained use of military transport planes while flying back and forth between California and Washington D.C., her viciously vindictive and divisive attacks on fellow Democrats, and the fact that her obvious lies about the CIA’s use of water boarding have clearly demonstrated her lack of appreciation for honesty and truthfulness, is sufficient to make many California voter’s wonder if simply being a “Democrat” is qualification enough, or the possibility that California would be better represented by someone with a bit more integrity.

The state of California is on the verge of bankruptcy because of the overabundance of lying, spendthrift politicians the population of that state have elected to represent them in Sacramento, and the entire nation is in economic tatters following decades of leadership, both Democratic and Republican, by politicians more concerned with their own personal welfare and position than they are with the welfare of the American people. In 2008, the American people voted for “Change,” and up to this point in time we have only seen more of the same snaky political dealings, political doublespeak, broken promises and outright lies.

The Democrats point their fingers of blame at the Republicans, the Republicans point their fingers at the Democrats and meanwhile, American burns and the American people suffer, taxes loom larger, the money we earn is worth less and less while the cost of living flies over the horizon, and the American dream is no longer based on the opportunity to turn sweat into prosperity, but on the free meals, the government subsidized housing and the free college tuitions that one half of the country is forced to supply to the other half.

Adding insult to injury, perched atop the great heaped-up piles of government waste that each of us must work four or five months out of every year to finance, sits Nancy Pelosi, like a huge bloated, self-indulgent toad, releasing duplicitous statements of scorn and condemnation through Botox inflated lips mounted on a face that closely resembles some kids overused paper sack filled with marbles.

All Californian’s should be asking if this is the best the “Golden State” has to offer. Is this lying advertisement for pathetic plastic surgery the best representative for the people of California or is it just possible that we could do better by carefully selecting a candidate on the basis of that person’s integrity, honesty and truthfulness.

As a state, California has lead the nation for years, and even in these stressful times the people of this state have the capacity to understand right from wrong, good from bad and the dire need for decent and honest leadership to fill the moral vacuum in a nation’s capital where all of the human characteristics formerly considered decent and good are now considered as indicators of the desperately naive. Is it possible that the people of California could start the ball rolling in Washington D.C. by replacing one pathological, self-serving liar with an individual of real character? Would the people of other states sit up and take notice; is it possible that they might even follow the example, electing a similar decent representative from their own state? The effect might be slow to take root, but it is possible, and the change that so many hoped for when they elected the current phony might actually be achieved at long last.

I suppose the real question is, are the people of California willing to take the first step? Obviously, nobody in California would be adversely impacted by the elimination of Nancy Pelosi. That human equivalent to a really bad-tempered Shar Pei could easily retire to her California home with her $25 million and dissolve into obscurity without being missed. The only interests she serves are her own and the gamble would be extremely slight. Maybe the real question should be “what do we have to gain?”

Technorati Tags

Nancy Pelosi, California, San Francisco

digg this | del.icio.us