"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin;
"And when politicians find that honor and character matter less than buying votes and a constituency, that too will herald the end of the Constitution. When that happens we must work tirelessly to change their minds, or their occupation!" - Hoping The Blind Will See

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Raping America For Personal Gain; Gotta Love Our President - NOT!

This is how duplicitous your government is. Are you still defending it?

Obama, Maurice Strong, Al Gore key players cashing in on Chicago Climate Exchange

March 30, 2009 — Stefan Fobes

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange–the rest of the story
3.25.09 / Judi McLeod / Canadian Free Press

Good news to know that the truth will always out–even when you’re Barack Obama.

“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong, the silent partner, is a man whose name often draws a blank on the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol.

Full credit for the expose on the business partnership of Strong and Gore in the cap-and-trade reduction scheme should go to the investigative acumen of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of “An Inconvenient Truth” travelled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste. Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day,” wrote EIR. “First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide.”

(Fast-forward to the present day and ask yourself why it is that every time someone picks up another Senate rock, another serpent comes slithering out).

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers–including Maurice strong–sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996–a Sunday–the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share. By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, who was found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

These are the leaders in the Man-made Global Warming Movement, who three years later were to be funded by the man who was to become President of the United States of America.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

What a flap when it was discovered that the senator from Chicago had nursed on Saul Alinsky’s milk, had his political career launched at a coffee party held by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and sat for 20 years, uncomplaining in front of the “God-dam-America pulpit of resentment-challenged Jeremiah Wright.

Folk were naturally outraged that the empty suit who would go on to become TOTUS was spawned from such anti-American activism.

But the media should have been hollering, “Stop Thief!” instead.

The same Chicago Climate Exchange promoting public rip-off was funded by Obama before he was POTUS.

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress.

Obama was never the character he created for himself in the fairy-tale version in “Dreams of My Father”. He’s the agent of Change and Hope for cohorts making money down at the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Barbarians are pushing at the gate of the Global Warming fraud, and to borrow a line from children playing Hide and Seek, Here they come, ready or not!

And now ask yourselves a couple more questions about our Government. As a newly elected Senator, heading to Washington with an idealistic approach to do the people's work, how long will it take for the system to corrupt you? Think of the power, influence, and money to buy your allegiance. And if that doesn't work, think of the power, influence and money to threaten your life, the life of your loved ones, to blackmail you into the corrupt fold. Can you imagine the pressure to resist all that? THAT is why we need wholesale changes in Congress, and in our political system. Only then can men and women of virtue truly flourish in Washington and accomplish the people's will. Vote in EVERY election!

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

Friday, September 10, 2010

Nine Years Later...

Ground Zero...


Do you remember what used to stand here? Do you remember where you were when you heard the news? Do you recall how you felt? Do you remember saying you would never forget the attack on the WTC, but really meaning that you wanted to get even with whoever attacked us? Do you remember the rock solid response of Mayor Giuliani., when for days on end he stood stoically in front of the cameras briefing us, while behind the scenes he consoled all those with whom he came into contact? Can you imagine the fear of anyone looking out the window of the WTC as the plane approached, and then slammed into, the building? Can you imagine the last phone call someone had to make - a call with trembling hands - to tell a loved one they wouldn't be coming home, but that they were ok, they had come to terms with their situation? Can you imagine how surreal and chaotic those scenes must have been? Can you imagine the fear and despair as people, one after the other, realized their only hope of escaping the inferno that raged unabated around them was to jump out windows hundreds of feet high? Can you imagine the faith those people must have had? Do you remember that the individuals responsible for this atrocity were followers of Islam?
Now, fast forward nearly nine years. Imagine the mind of someone, or several someones, who can disregard all that and callously inform us that they will build a Mosque on this hallowed ground. Imagine for a moment, the sheer arrogance of those people expecting Americans to accept such a proposal. Imagine the tables being turned, and having the audacity to suggest such a thing, and what the reaction of the Muslim/Islamic community might look like.
Nine years ago most of us knew little about Islam. That is no longer the case. Islam has been perverted into a religion of hate by many millions of religious zealots. Those people continue to indoctrinate their children into the same circle of hate, and that circle continues to grow. And just as the concentric circles caused by a stone thrown into a pond eventually reach the shore, so too will the circle of zealous Islamic hate reach the shores of America. Unless there is a concentrated effort, a plan, to stop it. That is not currently the case. American leadership, and many millions of her citizens, are too caught up in the PC agenda to see the threat clearly. Or if they do see it clearly, do anything about it. So now imagine what America will look like in fifty years or so because we don't seem to be capable of taking a stand against Islam. Can you say Cordoba...
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!
Posted by Picasa

Good News From Florida!

Let's hope this doesn't change...

Fla. Poll Gives Rubio a Big Lead
WSJ Blogs Washington Wire

A new poll shows Florida’s Republican Senate candidate, Marco Rubio, with a double-digit lead over Gov. Charlie Crist, running as an independent.

According to a Sunshine State News Poll of 1,016 likely voters released this morning, Rubio the former state House speaker ahead by 14 points (43% for Rubio and 29% for Crist). The poll was conducted by Voter Survey Service, a division of Pennsylvania-based Susquehanna Polling and Research, and carries a three percentage point margin of error.

Since late August, following the media coverage of the Aug. 24 Florida primary, polls have put Rubio in the lead, but not so far ahead. On Wednesday, a CNN/Time poll of registered voters had Rubio and Crist running just about neck and neck, 36%-34%.

Crist, who switched from the GOP in the spring amid signs that Rubio would win the party’s primary, led the race for most of the summer. The governor, who released an ad this week touting his nonpartisan credentials, now might have a problem with independents. The Sunshine State poll says Crist is trailing among independents, with 38% going for Rubio and 36% for Crist.

Meanwhile, Kendrick Meek, the Democratic congressman seeking a promotion to senator, continues to lag behind at 23%, the poll found.

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

Just Imagine If Everyone Lived Like This

For attractive lips, speak words of kindness. For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people. For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. For beautiful hair, let a child run their fingers through it once a day. For poise, walk with the knowledge that you never walk alone. People, more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed. Remember, if you ever need a helping hand you will find one at the end of each of your arms. As you grow older you will discover that you have two hands, one for helping yourself and the other for helping others." Audrey Hepburn

Instead we have the government espousing political correctness in all their policies, a President driving divisiveness to new heights in my lifetime,a government that has done all it can to eliminate God from our public lives, a government out to control you and take care of you instead of giving you the tools to do that yourselves, and government entitlement and tax structures that critically restrict you from providing charity as you see fit in your own communities.

Just Imagine...

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

The Power Of "The Document"

How many of us believe that the rights enumerated in the Constitution protect us? And what do they protect us from? Well, from anyone, or any government, infringing upon natural law or our inalienable God-given rights! Well I submit to you that the Constitution's protections are just half of the story. Have you ever thought about the fact that both the American people and the Constitution have a symbiotic relationship? That's right, the Constitution won't protect us when we need it, if we don't protect it now. So drop the apathetic stance. Drop the cavalier attitude that we have the Constitution to fall back on. We have failed to adequately protect it for decades. How much longer do you think it can survive if we continue to ignore it? Step up! Take a stand! Defend your position and the Constitution! I guarantee you that if you do, the Constitution will protect you! And if you don't? Well then you deserve what you get. Even if the rest of us don't...

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Honor, Integrity, Character, Courage

He may be keeping a low profile, but he's not just occupying his position. He is changing New Jersey. There is real hope being felt there! The change people thought they would get from obama, they are truly getting from Christie as he puts his state in fiscal order. Very reminiscent of Reagan in his approach to problems and his willingness to go directly to the people! Maybe the little "o" should fire his Czars, and just ask Christie for advice. Just saying...

Remember November Part I - A New Jersey. A Blueprint for a fiscally sane and prosperous America. Follow the story of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as he overcomes an all out assault from President Barack Obama and Governor Jon Corzine to first prevail as Governor of New Jersey. Then battle the entrenched special interests in his state to overcome a $10 billion budget gap without raising any taxes. His tough stand has left him with fierce opposition from the far left but also gave life to a downtrodden majority of New Jersey that supports his efforts. This film is presented by the Republican Governors Association.

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty

Shirley Sherrod Resurfaces, Prequel: The Rest Of The Story

This was sent to me in an email today. You'll see reference below to a junior Senator, Barack Obama, who was involved in a run for the White House when he allegedly helped to defraud the US Government out of millions of dollars. Ah, redistribution of wealth! You have got to love that concept! I sure am glad we have such "honor" occupying the White House. I didn't think my lack of respect for this president could get any stronger; guess I was wrong. Way to go little "o"!

Remember Shirley Sherrod, the dept. of Agriculture gal, who seemed to be 'racist' and lost her job??? Well as Paul Harvey used to say, "here is the rest of the story".... and it is not pretty. The surprise ending has not been shared nor reported upon by the media, but it is a whopper!! Thanks to the Wall Street Journal for bringing this to light. It takes some reading below, to the 6th paragraph for sure, before you will realize what happened here.

Friends you can 'google' the word Pigford and it pops up, then click on The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit.... and check this information out for yourself.

You thought you knew what happened with the Shirley Sherrod story, but you may have missed the twist and big ending. The hook was baited, the fish bit hard, then you found out you were playing an entirely different game. Please read it all. Any of you banging your head yet? How in the hell does this crap keep happening, and why do we let it be ignored. Cover up after cover up, plain corruption at it's best, and it is costing us dearly folks.

Pigford vs. Glickman

This came in this morning in response to the WSJ article published yesterday on Obama dividing America on race. There is no need to make any other comment other than pass along this mind boggling information...all comments that follow are from this article:

Andrew Breitbart is a media genius. He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN 'hooker' scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama's most powerful political support groups. But Breitbart's handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod 'white farmer' scandal.

It all began Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his "Big Government" site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how she'd discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed. As she smirked to the room, she'd sent him instead to a white lawyer - 'one of his own kind' - for help. The black woman was Shirley Sherrod - and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country. Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded - and received - Sherrod's resignation. Breitbart had won.

But then seemingly Breitbart's actions began to explode in his face. As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP. And there on tape Sherrod was shown supposedly repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat. Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart . Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he'd endangered their reputations by releasing a 'doctored' tape. Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media.

I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart's in 'doctoring' a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.

Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart's release of that tape snippet. It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government - a little known legal case called "Pigford v. Glickman".

"In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997." The case was entitled "Pigford v. Glickman" and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.

But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to "Pigford". The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs - 400 black farmers - had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America .

There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn't have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.

Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you'll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the "Rural Development Leadership Network" but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action - Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.

Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States - a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting.

Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of "Pigford v. Glickman" in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers. But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Obama.

Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.

But Breitbart knew. And last Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod - and Obama - stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment. Yes, folks - Breitbart is a genius.

As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, she's discovered too late that her cry of 'racism' to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself - and her corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her 'pigs', it seems, have come home to roost. Oink!

Here are a few places for you to start your corroboration process...
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

There Are Still A Few John Wayne's Out There!

This article is from the United States Justice Foundation. Will it take the death of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Shreiff Larry Dever, or Sheriff Paul Babeu before Americans react to the travesty being perpetrated upon Arizona by the amateurs running the White House? Are there Arizonians who have the backs of these fine men? Who's looking out for them if not Americans? No One! I suggest you get your guns now before it's too late. There is no doubt that because of the inept immigration policies of our government - for the past 30 years - and the government's lack of will to enforce our immigration laws, we will need them at some point in the future. It's just a matter of time...

Patriotic American,

If you are a legal citizen, then you usually show your ID when you are:

Collecting a boarding pass for airline travel
Making purchases on your department store credit card
Pulled over by the police
Obtaining certain prescription drugs
Filling out a credit card or loan application
Show up for a doctor's appointment
Making debit purchases, especially if you are from out of state
Donating blood
Show up for a doctor's appointment
Filling out college applications
Applying for any kind of insurance

This is "standard procedure." Almost every day, you are required to prove who you are!

Here is my question to you---

Why should people in this country ILLEGALLY be exempt from that?Why shouldn't we guard our borders as every other country in the world does?

68% of Americans believe the way that you and I do!Quite frankly, the United States is in the biggest crisis of its entire history!

Millions of illegal aliens are crossing our borders hell-bent on destroying our institutions, claiming the fruit of our labor, and intent on imposing a terrorizing form of law upon us called Sharia. They are NOT necessarily all coming from Mexico - many are coming from lands terrorized by Muslim jihadists in the Middle East!

While this is all happening before our eyes, pro-Muslim, anti-Christian, Barack Hussein Obama, who approves of an Islamic Center in the shadow of 9/11's Ground Zero, is watching, waiting, and hoping that the ambitions of these illegal aliens are obtained by them. He also seems hell-bent on achieving exactly the same goals: claiming the fruit of our labor, imposing Sharia upon us, and destroying the carefully built-up machinery of democracy that millions of Americans have fought and died for over the last 234 years!

Because of a lack of any kind of an immigration policy by the Obama Administration, the Mexican Drug Cartel has placed a $1,000,000 bounty on the head of the brave sheriff of Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe Arpaio!

Sheriff Joe Arpaio enforced the laws of the land!

Here is what this brave patriot says: "Because I have taken the lead over the years by enforcing existing state and federal laws against illegal immigration, I have become the target of attack by radical, left-wing, open-borders extremists. I've been sued, picketed, burned in effigy and even had the Reverend Al Sharpton come to Phoenix - TWICE - to march on my headquarters. Some have even gone so far as to call for my assassination! Now, the Mexican Drug cartels have issued a 'hit' on me!"

He continues, "What these extremists really want is a Sheriff who will look the other way, be silent and allow the charade to continue, while ignoring the laws of our land. THAT, I PROMISE WILL NEVER HAPPEN! I WILL NOT BACK DOWN. I won't surrender to politicians, thugs or drug dealers!"

WOW! If that's not a "man's man"; I don't know what is!!

Then there are recent revelations from Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Arizona, one of four Arizona counties contiguous with the U.S.-Mexico border. A few days ago, he said that the U.S. Border Patrol has pulled back from parts of the border in his and neighboring counties because manning those areas has become too dangerous.

He stated: "And you frankly have Border Patrolmen - and I know this from talking to Border Patrol agents - who will not allow their agents to work on the border because it is too dangerous. Now what kind of message is that for crying out loud?"

Dever has served law enforcement for over three decades. He was elected County Sheriff in 1996. He went on to explain: "I am telling you, the agents, you give them a mission, you tell them what you want them to do, they will go do it. I mean, these guys for the most part are warriors, they are soldiers. Then you have middle management and upper management that says: "No, it's too dangerous right there and we're going to cause an international incident if there's a shooting across the line, back and forth."

"Well, I say: Come, bring it on! Let's cause the international incident!"

How about that---another "man's man!"

And the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, tells about border incidents that are absolutely unbelievable. President Obama needs to put the border patrol agents back along the border and ENFORCE THE FEDERAL LAW!!

What a concept!! But it might be just "too much" for Barack Hussein Obama.

Newsmax reports: Texas Governor Rick Perry has accused President Barack Obama of "gambling with American lives" after a bullet believed to be from a gun battle in Mexico hit a building on Texas. "For the second time in two months, bullets from a gun battle in the escalating drug war in Juarez have struck a building in El Paso," Perry said. No injuries were reported, but Perry said the federal government's failure to reinforce the border with Mexico was endangering U. S. lives.

Governor Perry declares: "It's time for Washington to stop the rhetoric and immediately deploy a significant force of personnel and resources to the border!"

The battle between drug cartels fighting over lucrative smuggling routes and Mexican government operations against the gangs has left some 28,000 people dead since December, 2006.

Now that the American people are upset and demanding action from the government, the career politicians in D.C., say "comprehensive immigration reform" -- code words for amnesty -- is the only answer.

Arizona has taken matters into its own hands with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 1070 - a law targeting illegal aliens that is based on federal immigration law.

However, a judge has temporarily modified the original law.

I need you to join with USJF today, as we fight to help defend of Arizona and its courageous stand. This Arizona Immigration Law is literally "Ground Zero" against a "national takeover" by this socialist administration and its pro-illegal immigrant supporters!

The United States Justice Foundation plays a unique and indispensable role in protecting the U.S. Constitution, and your rights as an American citizen, both in court and out. And, now, with yet another attack on our nation's sovereignty, USJF is once again on the frontlines, fighting for you.

PLEASE FAX NOW. PLEASE GIVE NOW! The United States Justice Foundation is gearing up to take on Barack Hussein Obama and his allies in this attack on the American way of life. You see, there is no other conservative legal group with the credentials of USJF. We are, without doubt, the one group that the Left hates to face.

That's why they're hoping that USJF will stay on the sidelines in the battle over Arizona's illegal immigration law. The fact is that USJF is already formulating a strategy to take on the open borders crowd that's looking to overturn SB1070. And whether that means battling Felipe Calderon as he meddles in the internal affairs of a sovereign American state, or defending Arizona law enforcement personnel who are attacked for doing their jobs, USJF is ready for action. We're ready to face "Ground Zero" head-on!

With justice for all,

Gary G. Kreep, Esq.
Executive Director

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

The Secretive Spending Of Our Tax Dollars

Were you aware of this? Do you think maybe obama is the extension of his father's dream? And are we the unwitting cash cow needed to accomplish it?

More questions than answers with this "transparent" president, but the questions sure are scary!

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

A New Twist In The Arizona Immigration Fight

This from Latinos and Americans United: http://latinosandamericansunited.org/Wrong.html

Wrong Court Ruled on Arizona Law

We should find out very soon if we are operation under RULE of LAW or rule of man. Me thinks there should be a number of judges that should lose their jobs, including a number of attorneys.

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the State of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal. The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in The Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part, "Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don't read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder.

But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 paragraph 2 says: "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. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.", both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under Such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue Rulings that involve a state. This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being Appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue. Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit Against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the Case. (Priceless!)[added]

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words in the last paragraph:  No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with Another State, or with a foreign Power, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger As will not admit of delay."

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. Border cities from just across the Mexican Border. This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston . The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in it's self-defense. This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government. And there are established procedures by which Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton can be removed from her position as a result of her violating her Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States Of America .

We can only hope...

In an unrelated post, but definitely worth reviewing, see this: http://latinosandamericansunited.org/AnswerPink.htm

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

Premature Proclamation?

This from an article by ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer – Wed Sep 8,

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asserted Wednesday that the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy is beginning to pay important dividends.

"We are advancing America's interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges," she said in remarks prepared for a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. "Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works, and that it offers our best hope in a dangerous world."

Really Hillary? We've got a good grasp on how our policies are affecting the world stage? Think Israel is pleased? England? Much of Europe? Or are we determining our success by what Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China and Cuba have to say? Don't you think we should wait a few years before we determine no dmaage has been done by the administration's foreign policy stance, Hil? You know, your declaration is like calling the ball game over and won after the 3rd inning! Come back down to reality, Hil. I think you're having another one of those delusional '60's flashbacks...

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

The Redeclaration Of Independence

The Redeclaration of Independence
of We The People of the United States of America

July 04, 2010

The Solemn Declaration of The People of the United States of America,

From time immemorial, Tyranny has adorned itself and its intentions in many wonderful, magnificent, and beautiful garments. History has shown that these garments only serve to mask its true intentions, which are the total subjugation and the carrying into bondage of the very people it purports to be setting free. Whether it be a government wearing today's fashionable garments - Progressivism, Social Justice, Economic Justice, and The Green Economy - or the older, less fashionable and threadbare garments - Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Maoism, Elitism, or Statism - an exchange of one garment for another does not change the nature of the Tyrannical government, so clothed, stealthily lurking beneath.

The People of Our Great Nation stand at the crossroads of history, the great struggle for Liberty having been thrust upon them by a belligerently arrogant President and Congress, wearing the garments Progressivism, Social Justice, Economic Justice, and The Green Economy. The war between the forces of Tyranny and the forces of Liberty having already begun, it is certain that nothing can be of greater import, for the outcome of this epic struggle will affect, for better or for worse, our posterity for all time.

If you haven't seen this site, follow this link The Redeclaration Of Independence and you will find a remarkable place dedicated to the vision of, and created for the sole purpose of, reclaiming and restoring Our Republic.
Stand With God, Stand For Liberty, And Stand Against Tyranny From Wherever It Emerges

Burning The Koran (Quran) 9/11/2010

While I think that anyone who resorts to burning the American Flag, the Bible, the Quran, or ANY book for that matter as a protest acts childishly, there is also no doubt that such behavior has been allowed and tolerated for decades in my lifetime - starting in the '60's when women were burning their bras! But I don't believe any action of this nature is effective. As I read the article below, the sentiment that most jumped out at me was the apparent fear America has of Islam. In my view, appeasement is not the answer either. We are in a world-wide war for the religious hearts and minds of humanity. On the one hand we have freedom of religion - freedom to believe and practice whatever religion you'd like. Those religions are mainly peaceful and loving religions. On the other hand we have the religious fervor to convert all peoples to Islam, and those who are unwilling, or unable, are punished or killed. That is a non-peaceful, hateful religion. So why haven't we drawn a line in the sand and declared we will fight the war to win? When you appease a bully, the bully doesn't quit until he's tired of the game. Well, in terms of spreading Islam, the bullies will never get tired of the game. We have only two alternatives. One is to stand up to the bullies and either defeat them or die trying. The second is to accept the conditions the bullies want to impose on us. We have a clear choice, which one do you prefer?

State Department Calls Plan to Burn Korans 'Un-American'

Published September 07, 2010

The State Department described as "un-American" plans by a controversial church to burn Korans in memory of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- though the head of that church says he is not deterred.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the plan "inflammatory" at a briefing Tuesday and said it would put U.S. troops and interest around the world at risk, echoing a concern expressed by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

"It doesn't represent the vast majority of American views," Crowley said.

Secretary of State Clinton also condemned the church's plans during her remarks at a State Department dinner she hosted in observance of Iftar, the breaking of the daily fast during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"I am heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful, disgraceful act that has come from American religious leaders of all faiths," Clinton said.

But Terry Jones, pastor of the 50-member Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., says not even protests and death threats will deter him. He told MyFoxOrlando.com that he and the church's members feel strongly about their decision to hold the book burning despite being denied a permit from the fire department.

"We understand the general's concerns, we are taking those into consideration," Jones was quoted saying. "We feel it's maybe the right time for America to stand up. How long are we going to bow down? How long are we going to be controlled by the terrorists, by radical Islam?"

On Tuesday, Petraeus said that even rumors of the possibility the church would hold a Koran-burning touched off protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia.

"Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."

Though the National Association of Evangelicals and the National Council of Churches have denounced the plan to burn the Koran, Jones indicated he had support from other churches around the country. He did not name any, however.

Jones said he and members of his church are taking seriously several death threats directed at them, but if something happened, it would not be their fault.

"We will not be responsible," Jones said. "We are only reacting to the violence that is already there in that religion."

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty, And Stand Against Tyranny In ANY Form!

1st Amendment Being Attacked Under The Progressive Guise Of "Protection"

Get on this one folks, or at some point in the future our ability to effectively communicate the ideas we want to communicate over the Internet may well be compromised. No one should have control over the content of the Internet.

Net Neutrality: Debate Builds Ahead of Midterm Elections


On a Thursday night in August, some 750 people crammed into a high school auditorium in Minneapolis to discuss the future of the Internet. Most of them went to beseech members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to act to protect Internet neutrality, the premise that all data on the Web should be treated equally. During the three-hour forum, organized by the pro-Net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet, an array of speakers warned that without safeguards in place, corporate behemoths would cut lucrative deals to prioritize some kinds of content and throttle others, turning themselves into the unofficial gatekeepers of the world's best leveling force. Net neutrality, said Senator Al Franken, is "the First Amendment issue of our time."

In the weeks since Google and Verizon published a controversial proposal on the issue, Net neutrality has become the newest front in an ideological war waged by the pricey lobbyists, paid spokesmen, partisan media outlets and Washington ward bosses who feast on fractiousness. Relying on a now familiar playbook, a tableau of conservative interest groups has used the specter of a so-called government takeover of the Internet to mobilize Tea Party organizations. Liberal counterparts warn that corporate bigwigs are trying to cement their control of the Web at your expense. Their sparring has transformed a technical debate about the architecture of the Web into one of the pivotal issues in this fall's midterm elections. "Net neutrality has become a proxy fight for who you hate more - big corporations or big government," says Larry Downes, a nonresident fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society. "It works very nicely for that pointless, unending argument. The antigovernment people say [FCC regulation would be] a takeover of the Internet. Anticorporate people say a deal between Google and Verizon would ruin the Internet. And they're both wrong." (See "Is the Google-Verizon Plan Bad for Net Neutrality?")

When you boot up your browser, any website you call up is allowed to load at the same speed. That may not be the case for much longer. As iPhones and Blackberrys become ubiquitous, telecommunications giants like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T - companies that have spent hundreds of billions of dollars laying the pipes through which data travels to your computer - are eager to begin offering subscription services for streaming video or faster download speeds, much as cable providers ask you to fork over fees for channels like HBO. An Economist Intelligence Unit survey published Aug. 23 suggests that, within a few years, mobile operators could open their own app stores and introduce tiered pricing models, which 55% of executives say should be permitted in mature markets. As demand for broadband accelerates, consumers will be less insulated by competition, says Susan Crawford, a former White House technology adviser and professor at Cardozo School of Law. The FCC's National Broadband Plan predicts that soon just 15% of the U.S. will be able to choose between top-speed carriers. "This is the arms merchants of the Internet making a deal that furthers their own business interests," Crawford says.

Net-neutrality advocates argue that the best way to keep the Internet free and open is for the FCC to assert its authority to regulate broadband, a process known as reclassification. Last month, a conservative coalition - free-market think tanks, antitax and antiregulation interest groups, Tea Party leaders and an array of GOP legislators - banded together to stanch the threat of FCC action. On Aug. 11, they sent a letter blasting the FCC for "relentlessly pursuing a massive regulatory regime." The missive, written by Kelly Cobb, government-affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform, argued it could usher in additional taxes for consumers and companies, open the door to price-setting, curb free speech, slow Web-surfing speeds and dampen private investment. "Managing traffic online, which is what Net neutrality would eliminate, is actually a very good thing," he says. "It equalizes everybody's access to the Internet by ensuring the on ramp isn't congested." One of the damning adages about Net neutrality, oft repeated among opponents, is that it is "a solution in search of a problem." (See the 50 best websites of 2010.)

This argument resonates with Tea Party leaders, who are leery of government regulation. But in some cases their passion for the topic runs deeper than their knowledge of it. "The Internet is beautiful," says Honey Marques, one of the Tea Party leaders to sign the Aug. 11 letter. To her, Net neutrality is "about the government trying to control and regulate our free speech and control everything that's happening in our lives." Lisa Miller, a Washington-area Tea Party leader, says Net neutrality is the government's attempt to control "who should get access to the Internet and at what price." When asked why, she declined to comment further because she didn't have the letter she had signed to refer to at that moment.

"Nobody called them on the phone and said, Hey, you should really get involved on this," says Cobb. "[But] in the past couple of months this has come up as a big issue for them because they view it as the government getting involved when it doesn't need to." By framing Net neutrality as more government meddling - as Glenn Beck did last fall, when he called it a "Marxist" ploy that would put a "boot on the throat" of taxpayers - conservative groups have carved out an effective wedge issue. "Net neutrality is not a political question," says Stanford's Downes. "It's a technical question. Neither [side] really gives a damn about Net neutrality. They both are pursuing other agendas and this is a convenient thing to hang it on." (See a primer on Net neutrality.)

"We've definitely made it one of the major issues for our folks," says Phil Kerpen, vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative advocacy group based in northern Virginia. "If we can't protect the communications system in our country from regulation, it prevents us from getting our message out on all these other public-policy fights." Since the start of the Obama Administration, AFP has fought to foment opposition to the Democratic agenda - organizing rallies to protest the stimulus package, mounting a campaign to cast doubt on the soundness of climate-change science and funneling health care talking points to the Tea Party, who lend an aura of grass-roots authenticity to the anti-Obama cohort. In May, AFP spent $1.4 million on a television ad that painted the Internet as the next domino to topple in a cascading series of "government takeovers." The group plans to make Internet regulation one of the four pillars of its fall messaging campaign, along with government spending, health care reform and cap and trade.

Opponents of Net neutrality, says Joel Kelsey, political adviser for the liberal advocacy group Free Press, "fall into two buckets. Some are genuine Astroturf groups who echo industry talking points with a veneer of public interest, even though they're funded by company money. Then there's the very real conservative philosophical opposition." AFP declined to say whether it received funding from telecom companies, citing a policy of protecting donors' privacy. But as a nonprofit organization devoted to enhancing free-market opportunities, AFP has cemented its stature - and perhaps endeared itself to donors - by stirring fears that Obama is driving a socialist agenda. (See the top 10 technology bans.)

Conservative groups like AFP say the proper venue for a debate about the Internet's rules of the road is not the FCC but Congress. That may seem odd, given that conservative groups have been virulent in their criticism of the body. But they may be calculating that many lawmakers are unwilling to bite the hand that feeds them. Comcast has forked over $6.9 million in lobbying in 2010, while Verizon spent $4.4 million in the second quarter alone. AT&T has doled out more in political donations than any other company during the past 20 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While the GOP has spearheaded the antiregulatory drive, Democrats have been big beneficiaries of the telecom industry's largesse. In May, a coalition of 74 House Democrats urged FCC chairman Julius Genachowski not to regulate broadband, which they argued would "jeopardize jobs." Of that group, 58 had received substantial contributions from broadband service providers, according to a New York Times analysis. A 2009 Net-neutrality bill stagnated, and Senator John Kerry, chairman of the communications subcommittee, has argued that any effort to codify a situation shrouded in uncertainty would almost certainly languish in this balkanized Congress.

Meanwhile, Net-neutrality advocates have seen their alliances frayed by overheated rhetoric. In late August, Gun Owners of America, a Second Amendment lobbying group that had been a part of the coalition since 2006, severed ties with the Save the Internet coalition to dissociate itself from groups pushing FCC regulation. Craig Fields, director of Internet operations for Gun Owners of America, says the spotlight conservative media outlets have trained on the issue had no bearing on the decision. "The tail did not wag the dog," Fields says. But, he acknowledges, "It's fair to say that at times we've had difficulty explaining to our people, who are conservatives and libertarians and tend to have a free-market approach, that we are not in bed with George Soros and MoveOn.org." In a season when political argumentation can resemble a game of Mad Libs played with a few incendiary nouns, picking enemies can be as important as picking issues.

When the fight over Net neutrality arrived in Minneapolis, Zach Segner, 25, showed up for the same reason as everyone else: to protect the Web. But his notion of how to accomplish that task was vastly different from that of most attendees. Thin and unshaven, Segner wore a black "End the Fed" T-shirt and unfurled a tattered bedsheet spray-painted with the dictum "Hands Off Our Internet." "The Internet's working fine right now," he said. He acknowledged he didn't grasp the fine points of Net neutrality, but said he cares deeply about an open Internet and is leery of the government wresting control away from businesses to usher in a "Chinese-style system." In some ways, his ideals seemed to align with those of FCC commissioner Michael Copps. "The Internet was born on openness, flourished on openness and depends on openness for its continued success," Copps told the crowd. "I suppose you can't blame companies for seeking to protect their own interests. But you can blame policymakers if we let them get away with it."

And yet, even if Net neutrality is - as Al Franken said - the First Amendment issue of our time, for now the FCC seems bent on minimizing its explosiveness. On Sept. 1, the agency announced it would extend the public comment period to solicit further debate on the topic - nudging the deadline for action past November's midterm elections. - With reporting by Justin Horwath / Minneapolis

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty, And Stand Against Bigger Government

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Oh Yeah, Islam The Religion Of Peace

I think I'll just stay with Christianity, thank you very much! These pictures were taken in London; how long before we see this on American soil? If you don't feel the hate yet, you will, so be prepared!

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty, And Stand Against The Inane Idiocy Of Political Correctness!

Only Made In China, Now That's Convenient Mr. President!

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty, And Stand Against This Administration And Their Inane Policies And Decisions!

Obama Has Painted Himself Into A Corner

This isn't good news. Amateur hour in Washington continues to plague us. Or worse, this is by design (which actually makes more sense, but is more sinister on the part of the administration). So, who exactly does obama stand behind now? If he picks Israel, he will alienate all of the Islamic world. And all the hard work he thinks he's done to change the Middle-East's perception of America will have been in vain. On the other hand, he has said that if push comes to shove, he will stand with the Muslims, and by extension Islam (paraphrasing). Hmmm, any doubt how this will end...

Abbas asks US to step into settlement dispute

By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writer
RAMALLAH, West Bank – Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he has asked the U.S. to settle a dispute with Israel over settlement expansion that is threatening to derail Mideast peace talks.

Israel's 10-month partial freeze on new construction in West Bank settlements ends Sept. 26, and Israeli officials have indicated they will not extend the freeze as is. Abbas has said he'll quit peace talks with Israel unless the restrictions remain in place.

Abbas said late Monday that he has asked the U.S. "to intervene in the settlement issue."

The Obama administration has promised an active role in the talks, Abbas told reporters accompanying him on his way back from Washington, where direct negotiations were launched last week after a hiatus of nearly two years.

"The U.S. will be present at the negotiations, not necessarily behind closed doors, but (U.S. mediators) can be inside the room, or outside," Abbas said.

Settlements take up land the Palestinians want for a state, and Abbas views Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision on the freeze as a test of his intentions.

President Barack Obama wants Abbas and Netanyahu to agree on the main principles of a peace deal within a year, but gaps remain wide. In Washington, Netanyahu — who long opposed Palestinian statehood before accepting the idea last year — struck a conciliatory tone, but the Palestinians still fear the Israeli leader plans to use the talks to buy time and establish more facts on the ground.

"Some say he is not serious and practicing PR," Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath told reporters on Tuesday, referring to Netanyahu. "But we are going to test him on two imminent issues — the settlement slowdown and then at the negotiating table."

President Barack Obama wants to see both sides reaching agreement on the main elements of a peace deal within a year. But in a message to the Israeli people on Tuesday ahead of the upcoming Jewish New Year, Netanyahu said the negotiations' success, while desired, "was not assured."

Abbas and Netanyahu will meet twice next week, first in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik and then in Jerusalem. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will attend both meetings.

The Israelis are negotiating with Abbas, who has limited governing power in the West Bank under Israel's overall security control. The Gaza Strip, located on the other side of Israel, is controlled by Abbas' rivals, the Islamic militants of Hamas, who do not recognize Israel and reject negotiations. Clashes and rocket fire are common along the Gaza-Israel border.

On Tuesday, Palestinian militants in Gaza fired a rocket into Israel. No one was hurt.

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

More History Black Americans May Not Know, Or May Have Forgotten

Democrats are quick to espouse they are the party of black America, of civil rights, and champion the causes of black Americans. But here is another example of the Republican Party spearheading the way to equality for black America. How have so many stories like this been lost over time? How were the Democrtats able (or allowed to) spin history to convince most blacks that Democrats have always had their back? It wasn't true in 1864, it wasn't true in 1957, and it isn't true today. Over time, to this very day,  the Democrats have found a way to economically enslave black America to a large degree, while at the same time convincing them that they are the caring party for black Americans. It's high time to get the history disseminated to the black communities so they know the truth, Denocrats are not the friends of black Americans, regardless of how many time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson might say it's so. How many black American Democrats can say they are as well off as those two? I'd surmise, not many.

Little Rock Nine

The Little Rock Nine were the nine African-American students involved in the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School. Their entrance into the school in 1957 sparked a nationwide crisis when Arkansas governor Orval Faubus, in defiance of a federal court order, called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the Nine from entering. President Dwight D. Eisenhower responded by federalizing the National Guard and sending in units of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division to escort the Nine into the school on September 25, 1957. The military presence remained for the duration of the school year.

Before transferring to Central, the Nine attended segregated schools for black students in Little Rock (Pulaski County). Carlotta Walls, Jefferson Thomas, and Gloria Ray attended Paul Laurence Dunbar Junior High School, while Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Thelma Mothershed, Terrence Roberts, Minnijean Brown, and Melba Pattillo attended Horace Mann High School.

On May 24, 1955, the Little Rock School Board adopted a plan for gradual integration, known as the Blossom Plan (also known as the Little Rock Phase Program). The plan called for desegregation to begin in the fall of 1957 at Central and filter down to the lower grades over the next six years. Under the plan, students would be permitted to transfer from any school where their race was in the minority, thus ensuring that the black schools would remain racially segregated, because many people believed that few, if any, white students would opt to attend predominantly black schools. Federal courts upheld the Blossom Plan in response to a lawsuit by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

On September 4, 1957, the Nine attempted to enter Central but were turned away by Arkansas National Guard troops called out by the governor. When Elizabeth Eckford arrived at the campus at the intersection of 14th and Park Streets, she was confronted by an angry mob of segregationist protestors. She attempted to enter at the front of the school but was directed back out to the street by the guardsmen. Walking alone, surrounded by the crowd, she eventually reached the south end of Park Street and sat down on a bench to wait for a city bus to take her to her mother’s workplace. Of her experience, Eckford later said, “I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the mob—someone who maybe would help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.” Others of the Nine arrived the same day and gathered at the south, or 16th Street, corner where they and an integrated group of local ministers who were there to support them were also turned away by guardsmen.

The Nine remained at home for more than two weeks, trying to keep up with their schoolwork as best they could. When the federal court ordered Gov. Faubus to stop interfering with the court’s order, Faubus removed the guardsmen from in front of the school. On September 23, the Nine entered the school for the first time. The crowd outside chanted, “Two, four, six, eight…We ain’t gonna integrate!” and chased and beat black reporters who were covering the events. The Little Rock police, fearful that they could not control the increasingly unruly mob in front of the school, removed the Nine later that morning. They once again returned home and waited for further information on when they would be able to attend school.

Calling the mob’s actions “disgraceful,” Eisenhower called out 1,200 members of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division—the “Screaming Eagles” of Fort Campbell, Kentucky—and placed the Arkansas National Guard under federal orders. On September 25, 1957, under federal troop escort, the Nine were escorted back into Central for their first full day of classes. Melba Pattillo later wrote, “After three full days inside Central, I know that integration is a much bigger word than I thought.”

After the Nine suffered repeated harassment—such as kicking, shoving, and name calling—the military assigned guards to escort them to classes. The guards, however, could not go everywhere with the students, and harassment continued in places such as the restrooms and locker rooms. After the 101st Airborne soldiers returned to Ft. Campbell in November, leaving the National Guard troops in charge, segregationist students intensified their efforts to compel the Nine to leave Central. The Little Rock Nine did not have any classes together. They were not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities at Central. Nevertheless, they returned to school every day to persist in obtaining an equal education.

Although all of the Nine endured verbal and physical harassment during their year at Central, Minnijean Brown was the only one to respond; she was first suspended and then expelled for retaliating against the daily torment by dropping her lunch tray with a bowl of chili on two white boys and, later, by referring to a white girl who hit her as “white trash.” Of her experience, she later said, “I just can’t take everything they throw at me without fighting back.” Brown moved to New York City and graduated from New Lincoln High School in 1959.

The other eight students remained at Central until the end of the school year. On May 27, 1958, Ernest Green became Central’s first black graduate. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. attended his graduation ceremony. Green later told reporters, “It’s been an interesting year. I’ve had a course in human relations first hand.” The other eight, like their counterparts across the district, were forced to attend other schools or take correspondence classes the next year when voters opted to close all four of Little Rock’s high schools to prevent further desegregation efforts.

National Park Service
Central High School National Historic Site

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty!

Monday, September 6, 2010

Unpresidential, And A Liar Too


Stand With God; Stand For Liberty

Isn't There Something More Important, Something in THIS Country, To Spend The Money On?

From Newsmax -

U.S. Funding Mosques Abroad

Amid the ongoing controversy surrounding the planned mosque near New York’s ground zero comes the disclosure that American taxpayers are funding the construction and renovation of mosques around the world.

The State Department’s U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP) is spending millions of dollars on at least 29 mosque-related projects in 18 countries, including Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, and Albania.

State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson told The Daily Caller website that the AFCP is a type of “diplomatic effort and outreach.”

She said: “It is helping to preserve our cultural heritage. It is not just to preserve religious structures. It is not to preserve a religion. It is to help us as global inhabitants preserve cultures.”

The State Department recently provided Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, Ranking Republican on the Committee on Foreign Relations, with a document explaining that the funding of mosques was given a green light in 2003. At that time the Justice Department said the Constitution did not bar using federal funds to preserve religious structures if they had cultural significance.

But Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, told The Daily Caller that funding mosque renovation and rehabilitation is “disastrously wrongheaded and unconstitutional. They are not going to win hearts and minds. It is not as if they are going to say, ‘the Americans built this mosque for us so we shouldn’t wage jihad on them.’”

He added: “A mosque is a mosque is a mosque. It is where prayers happen. That is a religious installation.”

And Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said: “We have always felt this type of outreach is completely ineffective and that ultimately we have to approach it like the Cold War where we are fighting an ideology.

“If we are going to have this long war of ideas we cannot fund these religious institutions. We can fund anti-Islamist institutions based in liberty.”

Stand With God; Stand For Liberty!
NAACP, Left-Leaning Media Groups Form Tea Party Tracking Site

Published September 02, 2010

A new website sponsored by the NAACP and left-leaning media operations is seeking videographers and bloggers who will search out "racism" and "extremism" among Tea Partiers.

Don't be intimidated. Be yourselves, walk in God's shadow, and continue to stand against Tyranny on every front!
Here's the website: http://www.teapartytracker.org/
Stand With God; Stand For Liberty!

Ground Zero Mosque

This is pretty clear...
This map shows a clear picture of Ground Zero. World Trade Center Buildings 1,2, 4,5 and 7 were all demolished by the attacks on 9/11. The landing gear went through the roof of 45 Park Place (chosen site of the Cordoba House Mosque) and the engine landed behind 45 Park Place. 45 Park Place is only one block from 7 WTC.
Some people make the argument that this Mosque site is not at Ground Zero. I say it absolutely is. What do you think? - Bob Turner
Posted by Picasa

Tip Of The Spear

Let's hope this is true! I'm counting on it!

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty

Be Wary, A New "National Bank" Is On The Way

It's unbelievable! This guy just will not quit. The newest brainchild of obama's is a new "national bank"; at least that's what he's calling it. Who knows what it will morph into in the coming years and decades. Under the guise of infrastructure investment - highway rebuilding, railway construction and airport runway rehabilitation, as well as a new airway navigation system to replace current air traffic control systems - obama plans to spend billions more. He initially wants to front-load the project with $50 billion to stimulate the economy some more. Personally I think he's done enough damage to the long-term viability of the country with all the stimulating he's already done. And who knows how many more billions (or even trillions) will be poured into his pet project through his proposed national bank? Who will have control of that money, who will have access to that money, who will have oversight over that money and that bank, and what other things might the money ultimately be used for? Can you say unregulated slush fund? What a field day for the progressives if that passes!

Get on the phone, write a letter or email your Senators and Representative! Let's slow down this idea until we can get all the answers we need. Personally, I'm not just a little concerned about the creation of a national bank. It's just another big government money pit that will help to increase the size of our government in my opinion, and that scares the hell out of me. I'm strongly against that vision.

Then there's this from Julie Pace, Associated Press Writer

Other stimulus measures the administration is considering include extending a law passed in March that exempts companies that hire unemployed workers from paying Social Security taxes on those workers through December. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has proposed extending the exemption an additional six months. (Gee, Social Security Isn't enough in the Red? We're exempting companies from having to pay SS taxes on new hires? That should help stabalize Social Security, huh?)

Wary of the public's concern over rising deficits, the administration insists a second stimulus plan, similar to last year's $814 billion bill, is not in the works. (Believe them?)

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty - Stand Against Big Government and Stand Against Tyranny In ALL Forms And At ALL levels!

Sunday, September 5, 2010

This Is Interesting, Did You Know It?

Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison

By Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” -- U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1


Every year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the executive branch of the U.S. government automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. Since large-scale tourism and mass illegal immigration are relatively recent phenomena, it is unclear for how long the U.S. government has followed this practice of automatic “birthright citizenship” without regard to the duration or legality of the mother’s presence.

Eminent legal scholars and jurists, including Professor Peter Schuck of Yale Law School and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, have questioned whether the 14th Amendment should be read to mandate such a permissive citizenship policy. Nevertheless, the practice has become the de facto law of the land without any input from Congress or the American public.

Advocates of maintaining this citizenship policy argue that the plain language of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment protects automatic birthright citizenship for all children born to illegal and temporary aliens. However, several legal scholars and political scientists who have delved into the history of the 14th Amendment have concluded that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has no plain meaning and that the executive branch’s current, broad application of the Citizenship Clause may not be warranted.

The overwhelming majority of the world’s countries do not offer automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders. Over the past few decades, many countries that once did so — including Australia, Ireland, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Malta, and the Dominican Republic — have repealed those policies. Other countries are considering changes.

In the United States, both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation aimed at narrowing the application of the Citizenship Clause. In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced legislation what would limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legally resident aliens, and similar bills have been introduced by other legislators in every Congress since. The current Congress saw the introduction by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) of the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009,” which so far has gathered nearly 100 sponsors.

This Backgrounder briefly explains some policy concerns that result from an expansive application of the Citizenship Clause, highlights recent legislative efforts to change the policy, provides a historical overview of the development of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and includes a discussion of how other countries approach birthright citizenship. The paper concludes that Congress should clarify the scope of the Citizenship Clause and promote a serious discussion on whether the United States should automatically confer the benefits and burdens of U.S. citizenship on the children of aliens whose presence is temporary or illegal.

Among the findings:

•Only 30 of the world’s 194 countries grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

•Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

•No European country grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

•The global trend is moving away from automatic birthright citizenship as many countries that once had such policies have ended them in recent decades.

•14th Amendment history seems to indicate that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit illegal aliens nor legal foreign visitors temporarily present in the United States.

•The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S.-born children of permanent resident aliens are covered by the Citizenship Clause, but the Court has never decided whether the same rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or illegal.

•Some eminent scholars and jurists have concluded that it is within the power of Congress to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation and that birthright citizenship for the children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens could likely be abolished by statute without amending the Constitution.

The international findings in this report are the result of direct communication with foreign government officials and analysis of relevant foreign law. It is the most current research on global birthright citizenship data.

Here's the full article.

Stand With God; Stand For Liberty!

What Exactly Does A "Transparent Government" Look Like?

Well if you're the obama administration, it looks like an onion. All the layers are somewhat transparent, but put them all on top of each other and you can never see the core. Thanks for the semantics lesson there "little o"!

Stand With God; Stand For Liberty!