“Volition” — A Short Film by T Jara Morgan

Sorry for Lack of Updates

Due to technical issues, family medical emergencies, and power outages we have been unable to post updates. Please accept our apologies. Also we are in the process of upgrading to a bigger and better web site. Good things are coming so stay tuned.

Star Trek TNG: New Alternate Intro (DVD edition)

Ships of the Line (DVD Edition)

Jewish Student Missing at IU Bloomington

MISSING: LAUREN SPIERER
Age 20
4’11”
90-100 pounds
Blonde Hair
Blue Eyes
Small Frame

LAST SEEN: JUNE 3RD 4:30AM wearing black leggings, white shirt, no shoes

If you have ANY information please contact the Bloomington Police Department: 812-339-4477

This Facebook group is coordinating a search – https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_135782709829261

Concerns grow as in recent months there have been a string of antisemitic incidents at IU Bloomington.

Let us all hope and pray that Lauren is found safe.

UPDATE – Apparently she was walking home late after a social gathering about four blocks from her residence when she was last seen. There was a search today by a group of concerned citizens and there will be another search tomorrow. Use the Facebook page linked above for further updates.

UPDATE II – Police have a video, I suspect it is only a matter of time now before the boys in the video with her are identified – LINK.

 

UPDATE III – August 18. The case has gone cold, but Channel 6 News Indy reports:

Family members have pleaded with acquaintances of Spierer to come forward with information that could aid in the search and have said publicly in the recent past that they don’t believe some are being forthcoming. Friday’s statement reiterated that stance.

“There is no reason to think the people Lauren was last with wouldn’t do everything in their power to help us find her,” the statement read. “But, alas, there is deafening silence. “That silence compounds our frustration, our desperation and our grief in not having found Lauren.”

http://findlauren.com/

How the left pushes attitude change propaganda on cable news.

This lesson is over hyped and uses humorous sarcasm in order to keep you entertained while they educate you, but the substance is essentially spot on.

The video uses Jehmu Green as an example of a leftist who engages in naked propaganda techniques but is not very artful at it as she is a newcomer to the propaganda business. So who is Jehmu Greene? Here is her wikipedia entry – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehmu_Greene.

The group she founded with Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan is the Women’s Media Center. Gloria Stienem is an early radical feminist who has pushed points of view like marriage is oppression, all sex is rape, and her academic theories are designed to push the male behavior out of young boys.

Take these examples from Robin Morgan’s Wikipedia entry:

Robin Morgan (born January 29, 1941) is a former child actor turned American radical feminist activist, writer, poet, and editor of Sisterhood is Powerful and Ms. Magazine.

In the late 1960s she was a founding member of radical feminist organizations such as New York Radical Women and W.I.T.C.H.. She also founded the Women’s Media Center.

Wikipedia quotes her as saying

• My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others’ agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free.^[2]

• In her book Going Too Far, she called for women to “fight for and create” a “gynocratic world” and “not [“reclaim”] … some false state of equality”.

 

Essentially this “Women’s Media Center” Jehmu Green was president of is a racialist organization that is profoundly anti-men. It does not get much more extreme than that. If you ever find yourself being invited on a TV talk show demand to know who you will be appearing with in advance. If they will not tell you do not accept the invitation. If you get sandbagged and they spring three people on to debate against you nicely explain that you were sandbagged by the network who asked you to come and as a result you did not prepare to debate such points so you could have been ready to have the best participation possible.

Obama using the EPA to ignore Congress and enact new energy taxes with the stroke of a pen

End the Regulatory ‘Train Wreck’ at the EPA!

You already know how the Obama Administration’s EPA has been working to enact a backdoor cap and trade scheme through greenhouse gas regulationthat would further drive up already sky-high energy costs.

Conservative, limited government activists like YOU from all over the country have helped us deliver a powerful message to Congress on this issue. So far,FreedomWorks members have sent over 153,000 letters and emails and made over 2,300 phone calls urging targeted lawmakers to pass legislation that would put a halt to EPA’s cap and trade nightmare. This groundswell of grassroots pressure has helped push the House to pass H.R. 910 — The Energy TaxPrevention Act of 2011; legislation that would strip EPA of its ability to use theClean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.

As this bill awaits action in the Senate, FreedomWorks will continue to ramp up activity and aggressively push for a vote. Unfortunately however, EPA has a host of other regulatory abuses on its agenda and we need Congress to act fast in order to keep this “train wreck” from further spiking energy costs and devastating America’s economic recovery.

Specifically, it is important that conservative leaders in Congress come forward to address the following actions that EPA has undertaken and that threaten to cost millions of American jobs and billions of dollars in lost GDP:

1. New taxes that will impact thousands of businesses—large and small…By increasing complicated regulatory standards, the EPA is hitting American businesses with a brand new tax. Facilities ranging from factories to churches that can’t afford to upgrade their equipment would be forced to close!

2. Massive new regulatory taxes on electricity…Expensive new standards targeting coal fired power plants—the source of most of the nation’s electricity—would raise costs for consumers and businesses. Billions in new costs would be passed on to energy consumers and the energy security of millions of Americans would be put in serious jeopardy!

3. Costly new regulations on cement plants…Our nation’s cement plants are perhaps in the most precarious position due to the EPA’s aggressive new regulatory agenda. A recent Southern Methodist University study estimated in excess of 15% of plants would be forced to close, costing thousands of jobs, raising costs, and dramatically hurting investments in U.S. infrastructure!

4. New restrictions effecting common household products and materials…The EPA wants to re-define coal ash as a hazardous material. In doing so, they will eliminate the use of this product in the making of many thing s we rely on including building materials like cement and drywall — in turn, driving up the cost of these products!

5. New regulations on emissions that would force many communities to impose costly new restrictions on consumers and small businesses…New ozone standards would put many out of reach, triggering extensive new regulations that would have sweeping and devastating new economic consequences affecting virtually all consumers and businesses, with new standards for everything from car tailpipes to factory smokestacks—and everything in between!

If steps are not taken to prevent EPA from pursuing this agenda, the Obama EPA nightmare will become a reality for American consumers, businesses, and the economy as a whole.

CLICK HERE to contact you legislators and urge them to support legislation aimed at stopping the EPA’s regulatory train wreck!

Sincerely,

Dick Armey
Chairman, FreedomWorks

P.S. As anyone knows, a train wreck is devastating, and also very costly to clean up. Unfortunately, the same is true of cleaning up the EPA’s regulatory “train wreck.” If you can, please chip in $25 or more here to help FreedomWorks foot the bill to undo the damage.

Smart Girl Politics

Are you a lady who is looking to learn more about politics and how it affects you and your family?

Are you looking to become more active in protecting yourself and those you love from the problems of government over reach and fiscal crisis at both the local and national level?

If this appeals you you than Smart Girl Politics is perhaps the best place to meet and coordinate with other women such as yourself!

Visit their web site today!

Smart Girl Politics!

Code Pink and Ron Paul: Leftist Bedfellows (via Lisa Richards)

I was at CPAC and saw this first hand from the “ronbots”. I have also seen this first hand in countless discussions with Ron Paul supporters who use as evidence the worst antisemetic posts from extremist web sites and neo marxist progressive conspiracy sites.

That loud-mouthed, radical left-wing brigade of hippie Jew-haters, Code Pink, says they are on the same page with Ron Paul: they support and defend Israel's enemies.  This is certainly not a surprise.  Ron Paul and Code Pink blame Israel for Palestinian deaths, both sided with the flotilla that illegally bypassed Israel and entered Gaza.  Both called Israel’s military involvement an invasion against Palestinians, both excused the bloody violence … Read More

via Lisa Richards

Bill O’Reilly scolds Juan Williams for…..

Well remember what they say about the left and the bogus equivalencies?

Osama bin Laden is dead.

Justice.

UPDATE I – They get the information on the bin Laden compound from one of the people at GITMO, that was formerly promised to be closed, whose guests were having their rights violated, that the left said wasn’t yielding good intelligence anyway. How interesting.

Obama Administration goes after your home ice maker.

Now the Obama Administration promising to make the cost of home ice makers in your refrigerator much more expensive. No vote of Congress, just do it. Had enough yet?

Fox Nation:

TIME: Ice Makers Are Destroying the Planet!

Want to save the Earth? Easy, just buy a couple of ice trays. To the long list of human inventions that are wrecking global climate—the internal combustion engine, the industrial era factory—add the automatic ice maker.

Climate modelers have long known that households are far bigger contributors to global warming than most laypeople realize. For all the blame tailpipe emissions take for escalating  temperatures, homes and office buildings are actually the single largest contributor to greenhouse gasses. One key reason is the 100-plus million refrigerators in America’s 111 million households. According to the Department of Energy, the standard fridge sucks up about 8% of the electricity used by all homes—a pretty big share given the dozens of big and small appliances and electronics that are also drawing juice.

…the Department of Energy has announced that it intends to add 84 kilowatt hours to the efficiency rating of every refrigerator equipped with an icemaker. Consumers will feel that fact in the wallet—and if manufacturers don’t scramble to improve their numbers, they soon will too.

If Noah Built an Ark in 2011…

And lo, in the year 2011, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said:
“Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.”

“Build another Ark and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans.”

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, “You have 6 months to build the ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.”

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard, but there was no ark.

“Noah! I’m about to start the rain! Where is the ark?”

“Forgive me, Lord,” begged Noah, “but things have changed.”

“I needed a building permit.”

“I’ve been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system.”

“My neighbors claim that I’ve violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.”

“Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the ark’s move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.”

“Getting the wood was another problem. There’s a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl.”

“I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls, but no go!”

“When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space.”

“Then the EPA ruled that I couldn’t build the ark until they’d conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood.”

“I’m still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I’m supposed to hire for my building crew.”

“Immigration and Naturalization are checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.”

“The trades unions say I can’t use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with ark-building experience.

“To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I’m trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.”

“So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.”

Suddenly, the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, “You mean you’re not going to destroy the world?”

“No,” said the Lord. “The government beat me to it.”

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

Where is the “Islamic tolerance” crowd when it comes to the slaughter of Christians in Islamic countries; the stoning of women; the denial of rights to women; and the banning of Bibles and the banning of the building of Christian and Jewish steeples in Islamic countries? Where is their outrage then?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion. The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas, not a rejection of Muslims.

The recent Swiss referendum that bans construction of minarets has caused controversy across the world. There are two ways to interpret the vote. First, as a rejection of political Islam, not a rejection of Muslims. In this sense it was a vote for tolerance and inclusion, which political Islam rejects. Second, the vote was a revelation of the big gap between how the Swiss people and the Swiss elite judge political Islam.

In the battle of ideas, symbols are important.

What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland.

Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others.

On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote.

What Europeans are finding out about Islam as they investigate is that it is more than just a religion. Islam offers not only a spiritual framework for dealing with such human questions as birth, death, and what ought to come after this world; it prescribes a way of life.

Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual’s relationship to the state; the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas. These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword.

The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam.

In Europe, as in other places in the world where Muslims settle, the places of worship are simple at first. All that a Muslim needs to fulfill the obligation of prayer is a compass to indicate the direction of Mecca, water for ablution, a clean prayer mat, and a way of telling the time so as to pray five times a day in the allocated period.

The construction of large mosques with extremely tall towers that cost millions of dollars to erect are considered only after the demography of Muslims becomes significant.

The mosque evolves from a prayer house to a political center.

Imams can then preach a message of self-segregation and a bold rejection of the ways of the non-Muslims.

Men and women are separated; gays, apostates and Jews are openly condemned; and believers organize around political goals that call for the introduction of forms of sharia (Islamic) law, starting with family law.

This is the trend we have seen in Europe, and also in other countries where Muslims have settled. None of those Western academics, diplomats, and politicians who condemn the Swiss vote to ban the minaret address, let alone dispute, these facts.

In their response to the presence of Islam in their midst, Europeans have developed what one can discern as roughly two competing views. The first view emphasizes accuracy. Is it accurate to equate political symbols like those used by Communists and Nazis with a religious symbol like the minaret and its accessories of crescent and star; the uniforms of the Third Reich with the burqa and beards of current Islamists?

If it is accurate, then Islam, as a political movement, should be rejected on the basis of its own bigotry. In this view, Muslims should not be rejected as residents or citizens. The objection is to practices that are justified in the name of Islam, like honor killings, jihad, the we-versus-they perspective, the self-segregation. In short, Islamist supremacy.

The second view refuses to equate political symbols of various forms of white fascism with the symbols of a religion. In this school of thought, Islamic Scripture is compared to Christian and Jewish Scripture. Those who reason from this perspective preach pragmatism. According to them, the key to the assimilation of Muslims is dialogue. They are prepared to appease some of the demands that Muslim minorities make in the hope that one day their attachment to radical Scripture will wear off like that of Christian and Jewish peoples.

These two contrasting perspectives correspond to two quite distinct groups in Europe. The first are mainly the working class. The second are the classes that George Orwell described as “indeterminate.” Cosmopolitan in outlook, they include diplomats, businesspeople, mainstream politicians, and journalists. They are well versed in globalization and tend to focus on the international image of their respective countries. With every conflict between Islam and the West, they emphasize the possible backlash from Muslim countries and how that will affect the image of their country.

By contrast, those who reject the ideas and practices of political Islam are in touch with Muslims on a local level. They have been asked to accept Muslim immigrants as neighbors, classmates, colleagues – they are what Americans would refer to as Main Street. Here is the great paradox of today’s Europe: that the working class, who voted for generations for the left, now find themselves voting for right-wing parties because they feel that the social democratic parties are out of touch.

The pragmatists, most of whom are power holders, are partially right when they insist that the integration of Muslims will take a very long time. Their calls for dialogue are sensible. But as long as they do not engage Muslims to make a choice between the values of the countries that they have come to and those of the countries they left, they will find themselves faced with more surprises. And this is what the Swiss vote shows us. This is a confrontation between local, working-class voters (and some middle-class feminists) and Muslim immigrant newcomers who feel that they are entitled, not only to practice their religion, but also to replace the local political order with that of their own.

Look carefully at the reactions of the Swiss, EU and UN elites. The Swiss government is embarrassed by the outcome of the vote. The Swedes, who are currently chairing EU meetings, have condemned the Swiss vote as intolerant and xenophobic. It is remarkable that the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, said in public that the Swiss vote is a poor act of diplomacy. What he overlooks is that this is a discussion of Islam as a domestic issue. It has nothing to do with foreign policy.

The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a domestic issue in Europe. That is, Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas. Native Europeans have been asked over and over again by their leaders to be tolerant and accepting of Muslims. They have done that. And that can be measured a) by the amount of taxpayer money that is invested in healthcare, housing, education, and welfare for Muslims and b) the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are knocking on the doors of Europe to be admitted. If those people who cry that Europe is intolerant are right, if there was, indeed, xenophobia and a rejection of Muslims, then we would have observed the reverse. There would have been an exodus of Muslims out of Europe.

There is indeed a wider international confrontation between Islam and the West. The Iraq and Afghan wars are part of that, not to mention the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians and the nuclear ambitions of Iran. That confrontation should never be confused with the local problem of absorbing those Muslims who have been permitted to become permanent residents and citizens into European societies.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of “Infidel,” is the Somali-born women’s rights advocate and former Dutch parliamentarian. Her forthcoming book is entitled “Nomad.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

Multiculturalism is a form of racism. Leftist westerners believe that multiculturalism is a form of generosity. In reality it is a form of generosity to the perpetrators of tyranny.

When a culture performs female genital mutilation… the leftist thinks that there must be something good about it that “we” don’t understand. Who suffers?

When the Muslim father of a female student wants to pull her out of school and marry her off. She goes to her teacher and says “I do not want to go and be married and be a baby factory for a man I don’t even know, I want to stay in school and learn”.

So the teacher has a meeting with the father. The father says “If you go so far as to mention this to me or my daughter again I will go to the anti-discrimination authority and bring you up on charges.” The next thing you know the student is gone and no one dares have anything to say about it.

Obama’s EPA: Jobs Don’t Matter

Daily Caller:

The Obama administration has repeatedly said job creation is a top priority, but apparently the memo seems to have missed the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This became evident when EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified Thursday before an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing that his agency does not take jobs into account when it issues new regulations.

“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.

Coal ash is commonly used to make concrete stronger and longer lasting, make wallboard more durable and improve the quality of roofing shingles.

Stanislaus made his comments in response to questioning by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner looking into whether the EPA is complying with a recent presidential executive order and considering jobs in its regulatory regime. The EPA issued a April 30, 2010 statement in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis for proposed regulation under the Resources and Recovery Act (RCRA) of coal ash.

That statement said: “The [regulatory impact assessment] does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness.”

The statement contradicts Executive Order 13563, which President Obama signed in January requiring rules to take job creation into account when federal agencies issue new rules.

Gardner pressed Stanislaus as to whether or not EPA had done a direct economic analysis on how the rule would affect jobs, to which Stanislaus replied saying that EPA had not included jobs in its cost-benefit analysis of the rule.

“Do you feel an economic analysis that does not include the complete picture on jobs, is that a full economic analysis?” Gardner asked. “I think it is really a yes or no question.

“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs…  and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”

Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.

Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter: Leftism is a mental disorder

DR. LYLE ROSSITER:

Board-certified in general and forensic psychiatry Over 35 years of experience Consultation, evaluation, reports, and testimony Civil and criminal matters Expert/consultant for plaintiffs, defendants, and prosecution

This is interesting :)

Neil Boortz vs Muslim Caller on “Outrage”

Be warned, this is very politically incorrect, and I will state up front that Neil is not very fair to this caller. I would not have been so short with this caller rather I would have let him speak to see if he said more things that the host could discuss. With that said Neil makes a good point, especially about the liars. Taqiyyah is the Islamic practice of deception, which according to the Hadith has been used to advance the goals of Islam and the Umma.

Not quite my style but an interesting piece nonetheless.

IUSB Vision Editor Addresses Trump, Rezko, and the Birther Issue – UPDATED!

In light of the recent investigation by Donald Trump into the so-called “Birther” issue and Obama’s dealings with the felon Tony Rezko I have been getting more email asking me to look into this.

For a long time people have asked me to look at the “Birther” issue, but when the (admittedly Democrat) bureaucrat from Hawaii said that he has seen the long form birth certificate that was good enough for me. I only had a residue of skepticism because quite frankly, in recent years I have noticed that most Democrats running for office or who are in office will say anything. To them the truth is what supports their position and the ends justifies the means; that is a standard plank of the far left’s ideological makeup so I am rarely surprised when they lie. In fact I have almost  come to expect it (remember all of those doctors who went to Wisconsin to hand out fake sick notes to teachers who skipped out on work to protest?).

Before I go on let me stop right here and address Donald Trump. I have concerns about him, some of which I will name.

1 – Trump has a history of making statements that are contradictory. Carter was worst president, than it was Bush, than it was Obama is worst with Carter second etc. He is for national health care, than against it, and this list gets longer by the day as people look at his previous statements.

Now it is possible that his previous contradictory statements were made because in previous years he wasn’t serious about the political subjects and was only seriously paying attention to his business. Now that he is serious, or now that he sees that the country has been mugged by the Democrats is he really focusing like a laser beam on politics. If that is the case I can understand that and might be able to look past it. How many “liberals” became conservatives after 9/11? How many independents really weren’t paying attention and since 2009 have gotten themselves informed and joined TEA Party groups (millions)?

2 – Foreign Policy. That is right I said it. While certain aspects of foreign policy Trump clearly understands through experience in making business deals around the world, there are aspects of diplomacy in the strategic view and other areas he needs to get up to speed on quickly. He should hire a smart advisor for that role because if he doesn’t Trump is going to get taken to school during a debate by someone in the primary. If Trump is serious he needs to make sure that doesn’t happen.

3 – Trump used his influence with a local government to abuse eminent domain and try to get people’s homes for less than they were worth – LINK. To me such an abuse of power makes supporting him very difficult.

Let me start with Obama and Tony Rezko. Trump knows real estate law and how it is used to commit fraud. In this case they were used to make an illegal donation and get around federal election law and tax law. In short, Trump’s comments about Obama and Rezko are spot on accurate. I have known this for a long time and I am glad that Trump is bringing this up. Trump says to ask the reporter, why didn’t you guys investigate the Rezko issue. Trump is right to say that.

About the “Birther” issue. I have not worried much about this issue for some very good reasons.

1 – Many of the people pushing it just want to reverse an election. I said early on that if that was the purpose of it than it is silly on its face.

2 – There is no enabling legislation that really makes the “birth” requirement of the Constitution have the teeth it needs to enforce even if it is true. States are now passing such laws and are right to simply to take the issue off the table for good.

3 – I cannot envision a court that would have the guts to enforce it without enabling legislation and remove Obama from office even if the evidence that he was born in Kenya or elsewhere was rock solid, so again this is a non starter.

With that said, I have always thought that the “Birther” issue has legitimacy in one regard. President Obama said in the campaign that people hide things because they have something to hide. He lectured the country and the Republicans about “transparency” only to run an administration that is far less transparent than the last one (if anyone wishes to challenge me on that statement I invite you to try, but the facts are overwhelming and you will lose that argument handily).  Obama is spending millions in lawyer fees and resources to be less transparent. Not in just this issue but in areas of Congressional oversight, meeting lobbyists across the street from the White House so that their names do not appear in the White House guest log, persecution of whistle-blowers, illegal firing of IG’s, political review of FOIA requests,  etc; this is a long list.

Lately some things have come up that have moved me to take a second look at this issue; not because it can be used to ask the President to resign, but to further explore the transparency issue and a separate legal issue has also come up which I will explain in a moment.

1 – Hawaii Governor Abecrombie has stated to close associates that, despite Herculean efforts, he was unable to find the long form birth certificate. Abercrombie is a close friend of the Obama’s and has every incentive to clear this issue up for the president. While the associates later “recanted” it is obvious when you listen to the before and after what the truth is.

2 – Hawaii law. According to Hawaii law all it takes to get a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) is a statement from a parent  saying that a child was born there. The Hawaii newspaper announcement was made eight days after his supposed birth date. Am I saying that this is a grand conspiracy to make a “Manchurian Candidate” from birth? Of course not. What I am saying, and what Donald Trump may be saying is that Obama MIGHT BE, on fraudulent paper after the fact, an anchor baby. This would have been necessary IF his mother had given birth outside of the United States since Obama Sr. was not divorced from his first wife when he married Ann Dunham and Obama senior was here on a student visa and was not a US National.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0005.htm

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

[Note – If Obama was born outside of American borders with just his mother being a citizen and his father not a citizen then the child would not have citizenship from birth, he would have to be naturalized later.]

If Obama is an “after the fact” anchor baby is that really a big surprise? There are many, many thousands of pregnant women who try to sneak into the country every year and deliver a child so that the child is an American citizen and can enjoy the many benefits American citizenship provides. In Obama’s case it MAY BE possible that his family exploited a quirk in Hawaii law to do just that. In fact considering the number of illegal aliens who try to come here every day by all sorts of creative/devious means, one can be confident that such a loophole has been used to create citizenship for babies.

3 – There are other issues that offer up doubts such as the fact that part of his family says he was born in one place and other family members say he was born in another. The Kenyan government calls the town his grandmother claims he was born in “The Birthplace of Barack Obama”, there is some evidence that Obama’s social security number actually belonged to someone else as it is a Connecticut Social Security Number and not Hawaii one. I will be the first one to tell you that I have not explored this to the “Nth degree”, but I am understandably more interested in this story.

Does any of this matter in the here and now? No. Let us assume that Obama is an anchor baby based on fraudulent documentation; is that his fault? No. I suppose if he knew about it and ran for office when he was unqualified it amounts to another lie, but considering all he has lied about this is just one more lie to add to the list in 2012; there is no enabling legislation, and no court would remove him anyway.

So outside of a possible campaign issue in 2012, and another example of the President’s rather outrageous lack of transparency (come on folks, spending millions in lawyer fees just to keep your long form birth certificate from being seen is rather nutty), there is one legal issue that comes to mind. For the sake of argument, lets say that it is determined a year, or three years or five years down the road, that President Obama was not qualified to be president; what does that do to the status of every bill, executive order, etc that he ever signed? Are we really in the mood for another constitutional crisis?

As it stands for the here and now, this issue is little more than a hot button campaign issue for 2012, but IF the “Birthers” are shown to be correct it will expose Obama clearly as a liar to those who do not pay proper attention to civics and politics, which is a massive portion of the Democrat voting block.

So it all looks very nice and tidy doesn’t it? One problem. I still think President Obama was born in Hawaii. Why? In order for Obama to have been born in Kenya, his parents must have visited there in the summer break of 1961 because while his mother took a little over a year off from the Univ. of Hawaii to have her son. Barack Obama Sr. was still enrolled at the Univ. of Hawaii and attended classes from 1959 through 1962. The “Birthers” are going to have to show with some convincing evidence that the two of them visited Kenya at that time.

This would seem unlikely because Ann Dunham would have discovered on such a trip that Obama Sr. lied about getting a divorce from his first wife and that would be  a prescription for two women’s wrath. If this did happen though, I have to admit that it fits the timeline as in September 1961 (just weeks after Obama’s birth) Ann Dunham left Obama Sr. to live as a single mother and attend classes at the Univ. of Washington (why not continue in Hawaii and stay with Obama Sr?) while Obama Sr. continued at the Univ. of  Hawaii till 1962 and graduation. Shortly after Obama Sr. graduated went to Harvard for graduate school and in 1964 they were divorced. Early statement’s by Obama’s grandmother seems to support this narrative and some Kenyan officials obviously believe this as well.

While I am still not convinced, I have to admit that the closer I look into this, the stranger it gets. I used to pretty much dismiss this issue, but now I am forced to admit that while skeptical my curiosity is piqued.

UPDATE – President Obama releases the long form birth certificate?

Well actually it is a long form Certificate of Live Birth. This is very interesting and sort of makes me wish I had dug into this issue sooner.

If you read above you will see that I put forth my own theory on why Obama was hiding the “Birth Certificate” and this new document advances my hypothesis, which I find a bit disturbing. If you had read above I stated that the way Hawaii law works is that a parent can go to a state health official and sign a form saying that her child was born at XXX such a place and instant COLB and state recognition of ones existence. We all know what a long form birth certificate looks like. It will have the baby foot and /or hand prints, the name of the hospital and parents and doctors present who witnessed the birth. The document will be made on the same day the child is born. Yet on the long form COLB is not even applied for until several days after his birth.

So where does this leave the issue? Well it leaves it almost dead. While I have even more doubt now that President Obama was born in the country than before, even if the hypothesis described above is true, which it might not be, but annoyingly fits the evidence like a glove;  even if all true none of that is President Obama’s fault. One cannot control who one’s parents are or what they do. If he believes he was born out of the country than all this amounts to is another lie and quite frankly there are much more pertinent and substantive lies from this president to focus on. I was never invested in this issue and I remain in the same boat, but while so many are naturally curious I am also.

On a side note I also find it interesting that the two people who have benefited most from this issue are Donald Trump and Barack Obama.

Left Taunts and Hurls Racial Insults at African American Man Attending TEA Party

Dumbest member of Congress?

Tax and deficit spend ourselves into prosperity. Listen to her talking in platitudes. This is priceless.

Former head of CIA “bin Laden Unit”: Libyan rebels are like the Taliban

Dr. Michael Scheuer:

Good analysis but totally whacked on Israel…

David Freddoso on corrupt “Gangster Government”

Freddoso’s new book is a tell all of government corruption. This is a no miss interview.

Chicago has come to Washington.

“Smartest man in Congress” explains what went wrong with Obama’s Libyan operation

Thaddeus McCotter, often called “the smartest man in Congress”, explains what went wrong with President Obama’s Libyan operation.

Mexico sells gas for $2.80 per gallon

Why is our price so high? Extremist regulations that are costly and designed to appease the Democrats eco-extremist base – LINK

Here is an example of how and why:

The House passes 6 T-t-t-t-trillion dollars in Spending cuts over ten years

Via Bob Schneider:

The House passes 6 T-t-t-t-trillion dollars in Spending cuts. Of course, Ron Paul and his RINOs didn’t vote for the plan, because there isn’t an extra trillion to shut down the Pentagon. That’s “conservatism”? None I’ve ever heard of, or would be affiliated with.

It trims the budget by 6.2 trillion dollars over ten years and sets us on the path to stop stacking onto the deficit and actually start paying the thing off. It has to be done. If it is not done, as Moody’s has warned (read promised), the United States will lose its AAA credit rating. If that happens, and rest assured it will in just a few years if we do not change course, it will make the Great Depression look like a walk in the lilies.

Democrats say that they don’t like it because it turns Medicare into a voucher program. I am not familiar enough with the Ryan plan to give all the details but if their spin is anything like what the said about Social Security reform than that is a huge amount of spin. But for the sake of a thought exercise, lets say that the Democrats complaint is true for just a moment.

School voucher programs work very well both here and in Europe where some countries use them on a large scale. The main reasons that Democrats would oppose such a program are these:

1 – It would eliminate the need for most of them massive bureaucracy that runs it now and eats up large portions of your Medicare dollars before they help anyone with a medical bill. That would mean a lot less government union dues that go to fill Democrats campaign coffers.

2 – It would give you more control and the government much less. Remember that today’s Democrat leadership are not “liberals” at all. They are arch leftist central planners

Doubt me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

Watch these – NO I mean really watch it!

Another Broken Promise: Obama uses “Signing Statements” to ignore Congress and the law

Remember this?

Jake Tapper:

President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill

n a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it.

Last week the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans were involved in intense negotiations over not only the size of the budget for the remainder of the FY2011 budget, and spending cuts within that budget, but also several GOP “riders,” or policy provisions attached to the bill.

One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.

“The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,” he wrote. “The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Therefore, the president wrote, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”

In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.

During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush administration “is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.”

Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”

The president said that no one “doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.”

Teacher to Limbaugh: A fellow teacher is trying to indoctrinate my son

Tammy Bruce shuts down leftist professors at Bucknell.

Tammy Bruce the former leftist and NOW president is quite possibly the finest debater I have ever seen. Most academics talk to each other so their critical thinking skills atrophy. When they start to lose watch their behavior.

Obama’s budget speech was the most dishonest I have ever seen coming from a president.

Amazing, Obama’s speech is a host of near perfect 180 degree contradictions. We all know that many politicians lie, but rarely do we see people in office who tell a long series of such fantastic whoppers. The elite media has got to be in cognitive dissonance trying to protect this man from himself. Dr. Krauthammer’s comments are not even a mild exaggeration. I have never seen a policy speech by a president this dishonest and partisan to the point of silliness. Obama has managed to amaze me….and just when I thought it would not get much worse.

WSJ: The most dishonest speech in decades – LINK.

Obama says that we were not a great country until we had the welfare state…

Flashback 2009 Obama: I’ll cut deficit in half by end of my first term –

Instead he has offered up 1.3-1.6 trillion dollar yearly deficits for as far as the eye can see. This is up to eight times the yearly deficit spending in 2007.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer, Paul Ryan, Lee Doren, Laura Ingraham, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul,

How can the president say that his proposal is a deficit reduction proposal when he admits it adds $8 Trillion to the debt?

Here is Paul Ryan talking about the GOP alternative budget that actually addresses the long term deficit crisis –

Bill O’Rielly: Last Stand For The Nanny State

April News & Video Roundup Post!

Sorry for the lack of updates recently. Life has been wickedly busy.

CEI Senior Fellow Chris Horner discusses how support for ethanol affects the price of many food and consumer items. Government policy is making food and fuel prices go up and as a result the quality of our gasoline and its gas mileage go down!

Wesley Mouch Voice Mail

Hank Rearden Voice Mail

Bill O’Reilly: Who Won The Budget Battle?

Bill O’Reilly: I Believe People Like the NY Times & Soros Wants the System to Crash

Bill is right, several in far left intelligentsia have pointed out that when a democracy faces economic collapse an oligarchy with central control often takes over. That is just history folks. Look at that history HERE.

Spending Spree: US deficit up 15.7% in first half of fiscal 2011 – LINK.

Video: Liberal radio Talker: It is time to stop running away from the word “socialism“.

Video: Harry Reid Omits “Under God” While Citing Pledge Of Allegiance – LINK. Interesting that Obama and others on the left have been doing this more and more lately. Recently Obama left God out of the Declaration of Independence.

Federal Official: Banks are now government run entities.

Reuters/Yahoo:

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (Reuters) – Big banks like Bank of America Corp and Citigroup Inc should be reclassified as government-sponsored entities and have their activities restricted, a senior Fed official said on Tuesday.

The 2008 bank bailouts at the height of the financial crisis and other implicit guarantees effectively make the largest U.S. banks government-guaranteed enterprises, like mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, said Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig.

“That’s what they are,” Hoenig said at the National Association of Attorneys General 2011 conference.

And back in the beginning of the Obama presidency we told you that it looked like Obama was using the mortgage crisis as a way of getting control of the banks some of you on the left said i was nuts. Well there you are.

A member of the Democrat Senate leadership wants new taxes on internet sales – LINK.

Trade gap narrows as both imports and exports fall in February – LINK: That is what we call a shrinking economy folks. Recovery my ear.

VIDEO: Michigan Teachers Union: Use students to politic for more government spending – LINK.

Public School leftist indoctrination slightly exaggerated:

By the way, those ads were put out by a global warming alarmist group. It is not done by climate realists trying to make a point.

California Teachers Union passes a resolution endorsing convicted cop killer – LINK.

Democrats AWOL on Fannie/Freddie hearings – LINK.

Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? They are the lions share of the problem that caused the mortgage crisis and blew up the economy; that gave millions to Democrats while Democrat political appointees took home millions while mismanaging it; that sold those worthless “mortgage securities” to banks and investors and ended up bringing many of them down as well; and has resulted in hundreds of billions in bailouts? Yes that one.

March Madness: U.S. Government Spent More Than Eight Times Its Monthly Revenue – LINK.

Via Ed Morrissey: Obama wants to double conservation spending, buy more federal land – LINK.

Quote of the Day:

During the run-up to the November 2010 elections, many observers — including me — remarked that the tea party, which was clearly shaping up to be a major power in many states, was not so much anti-Democrat or even anti-incumbent as it  was anti-business-as-usual.  The tea partiers were united not by demographics — age, profession, education, geography, etc. — but by impatience at the sclerotic inefficiency and blundering intrusiveness of a government establishment that had lost touch with the American founding principles of limited government, fiscal accountability, and republican virtue. Perhaps the most conspicuous targets of the tea party were high-profile Democrats like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer, but plenty of Republican politicians also learned to their chagrin that they could no longer treat their office as a perpetual entitlement or the American taxpayer as an inexhaustible mammary gland. As was repeatedly noted in the aftermath of the election, while the tea party lost a handful of high-profile races (Nevada, California, Delaware), the spirit of reform rushed like the waters of the Alpheus and Peneus through the Augean stables of state and local legislatures.

Rep. Ryan on Obama’s Budget Path ‘Do Nothing, Punt, Duck, Kick the Can Down the Road,’ Causing A ‘Debt Crisis’ – LINK.

British Health Service Nightmare:  Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment – LINK.

Man With Anti-Obama Sign Attacked In San Francisco – LINK.

USA spends $20 million to bring Sesame Street to Pakistan – LINK.

Stossel: Some beggars make $50 an hour!

Mark Levin on Presidential and Congressional War Powers

Mark Levin served in the Justice Department under Ronald Reagan and is the Head of the Landmark Legal Foundation. He is the author of several best selling books including the best selling book on the Supreme Court of all Time, “Men in Black”.

Mark Levin:

Why didn’t the Framers explicitly require the president to seek approval from Congress before engaging in all acts of war, and enumerate such power in Congress?  If they granted the president, as commander-in-chief, the power to only repel military acts against the nation without congressional authority, why did they not enumerate that?  What of offensive military actions taken to prevent imminent threats?  What of covert operations for that matter, or extended wars fought over decades but mostly through surrogates (such as the Cold War)?  What must be declared and when?

— I repeat, the Congress — has funded every kind of military and covert operation — untold numbers of them — without issuing a formal declaration of war in the vast majority of cases.  What stops it?   It does not need permission or a request from a president to issue a formal proclamation.  It issues proclamations about meaningless things all the time without being asked.    The Constitution says Congress shall have the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water …”

When members of Congress vote to fund these activities, they are giving their formal, official consent to the operations.  More than voting to declare war, they are actually voting to fund war — all kinds of war.  Interestingly, in most of the cases in which Congress has formally declared — which is World War II — there was never any doubt that the president would use all possible military force to protect the nation, and Congress would fund it, even without any declarations.  The declarations were not used as constitutional requisites for war, but to rally the nation and assert our resolve.  But once Congress has funded a military operation, and it funds virtually all of them, it is undoubtedly helping to make war for without the funds there can be no war.  Thus, in each instance, it is declaring war its support for the military actions

What of military operations launched by a president where the president uses funds already appropriated by Congress before the operations began, but which were approved for general national security purposes — that is, where Congress has not actually voted on funding a particular operation?  Without question Congress has the power to withhold appropriations or defund operations, if it can muster enough votes to overcome a presidential veto.  Congress rarely does so, although most notably in ending the Vietnam War.  Congress has the power to enforce its decisions by impeaching a president and removing him from office should he continue to prosecute military operations after it has formally acted to end them.  Hence, comparisons between the president and a monarch are ridiculous.  These are very powerful tools, should Congress decide to use them.  However, even now, when the president has directed military operations in Libya, is Congress even considering cutting off funding?  What about the Republican majority in the House?  No.  But there is no question that congressional authority respecting war powers is significant, which distinguishes our system from many, including a monarchy.  But make no mistake, it is not significant enough for the neo-anarchists, who cherry-pick their way through history to promote a dogma.

“But Mark,” asks the outlier professor, “here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article – whatever.”

Consulting Congress?  Now, notice how the outlier professor changes the subject.  I’ve been at this now for the better part of a week.  I’ve explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site.  I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons.  In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations.  I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress.  Why would they?  But that was not the issue.  Consulting Congress is a far cry from arguing that a president is required, as a constitutional requisite to military operations, to secure a declaration of war.  So, the outlier professor would be misstating what I said and dodging the issue, apparently something he has been accused of before by another professor, Ronald Radoshhttp://hnn.us/articles/10493.html You don’t have to agree with Professor Radosh’s views, but he raises a serious concern.

Anyway, there you have it folks.  Either you are convinced or you are not.  If not, then you have to conclude, as they do here, that Ronald Reagan was a neo-con, monarch, warmonger, or whatever. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html I have to move on, but I am sure the Paulite dead-enders will carry on.

VP Joe Biden drunk on video. Hilarious.

NEWSWEEK gave 1,000 Americans the U.S. Citizenship Test–38% failed.

Ironically, the article blames not enough central control of schools pointing the finger at a,  “decentralized education system” that relies on the states, and “market-driven programming.”

The truth, many Western European countries have school choice. What do you expect, this IS Newsweek after all.

Newsweek:

They’re the sort of scores that drive high-school history teachers to drink. When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.

To appreciate the risks involved, it’s important to understand where American ignorance comes from. In March 2009, theEuropean Journal of Communication asked citizens of Britain, Denmark, Finland, and the U.S. to answer questions on international affairs. The Europeans clobbered us. Sixty-eight percent of Danes, 75 percent of Brits, and 76 percent of Finns could, for example, identify the Taliban, but only 58 percent of Americans managed to do the same—even though we’ve led the charge in Afghanistan. It was only the latest in a series of polls that have shown us lagging behind our First World peers.

The Via Dolorosa – Jon McNaughton

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/