Raleigh Pro Illegal Alien Protest

They oppose border security, they called the police protecting them 'pigs' (though there were no threats), some wore t-shirts with an image of the tyrant and butcher Che Guevera, some carried communist flags, at least one threatened violence against an observer, people ineligible to vote were being registered. Some poor fool actually accused border security proponents of designating some individuals 'illegal' by virture of their existence. Their signs, flags, words, and action all reveal the kind of people who are in favor of illegal immigration. All this at a pro-illegal alien protest right here in the Tarheel State, on Wednesday.

From Katy's Conservative Corner:

Censorship in an Open Society

Empire of Silence by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 26 July 2010

The point is not these people’s animus or ignorance or wickedness. The point is that what they desired was not victory in open debate but silence—the silence of censorship, intimidation, or the grave.

Let Them Eat Cake

I didn't even know that Federal and State employees are not required to participate in the fraudulent Social Security Ponzi scheme. Jay Tea points to an article at The American suggesting Federal and State employees should be required to participate in Social Security. As discussed in the article, it's debatable whether such an infusion can save the collapsing scheme. But as a matter of principle, there should be no question whatsoever that Federal employees, especially Congress and everyone associated with them, must participate. Doing so might be the only reason they ever have for trying to establish solvency. Forcing us peon private sector folks to participate in Social Security is, first of all, no different in principle than forcing us to purchase health insurance. Second, it's identical to Obama sending his kids to private school, as every parent would like to do, while stripping that freedom from parents whose kids attend D.C. schools. It is the perfect, ultimate hypocrisy. And, it's par for the course.

Wizbang: (Click)

Our Racist President

Race Played Role in Obama Car Dealer Closures

Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.


[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.

As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.

But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama.
[...]

As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and "Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based."

Included among those undisputed facts:


-"[D]ealerships were retained because they were ... minority- or woman-owned dealerships";

-Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's "mandate for shared sacrifice";

-A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler.

The media, of course, remain mute about these serious allegations in the Barofsky report. They have limited their coverage to the job loss numbers and tried to place the blame on Treasury Secretary Turbo-Tax Tim Geithner.

Another Democrat Attack on Free Speech

DISCLOSE Act Assault on First Amendment Continues | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

For those of you who believe in bygone notions like free speech rights and the ability to criticize politicians when they do things like nationalize 1/5 of the U.S. economy, you better taken advantage of that while you can. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has filed for cloture on the DISCLOSE Act, S. 3628, which is intended to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and impose burdensome new disclosure requirements.
[...]
If this bill passes, it will become effective within thirty days, which will cause such confusion and chaos only two months before the fall congressional elections that many corporations, both profit and nonprofit, and incorporated associations, will no doubt stay out of the election and stay out of grassroots activity on other bills and issues being considered by Congress before November. But then, there is little doubt that deterring such activity that could lead to criticism of the positions and votes taken by incumbent senators and representatives is an intentional objective.

The Framers of our Bill of Rights are probably rolling over in their graves as they contemplate what may be about to happen in the United States Senate. If Daniel Webster asked “How stands the Union?’ as he did in the famous story by Stephen Vincent Benet in The Devil and Daniel Webster, it would be hard to give him the answer he would want. When members of the United States Congress believe they have the power to violate the First Amendment with impunity and censor the political speech of those who they believe should not be able to speak, then the Union no longer stands “rock-bottomed and copper sheathed, one and indivisible.”

The Pot Calling the Kettle Colored, Part 2

Entertainers Who Spread Racism Rewarded By NAACP

After drawing the ire of the NAACP for challenging their resolution against alleged Tea Party racism, Breitbart’s Big Government set off the blogosphere with video of Shirley Sherrod, a government official speaking at an NAACP-sponsored event, drawing cheers and laughter from her audience while recounting a time when she denied help to a white farmer solely because of his race. While Ms. Sherrod went on to make a point about looking past racial differences, these questions remain: why did no one speak up? Why was there only positive feedback from the audience at this point in the story?

For which group is there more evidence of members assenting to racist comments: the Tea Party or the NAACP?
[...]
For 41 years, the NAACP has awarded “Image” awards to black entertainers who achieve excellence in the arts. Despite its rightful role in celebrating the accomplishments of people of color in the arts, the awards show has also been beset by controversy. Several nominees and winners of awards have engaged in openly racist behavior. For example, Jamie Foxx, a winner of multiple NAACP Image awards, called Miley Cyrus a “little white bitch” who should “catch chlamydia on a bicycle seat.” The NAACP has yet to comment on Foxx’s remarks. Going beyond hatred for one white person, rapper Ice Cube released a song in 1993 titled “Enemy,” with lyrics that state:


[Referring to Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech]
You gonna grow old holdin’ crackers’ hands
Before you hold each others’ hands?
You gonna walk with your enemy
Before you learn to walk with one another?
How sick can you be? …
Please don’t [shoot] til you see the whites of his eyes,
The whites of his skin, the whites of his lies.

Two years later, Ice Cube was nominated for an Image award for his role in the film Higher Learning.
His other songs are reprehensible as well. “No Vaseline” makes derogatory statements about Jews, but the actual focus of the song revolves around anally raping and shooting/lynching his former N.W.A. colleagues. “Black Korea” is unabashedly racist against Asian-Americans. After peppering the song with slurs (”Oriential one-penny counting motherfuckers,” “little Chinese motherfucker,” “your chop suey ass”), Mr. Cube says, “So pay respect to the black fist/ Or we’ll burn your store right down to a crisp.” Sounds a little too close for comfort to the racially incendiary art of another Image award winner. No NAACP statement has ever been made condemning his endorsement of racially motivated violence.
[...]
And for these artists, the racially insensitive expressions are not limited to lyrics themselves. In the music video for “Run This Town,” a collaboration between Jay-Z, Kanye West, and Rihanna (all three are Image winners & nominees), the artists lead a flame-engulfed riot, dressed in outfits similar to groups that promote racially motivated violence: the PLO (keffiyehs), the KKK (pointed hoods—but they’re black!), and the Black Panthers (plain, all-black shirt & pants with black beret—but, of course, this could just be a reference to beatniks, right?).
And, to top it all off, this past year the NAACP gave an Image award to Van Jones, the former Green Jobs Czar who casually singled out “white polluters,” stereotyped that “only white suburban kids shoot up schools,” and decried Israel’s “occupation” of Israel. Benjamin Jealous gave Jones the NAACP President’s Award at the 41st annual Image Awards. “Van Jones is an American treasure,” he reasoned.
[...]
This last April 15th, a small movement of agent provocateurs mobilized to try and embarrass Tea Partiers at nationwide protests. In several locations, individuals espousing white supremacy or other hateful sentiments were booed and forced away from the crowd. Whether these people were leftists trying to forge some evidence for the “Tea Partiers are Racist” meme or genuine racists trying to piggyback off the Tea Party’s popularity, the overwhelming majority of Tea Party members showed that racism has no place in their movement.

Compare this with the NAACP’s reaction to clear racism in both the political and entertainment world. Ms. Sherrod’s remarks, before revealing her change of heart, were greeted by her audience with murmurs of approval, chuckles, and absolutely no objections. Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s audience has been a tad more enthusiastic in response to his hateful comments, with no rebuke from Mr. Jealous’ organization.

The NAACP has nominated the aforementioned artists for Image awards, given them the prizes—sometimes more than once—and never once condemned their openly hateful speech. At the very least, even if the opportunity to deny an artist a nomination has passed, the organization could issue a statement saying that such behavior is not appropriate for those who have been honored with Image awards.
The NAACP ought to hold those it designates as role models for the black community to higher standards than this. If it continues to ignore the propagation of racially incendiary and violent expression, the group has no leg to stand on when condemning the Tea Party.

3 Things You NEED to Know about Islam

H/T Wizbang

The Pot Calling the Kettle Colored

So soon after the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People charged the Tea Party of being infested with racism, they are themselves exposed for having given an award to an openly racist USDA official. The video shows Shirley Sherrod proudly proclaiming her racism at an NAACP awards banquet and being applauded by other attendees.

Priceless.

The leftist legacy media reported ad naseum about the NAACP resolution against the Tea Party but has been covering up this story. See the Newsbusters article.

"Ground zero mosque is the SECOND mosque being built on a 9/11 site"

Another 'victory mosque' is to be built in Shanksville, PA, the site of Flight 93 crash on 9/11. The "memorial" will include an Islamic crescent that faces Mecca.

911 Hero's Family Member: "Ground zero mosque is the SECOND mosque being built on a 9/11 site" - Atlas Shrugs

The Flight 93 mosque needs to be stopped, along with the Islamic victory mosque at ground zero in Manhattan. May the fight against these two desecrations strengthen each other.

Lt. Col. Allen West is One Class Act

Blacklisting Lt Colonel Allen West And His Wife - Atlas Shrugs

This disgusting. Blacklisting patriotically correct heroes for the politically correct. Thanks to Dagny for sending this to us in the comment section:


Lt. Col. Allen West and his wife Angela ~ Today at 2:13pm

Bill, Danielle, and Chip, at about 1210 pm today I received a call from Ms Chris Landshut, (954)739-5007, Executive Director of the South Florida Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. After reintroducing herself to me she was uncomfortable telling me of a situation that has arisen reference the nomination of Angela and myself as a South Florida Finest Couple.

She informed me that she has received complaints from certain individuals who have threatened to withdraw their support to the Cystic Fibrosis gala event if Angela and I are honored. She humbly asked if I would agree to step down and allow the event to proceed and not disrupt the support to the foundation. These individuals have called and complained to the National Foundation decrying "politicizing" of the event.

In accepting the nomination, Angela and I consented to raise $10K for the Cystic Fibrosis foundation, our opportunity to give back to our community. However, not wanting to cause the foundation to lose what I was told could be up to $200K I consented to Ms Landshut that Angela and I would step down and not participate in the event.

Bill, you are the Chairman of this gala event and therefore I would like a formal letter of apology, not to me, but rather to my wife Dr Angela Graham-West explaining this situation. I do not care how people attack me but my wife is another matter.

I know that this situation revolves around my congressional candidacy but this event has honored political figures before. I felt that our service to this Nation and local community warranted our nomination.

It has come to my attention that the McCloskey and Levy families are the donors who have threatened to withdraw support due to prodding from the wife of Congressman Ron Klein. I find this reprehensible, disgusting, despicable, and petulant....but indicative of the hideous side of South Florida politics which I condemn. There is proof of this, to include an email trail, and I would appreciate your honesty when this becomes a topic of inquiry.

I must now contact all those friends whom I had asked to assist us in raising the requisite funds and inform them of this issue. I pray you are prepared.

I hold no angst against you as the Chairman of the event, Ms Landshut, or the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. However, I am highly upset with those who would blackmail the CF Foundation in order to play politics.

Steadfast and Loyal, LTC(R) Allen B West


UPDATE: Contact info: The President and CEO of the foundation is Robert J. Beall

Fascism Is as Fascism Does

American Thinker: American Jeopardy: What is Fascism?

Fascism is, however, correctly associated with tyranny since nations that employ the tenets of fascism almost always transition from a republican or parliamentary form of government to some sort of personality cult usually centered on an economic "savior." Fascism requires extensive state control, and if this control is not centralized in a singular personality, the results will be muddied and plagued with excessive overlap. Many envisioned President Obama in this way prior to the election, and President Obama certainly did not hesitate to utilize workers' paradise imagery during his campaign.

During an early period of popular expectation -- for "hope and change," perhaps -- the savior can implement highly undemocratic and centralist policies simply by ignoring the existence of laws and constitutions that preclude this sort of behavior. Before citizens and their representatives have time to respond to these abuses, the savior has already opened new fronts and perpetrated new abuses. It is the finger in the wind method. If there are no outcries of public furor for the scrapping of, say, states' rights, the savior will know that even greater violations are possible. President Obama has done just this.

Shortly after he claimed the right to fire the head of a private company, Obama realized he could claim the power to set wages in companies receiving bailout funds. When these actions were successful, Obama realized he could then claim the power to set wages all across the economy, even venturing as far as attempting government mandates for company perks like private jets or club memberships.

Similarly, when it was clear Congress would not object to Obama claiming the power to declare martial law, in direct violation of historic statute, Obama then contended that, in the event Congress would not cooperate, he would merely rule by decree. This give-and-take approach has been wildly successful as a means of overcoming major constitutional obstacles to acquisitions of power.

All of Obama's actions have highly fascist overtones. The fusion of government and the private sector can be observed most clearly in the recent Chicago-style shakedown of BP, wherein Obama forced a private sector company to set up a $20 billion slush fund to be controlled by his team of czars, criminally exceeding his constitutional authority. Only days after it was clear that this action would not be met with legal challenge, Obama succeeded in passing a financial overhaul bill granting him the authority to seize healthy firms if he deemed them to be at risk, outside of normal bankruptcy procedures which exist expressly for that purpose.

For any fascist system to maintain control, "the rich" must be indebted to the state, and the poor must feel empowered by the state. Shortly after Obama was elected, he immediately targeted specific affluent persons with proposed 90 percent taxes. Although highly illegal, the effect was the same. Persons with wealth became aware that there was a man in power who would not hesitate to break the backs of the wealthy. The financial interests of the richest one percent became suddenly interwoven with Obama's success.

And what of the poor? The poor, having lost work due to the economically destructive policies of the Obama Administration, e.g. tax increases during a recession and the wholesale banning of lucrative industries, remain utterly dependent on President Obama. The "savior" assures the poor that he "feels their pain" and talks of hard times ahead. As a result, the poor naturally link their destiny to the success of the President. By discouraging investment through higher capital gains taxes, through the virtual prohibition of "risk" in hedge fund and derivatives trading, as well as through hidden taxes associated with mandatory health insurance and the financial overhaul, Obama has created an environment where businesses cannot hire. This leaves the poor in the cold and makes government the sole source of worker empowerment.

But for an economic "savior" to be truly successful, the banks must be under his or her total control. How can a savior engineer the needed stagnation to ensure the continued vitality of a morally bankrupt administration as long as banks are independent? The financial overhaul completed this transaction. Now the banks answer directly to the White House, and can be shut down under any pretense. America got a preview of this new relationship when President Obama early threatened bankers with "pitchforks," echoing Lenin.

America is being remade in an antiquated fascist image.

Ayn Rand In Defense of Capitalism

Over 30 years ago, Ayn Rand could foresee what is happening now in the U.S.

Victory Dance!

I'll tell you the truth. I cried. I don't think I could visit a place representative of such vile tyranny and violent horror as Auschwitz without melting into a useless, bubbling puddle. However, Adolek Kohn survived Auschwitz and returned with his daughter, Jane Korman, and several of his grandchildren to celebrate and glory in having overcome the gravest of injustices by doing a victory dance on the grounds of Auschwitz. YouTube was forced (I suppose) to pull the video for copyright infringement. It has received some criticism from Jews who see it as disrespectful. But there can be no doubt, Adolek Kohn and his family are not celebrating genocide. Rather, quite obviously, they are celebrating its failure.



Copyright infringement be damned. Besides, this particular song ought to be public domain by now, merely by virtue of its popularity and creative use in videos the world over. See parts 2 and 3 of the series below.

"This is really a historical moment. Because who can come? How many people would come here with their grandchildren? One percent? Not even one percent. Half a percent? I don't think even half a percent. All were killed."

Liberty, Sovereignty, and Arizona

A superb, brief summary of the principles of our government and how those principles relate to the issue of Arizona's border security law SB1070.
American Thinker: Liberty, Sovereignty, and Arizona

By Daniel H. Fernald
The American concept of sovereignty -- as expressed in our Declaration and Constitution -- is, like that of ancient Athens, directly linked to our natural liberty. Casting a vote is an act of sovereign delegation. That is, when one votes, one says, in effect, "I am unable to discharge all of the duties laid on me by my personal sovereignty. Thus, I will, along with my countrymen, choose certain individuals to represent my interests and to discharge such duties as are beyond my ability."

Each citizen votes for a mayor, who is charged with overseeing municipal services -- police, fire, and the like. We vote for state representatives and a governor in order to accomplish the same goal at the State level. Finally, we vote for federal representatives and a president in order that our laws may be enforced, and our Constitution defended, at the national level.

In each instance, we delegate -- but do not surrender -- some portion of our personal sovereignty in order to safeguard our natural rights. We do not delegate any portion of our personal sovereignty for any other purpose. We retain such sovereignty, i.e. personal liberty, as we do not delegate.

This follows from the logic of sovereignty's origin with the individual and its partial delegation for the limited purpose of safeguarding our natural rights. The State has no other legitimate function than to safeguard the natural rights of those whose collective sovereign delegation alone leads to its creation.

For example, we waive our natural right to perfect liberty by placing ourselves under the authority of police and courts, in exchange for which we rightly demand their protection. We also allow the State to function as an intermediary between us and our neighbors in property disputes. The list goes on.

The overriding point is that, without exception, every legitimate State power has been delegated to it by the People. Citizens delegate some limited part of their sovereign rights to the State in order that the state may act as a protector from outside forces, and an impartial arbiter when conflicts occur between citizens.

The State is not autonomous. It has no source of legitimate power other than the People. Whenever it acts beyond such sovereign powers as have been specifically delegated to it by the People, its action is unlawful and indeed constitutes an attack on liberty itself.

This liberty finds its most immediate, and concrete, expression in the natural, "negative" rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that are pillars of the Declaration and are woven into the very fabric of the Constitution. When read without the hermeneutic pink-colored glasses favored by so much of our leftist judiciary, our Constitution clearly privileges both the individual citizen and "The People" over the federal -- not central -- government created by it.

By crafting the Constitution in this way, our Founders recognized simultaneously the necessity and the danger of joining the several sovereign States together into a larger federation, a truly "federal" government.

Two points are worthy of note here. First, the several consenting States were already sovereign prior to the creation of the federal government. They were prior existing sovereign entities. Their creation predated the federal government created by the Constitution. The People of each sovereign and consenting State had delegated some portion of their personal sovereignty in order to create a collective entity, the State (i.e., New York, Maryland, Virginia, etc.), for the express purpose of defending their natural liberties -- and for no other purpose. Thus, the exercise by the federal government of any powers not specifically granted to it by the States is a usurpation.

Second, in creating the federal government, the States merely delegate some of the powers previously delegated to them by the citizens of those States. They retained all powers not granted. That this grant was limited, well-defined, and inelastic is clearly evidenced by both the plain language of the Constitution and, more specifically, by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

With this as background, the current imbroglio, including a pending federal lawsuit, over Arizona's commonsense approach to enforcing federal laws openly flouted by the federal government emerges as far more than just a jurisdictional battle. What is at stake in Arizona is the liberty of Arizona's citizens, and by extension the liberty of every American.

The People of Arizona have delegated some part of their personal sovereignty, and hence liberty, to their elected State representatives. These same representatives have voted to incorporate federal immigration law into state law (with specific prohibitions against racial profiling -- which are, ironically enough, absent in the relevant federal statutes). That the People of Arizona overwhelmingly support this legislation passed by their servants in the legislature should be cause for celebration -- a victory for representative democracy.

Instead of valorizing the process, however, the left -- led by our own president -- demonizes a sovereign State and its People in the never-ending quest to impose its predetermined positions by any means necessary. Thus do we have the sad spectacle of so-called "liberals" who hate liberty, who despise the sovereign exercise of power by the People.

We are very far indeed from Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will to the death your right to say it." As I have written elsewhere, liberals are anti-liberty because they already "know" the truth; hence, they regard the traditional values of free inquiry -- with all of its messiness, vagaries, and inevitable culs-de-sac -- as wastes of time. They have the facts, about which no sensible person will argue. Consequently, anyone who argues with a truth-possessing liberal must not be a sensible person and is hence not worth arguing with. That such circular thinking is obviously illogical has been no bar to liberals' extensive use of it in such diverse areas as global warming, religion, and education.

The French judge, writer, and philosopher Estienne de la Boétie (1530-1563) wrote that "as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say ... that this people has not so much lost its liberty, as won its enslavement."

Despite the left's having won its own enslavement, the widespread support for Arizona's rightful exercise of its legitimate sovereignty should give us hope that the We, The People are not yet ready to follow them, lemming-like, over the cliff to be dashed on the waiting rocks of tyranny.

There is much more at stake in the pending federal lawsuit than the immigration policy of one State. Given the current balance of the Supreme Court, we may hope for a favorable outcome; even so, it is an affront to every American that We, The People should have to trust our natural liberty to the nine Solons in Washington. On such a slender thread does that which matters most so tenuously hang.

The author has written numerous academic articles and books, including Atheism Answered. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and rhetoric from Emory University and is a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea. professordhf@hotmail.com

Pamela Gellar Elucidates the Tyrannical Democrat Agenda

The October Surprise Is Coming

The October Surprise. We all know it's coming. In what shape, idea, form -- who's to say? Evil always surprises. Its goals are constant, the ultimate objective never changes, but inevitably it manifests itself as the savior of the day, the savior of man. The 2008 Democrat October Surprise that ushered in the first hardcore radical post-American president in American history was the "economic collapse." Oh yes, that was a beaut.

The time before that, the moochers and the looters tried to fake Bush documents -- except that the conservative blogosphere caught them red-handed, so they missed their mark.

But the party of haters, infiltrators, anti-capitalists, the party that is anti-freedom and anti-individual rights, is going to have to pull off something really catastrophic to stay in power this November. And they will, because it is abundantly clear now that they despise the premise of America and they mean to replace it with statism, the source of untold, incomprehensible human misery for centuries.

Mahalo, Cam Cavasso!

If I lived in Hawai'i, based on the statements below, I'd be eager to vote for Cam Cavasso.

Former Rep. Cam Cavasso unveils campaign platform in challenge to Inouye > Hawaii Free Press

Aloha,

My name is Cam Cavasso. I am a common-sense conservative who is deeply committed to the Constitutional principles, individual rights, and core values on which this great nation was founded. I’d like to ask for your vote in the Republican primary election for United States Senate in Hawaii on September 18th.

This year represents a turning point for the United States of America.

Our economy is laboring under the crushing weight of unprecedented national debt and an unsustainable addiction to expanding the size and spending of government.

The values that form the very core of our American identity are mocked and marginalized by statist politicians who arrogantly and dangerously seek to substitute government control for individual rights.

Our nation remains at war.

When we go to the polls in September, and again in November, we will be asked to answer an important question:

“Will we return America to the core economic beliefs and traditional values that have made it the strongest, most economically productive, most moral and generous nation in history, or will we continue to chart the same ruinous course that the current Congress has set for it? “

The professional politicians who control Congress are cowards. They disregard the will of the voters in their myopic obsession with expanding the size and influence of government. They callously and unconscionably burden our children and grandchildren with debt. They seek to destroy the fabric our social institutions by redefining family, marriage, and the role that faith plays in our national discourse.

All across America, citizens are waking up to realize that the fire lit by patriots like Sam Adams still burns, despite the efforts of an unaccountable government and its media allies to extinguish it. This fall our voices must be heard.

Enter the Tea Party movement. Americans united by common sense and patriotism, have joined together to stop the madness in our nation’s Capital.

There is no more significant or effective blow to be struck against the controlling political establishment in Congress than the defeat of Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye, which is why I ask for your support.

In his almost 50 years in the United States Senate, Daniel Inouye has become perhaps the strongest Senate proponent of government spending. As the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee he controls how our tax dollars are spent—literally, the buck stops with him. However, through his earmarks and other support for federal spending, he has not hesitated to shower special interests with our hard-earned tax dollars.

Our loss has been Sen. Inouye’s gain. A recent study by Taxpayers for Common Sense found no other U.S. Senator received more campaign contributions from earmark beneficiaries than Inouye.

As Senator Inouye and his cohorts in Congress continue to pile up debt that our children and grandchildren will be forced to repay in the future, their spendthrift ways are sucking the oxygen out of the economy today. Unless and until they are brought to heel, Americans’ standard of living will continue to decline. Prosperity has never been built on debt.

I respectfully submit the following beliefs and positions for your consideration:

--In the United States Senate I will fight to cut spending and to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment. I have already signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge that states I will oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals or businesses, and any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless they are matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

--I will support efforts to reform the federal income tax code. The Founders believed that taxing individuals on their private income was economic folly and it amounted to a tax on personal productivity. They believed further that, by transferring vast financial power to the federal government, the federal income tax fostered a terrible imbalance in authority between national and state government. These fears have come to fruition and must now be addressed through common sense tax reform that allows Americans to strengthen our economy by spending, saving and investing more of their own money.

--I will fight to reform federal entitlement programs– including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security– that inexorably consume greater and greater portions of our national wealth. The architects of these “functions of government” have tried to cloak their ideological push to expand government in just five words from the Constitution: “to promote the general welfare”—but I believe the Founders would have challenged them every step of the way.

--I will seek to downsize the federal government. In doing so I will be guided by the words of Alexander Hamilton who stated that limiting government is the critical and continuous task of an elected official. I will support the elimination of expensive, bureaucratic, ineffective federal government agencies including the departments of Education and Energy and return their budgets to the citizens.

--I will support a complete repeal of the recently passed health care reform bill on both Constitutional and economic grounds. This bill alone established over 130 new government agencies and it will increase costs, limit consumer choice, and ultimately degrade the quality of medical care in this country.

--I support efforts to transition to a national currency backed with some form of intrinsic value as a check against the inflationary risks associated with a federal government that prints money without restraint.

--I will ensure that our military is properly supplied and supported, and that any declaration of war has national consensus, as reflected by a full act of Congress.

--I will be a champion of values and traditions that have defined this nation since its founding. The backbone of our society is a controlling value set rooted in a shared religious and moral tradition. Today that tradition– and the values it has created– is under attack. Children are growing up in a nation with fractured families, sexual disease and commercial exploitation on a scale unimaginable just a generation ago. I will lead both personally and legislatively to protect children, families, the unborn, and the elderly.

--I will only vote for Supreme Court nominees who are strict constructionists. James Madison said that our greatest source of security as a republic was in having an “inviolable respect for the Constitution and the rule of law”. As a United States Senator, I will fight against the confirmation of jurists who seek to legislate from the bench or who seek to use their political ideology to infringe upon the basic Constitutional rights of Americans. That includes my belief that the 2nd Amendment cannot be misinterpreted in any way to diminish a citizen’s right to protect themselves.

I ask for your vote on September 18 and for your help in spreading the word about this important campaign.

I pledge to represent Hawaii in the United States Senate in a manner that is consistent with our Constitutional roots and values, and with common sense, personal responsibility and a strong work ethic. Let me be your voice in Washington, D.C. and together we will restore the conscience of our nation, and we will strengthen and protect America.

Mahalo,

Cam Cavasso

Candidate for US Senate in Hawaii

Documentary Shows Obama Campaign Voter Fraud in Democrat Primary in 2008

Wow.. This is the kind of political corruption I've read about in history books, but never expected to see in my own lifetime. No only so, but this documentary was done in 2008 and was available to media way back then. But no one wanted to report on it. There can be no further question the media's complicity goes even so far as conspiring (even through inaction) with the Democrat attempt to overthrow our government. That is no overstatement. Voter fraud so thorough as to steal a presidential election or even a primary is no less. This is by no means the first example of the media killing stories to protect their favorite candidates. But this is likely the most significant.



H/T Wizbang

The Respite and Rebellion of 'Twilight'

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The ‘Twilight’ Phenomenon: The Kids Are All Right

Though liberals only make up 20% of the population, they’re still able to pull off this sinister bluff because conservatives took their eye off the ball and allowed the Left to infest the institutions in charge of documenting and portraying who we are as a society. Unfortunately, these socialist engineers aren’t stupid and figured out almost immediately that with a near-monopoly on sound and image they could make a majority of the population feel like the minority; with the goal in mind of using peer pressure to shape our culture into a godless orgy of anything goes hyper-sexuality.
The result is that those of us made nauseous by the idea of loveless sex are intentionally made to feel like the oppressive party-poopers – the weirdos, the prudes, the uncool outsiders lacking in compassion, enlightenment and sophistication. This devil has so perfectly executed this ruse that even those of us on to him can forget what’s happening until a genuine phenomenon like “Twilight” comes along to remind us.
[...]
From Disney Channel tarts to YouTube to MTV to their public school health education classes, young girls in this country are bombarded and constantly out-flanked with the toxic message that if they want to be ”in” and ”liberated” and “strong” they must become the useful and willing objects of sexual gratification manipulative men have always wanted them to be. Trust me, no one’s benefited more from left-wing feminism than than shallow, sexist men who use, abuse, objectify and discard women like empty beer cans.
In our world of popular culture, the romance between Bella and Edward is unlike anything these young girls have ever been subjected to outside of Turner Classic Movies. Edward cherishes Bella, and he protects her, not only from physical harm but from his own appetites and desires that would strip away her dignity. His love for her is what love is supposed to be: completely selfless and understanding.
As weak as these films have been in the storytelling department, they’ve become money machines because a majority of young girls don’t want to be Lady Gaga, they don’t want to monologue about their vagina with Jane Fonda, and they simply don’t understand why the very same adults charged with protecting them use classroom time to roll Trojans on cucumbers.
Young girls confused and frustrated by the pop culture and media institutions constantly pressuring them into the counter-intuitive idea that the road to virtue is through the loss of their dignity — young girls who long to find their own Edward, a selfless, strong and tender man who will protect and cherish and love them, are told by “Twilight” that they’re not weird or alone. “Twilight” is a billion dollar film and publishing franchise because it serves a role more important than entertainment. The romance between Edward and Bella validates the better nature of millions of young souls yearning not to be lost.

CBS Bans Pro-American Ad

Christians Pray to Jesus Christ? Imagine That!

I'm ashamed of my legislature. No, it's not the first time. Still...

Jesus Under Attack in NC: Pastor Fired for Refusing to Remove Jesus’ Name from State House Prayer « Frugal Café Blog Zone

From Christian Law Journal, N.C. Pastor Fired For “Jesus” Prayer At State Capitol:

A North Carolina pastor was fired from his position as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer in the name of Jesus.

[...]

Baity said he is shocked by what is happening in America.

“When the state tells you how to pray, that you cannot use the name of Jesus – that’s mandating a state religion,” he said. “They talk about not offending other people but at the same time, if they are telling me how to pray – that’s the very thing our forefathers left England for.”

“You would expect this somewhere else – Cuba, Saudi Arabia,” he said. “You would never anticipate this happening in the United States of America.”

At a Press Conference on Thursday, attorney David C Gibbs III, of Gibbs Law Firm and the Christian Law Association, (CLA), an organization that offers free legal defense and counsel to churches, said that the House’s refusal to allow Baity to continue his duties because he invoked a prayer in Jesus’ name is unconstitutional.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Even More Corruption at Obama's Department of Justice

H/T Pat Dollard

Lawlessness at the DOJ: Voting Section Told Not To Enforce Purging the Dead or Ineligible from Voting Rolls

In November 2009, the entire Voting Section was invited to a meeting with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes, a political employee serving at the pleasure of the attorney general. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Motor Voter enforcement decisions.

The room was packed with dozens of Voting Section employees when she made her announcement regarding the provisions related to voter list integrity:

We have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.

Jaws dropped around the room.

It is one thing to silently adopt a lawless policy of refusing to enforce a provision of federal law designed to bring integrity to elections. It is quite another to announce the lawlessness to a room full of people who have sworn an oath to fairly enforce the law.

Arizona Law Already Upheld in High Courts!

National Review Online: United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? - Andy McCarthy

Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.

H/T Brutally Honest

Obama Appointee Donald Berwick on Redistributing Wealth

Obama appoints confessed Socialist and healthcare rationing advocate Donald Berwick as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.




Obama's Unconfirmed 'Recess' Appointee to Run Medicare Advocated Rationing, Redistribution of Wealth

When the interviewer for Biotechnology Healthcare said to Dr. Berwick that critics had said that federal Comparative Effectiveness Research would “lead to rationioning of healthcare,” Berwick responded: “We can make a sensible social decision and say, ‘Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.’ We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.”

The Rationer-in-Chief

The fact that the White House chose to empower Dr. Berwick by recess appointment is particularly audacious. The recess appointment power was intended to be used for occasions when the Senate is out for moths at a time. The Senate is currently out of session for just 11 days. Worse, the Senate majority has never even scheduled a hearing so that Dr. Berwick's rationing views could be given an "open" forum. In fact, Dr. Berwick has not even returned Senators' written questionnaires. The White House defends the move by claiming "there’s no time to waste with Washington game-playing." But then why did the Obama administration wait until April 2010, a full 15 months after President Obama was sworn into office, to nominate Dr. Berwick? Is it because they did not want Dr. Berwick's well known and public support for rationing health care to affect the debate over Obamacare?

Top 10 Things Obama Doesn't Want You to Know About Donald Berwick

10. Berwick, highlights race as a factor in healthcare reform. "It’s still true that race, minority race, especially being black in our country, is the strongest critique that we have about health,” said Berwick.

Rhode Island Ahead of the Curve

Bad posture on amnesty

If he’s really upset that the same laws he has taken an oath to enforce might actually get (gulp!) enforced, why isn’t he suing Providence instead of Phoenix? They’ve been doing local immigration enforcement for years now.

As The Boston Globe-Democrat reported yesterday, “From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

Even liberal Providence, where politicians long opposed any local enforcement efforts, changed its policy in 2008 after the infamous Marco Riz case.

Riz was the illegal immigrant arrested by Providence cops twice while under a federal deportation order but released both times. He was then charged with carjacking a woman in Warwick and raping her in Providence.

Rhode Island cops now routinely contact ICE when they suspect they’ve come across an illegal immigrant. Since 2006, the number of contacts they’ve made to ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont has nearly doubled, the Globe reported. How is this significantly different than Arizona’s proposed law?

Families who fear running into the next Marco Riz might think Rhode Island is onto something. But not Team Obama.

DOJ Unable to Make a Case for Discrimination Against Arizona Security Law

While the leftist, anti-Americans howl accusations about racial profiling and discrimination against Arizona's new self-defensive law, SB1070, which enables state law enforcement officials to enforce laws regarding illegal immigration, the U.S. Department Of Justice files suit against Arizona, but pursues arcane technicalities in order to defeat Arizona's patriotic stance and to expose America to invasion because Obama's hand-picked America haters cannot make a legal case for accusations of discrimination! Not only so, but P.J. Gladnick fine article points out Obama's precise duplication of a particular offense our Declaration of Independence listed against King George III.

Priceless.

Dude, Where's My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit | NewsBusters.org

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. ---Thomas Jefferson, The United States Declaration of Independence.

Oops! So what happened to all that discrimination and violation of civil rights that the Arizona immigration law was supposed to cause? Apparently the federal government decided it was so lacking that they didn't include it in their lawsuit against the Arizona law. Jake Tapper of ABC News notes the distinct lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit:
As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented.

The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.


Huh? So what was all that liberal thunder about how discriminatory the Arizona immigration immigration law supposedly is? Apparently the U.S. Justice Department was unable to find such discrimination to use in its lawsuit. Instead, the federal government is taking the King George III approach when the states attempt to enforce laws neglected by the Crown, oops, I mean the Obama administration.

The Associated Press also notes the embarrassing lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit:
PHOENIX — The federal lawsuit against Arizona's tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority. The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don't belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down.


Weaker arguments? You can bet that if discrimination could have been detected in the Arizona immigration law, it would have been front and center in the federal lawsuit.

So how are other MSM outlets handling the very notable lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona? Very gingerly. The Washington Post article on this lawsuit is an example. The embarrassing absence of any discrimination charge is only mentioned towards the end of the story:
Although the lawsuit cites potential "detention and harassment" of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, "we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that's something that we would take action on."


Shh! Let's not focus on the lack of a racial profiling charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

"State of Palestine" Quiz

H/T Brutally Honest

American Thinker: Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel

The so-called "religion of peace" is defined by its genocidal mandate toward Jews.

Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel

It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion -- Islam vs. Judaism -- cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism.
[...]
Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews -- and Judaism -- were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century.
[...]
Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.
[...]
This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an -- and later on, the various Hadiths -- says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.
[...]
Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran -- conquered by the Arabs -- have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people -- or peoples -- is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.