Keeping awake while Obama sings his Marxist Lullabye

Canada Free Press

By Judi McLeod  Friday, January 22, 2010

Distressing as the latest news of McCain’s co-opting Senator Scott Brown and even Sarah Palin into Amnesty is, the biggest danger for America is allowing Obama to “normalize” his obsessive agenda for the United States of America.

There is nothing “normal” about wanting to transform America into a Socialist state.

There is nothing “normal” about community organizer Chicago street activists shutting the door on American sovereignty as soon as they arrived at the White House as President and First Lady.

There is nothing “normal” about a president and First Lady who hate America.

There is nothing “normal” about people who go so far out of their way to hide their pasts.

Obama is trying to distract patriots when he compares what happened Tuesday night in Massachusetts to his own election on Nov. 4, 2008.

Both before and after Lt. Col. Scott Brown’s arrival in Washington, Obama was bad news in action for the United States of America and what is left of the Free World.

To be clear Barack Hussein Obama is not just another Jimmy Carter, he is an unflinching ideologue who will use anything at his disposal to get what he wants: a broken America forced to worship at the hideous altar of Socialism.

Marxists seethe on the inside and show a deceitful charm to those who stand in their way long enough to get their way!

There is a warning in the reply to the comment of a Michigan woman included in the comments of former Marine and Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Jerry McConnell today:  “The Scott Brown victory was a very needed boost to the morale of those who love America and want to keep her free! God should get the glory, he heard our prayers,” the Michigan commenter wrote.

“Like you I thought the Scott Brown victory was a prayer answered, and really it was; but two days later I wondered if he was all that I thought him to be,” McConnell responded.  “He has sided with the RINO John McCain and is now going soft on amnesty; I’m sure at McCain’s urging.

“But even more discouraging news came from Sarah Palin yesterday when even SHE agreed to campaign for RINO McCain and said she supported McCain’s views on amnesty for the illegal aliens.

“McCain sweet-talks people telling them how beneficial “bipartisanship” is for the country; and in reality, if it could be done I would have to agree.  But to the liberal Democrats the word bipartisanship means only: “Do it my way” and if you disagree with what they want,  you are not being “bipartisan”.  What a bunch of baloney.

“So those two revelations in addition to an earlier report that Rupert Murdoch, the Fox News biggie, is about to enter into an agreement with one of the Saudi princes that can only mean more concessions to radical Islamism.

“What promised to be a week of big celebrations has turned into a depressing turn of events.  I am hoping that the Tea Partiers can come up with something to counteract all these bad news items.  I guess I’ll have to pray a little harder from now on.”

While praying, we should all keep our eye on The One who, just as Saul Alinsky advises,  works so hard to keep us all demoralized and distracted.

What could be better for a deceitful Marxist than patriots let down by their own folk hero leaders?

As some of our “conservatives” put their egos ahead of the people, it will be more important than ever to remember that it was the independents more than the card-carrying Repubs (RINOS) who gave us proof in the Massachusetts Miracle that main-street America rejects Obama.

Source:

Obama Administration Lifts US Ban on Muslim Brotherhood Leader

(IsraelNN.com) The Barack Obama administration has decided to lift a ban preventing Muslim Scholar Professor Tariq Ramadan from entering the United States. Ramadan, an Egyptian currently living in Switzerland, is a leading member of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood branch and the grandson of the movement’s founder Hassan al-Banna. The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization for Hamas and some of the groups that recently merged into al-Qaeda, including Ayman al Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

Ramadan was invited to teach at the University of Notre Dame in 2004 but the George W. Bush administration revoked his visa, citing a statute that applies to those who have “endorsed or espoused” terrorism. The administration later dropped the terror endorsement claim and linked the ban to $1,336 in donations Ramadan made between 1998 and 2002 to a Swiss charity that was later blacklisted by the US.

Although the White House asked the court last March to uphold the Bush-era entry ban on Ramadan, the administration has now decided to lift the ban and possibly allow both Ramadan and South African Muslim activist Professor Adam Habib onto American soil. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters that the government no longer views Ramadan or Habib as representing threats to the United States. “The next time Professor Ramadan or Professor Habib apply for a visa, they will not be found inadmissible on the basis of the facts that led to denial when they last applied.”

Source:

A Victory for Free Speech

Fox Business

Jan. 22, 2010

The First Amendment is a little stronger now. In a 5-4 decision announced today, the Supreme Court struck down another portion of McCain-Feingold, specifically the ban on corporate and union-funded issue ads in the closing days of an election. Even better, the Supremes also overruled a 20 year old ruling that banned corporate and labor money from funding any political campaign ads.

Finally, the Supreme Court displayed some sanity when interpreting the first Amendment. (Well, five justices, at least.)

From FoxNews.com:

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”

“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

This should be obvious. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What part about “Congress shall make no law” don’t the other justices understand? How can a Congressional ban on political speech, regardless of who pays for the printing press or ad space, especially when it’s close to an election, make no “abridgment” upon the people’s freedom of speech?

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent:

“The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today’s ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided … In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.”

In Justice Stevens’ worldview, groups have fewer rights than individuals. Government can pass laws affecting groups, but that same group does not enjoy the freedom to speak out against that action during an election campaign? That doesn’t make sense.

Steve Simpson, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, filed an amicus brief in the case and reacted to the ruling:

“The Court has finally struck down blatant censorship that masquerades as campaign finance reform.  Slowly but surely, the Court is prying Americans’ free speech rights away from the hands of government bureaucrats.”

Justice Kennedy’s opinion says it all:

“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.  This is unlawful … The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Source:

Lawmakers to Holder: Who decided to give Miranda Rights to Accused Detriot Bomber?

Washington Examiner

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

All seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder seeking to learn who made the decision to treat Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused Christmas Day terrorist bomber, as a criminal suspect rather than an enemy combatant. On the same day he tried to detonate a bomb aboard a Northwest Airlines plane in Detroit, Abdulmutallab, who was trained by al Qaeda in Yemen, was informed of his Miranda right to remain silent and given a government-paid lawyer. He then refused to cooperate with U.S. authorities.

The letter is signed by GOP Sens. Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn. The lawmakers were rattled by testimony yesterday before both the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee by some of the nation’s top law enforcement and anti-terrorism officials. All of those who testified — FBI director Robert Mueller, National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano — said they were not consulted about the decision to handle Abdulmutallab in the criminal courts.

The letter asks who made the decision as well as the basis for the decision. In addition, it asks Holder to answer “whether the administration has a protocol or policy in place for handling al Qaeda terrorists captured in the United States.”

“We believe the Department’s hasty decision to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Abdulmutallab deprived our intelligence agencies of a critical opportunity to interrogate an al Qaeda-trained terrorist who was fresh from training in Yemen,” the lawmakers write. “Had Mr. Abdulmutallab been transferred to military custody as an unlawful enemy belligerent, our government would have had more time to gain an understanding of the terrorist training and recruiting network on the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the activities of al Qaeda in Nigeria. More importantly, a thorough and unrushed interrogation might have revealed information to detect and disrupt the next terrorist attack. However, because Mr. Abdulmutallab was given Miranda rights and ceased cooperating, that information is now lost.”

Source:

Putting “Limited” Back in Government

Big Government

Jan. 22, 2010

If your finances looked like the federal budget, you wouldn’t get elected. You’d get arrested. Under the Democrats’ iron-fisted, one-party rule of Washington, family budgets shrink and the federal budget bloats: The deficit, the debt and spending are at record levels; massive tax increases impend in the days ahead; and widespread unemployment persists and pains working families. Compounding this crisis, the Democrats’ spending spree imperils our national security by creating a “debt threat” whereby antagonistic nations to which we owe hundreds of billions of dollars practice economic statecraft against America to influence our foreign and domestic policies and/or actively undermine our strategic interests. In sum, government exacerbates rather than ameliorates the economic chaos around us.

Amidst the economic, social and political challenges of globalization, the injurious inequity of Democrats’ fiscal irresponsibility is not lost upon Americans. We know the government’s morally bankrupt boondoggle, committed with our hard-earned money, squanders our prosperity, weakens our security and constitutes an immoral usurpation of our liberty and sovereignty.

A Rasmussen poll in August quantified the public’s wisdom on the subject, revealing that 62 percent of Americans “say that it is always better to cut taxes than increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their own money.” The same poll showed that half of all Americans “believe that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending” and that just 25 percent of Americans think “spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts when it comes to economic policy and creating jobs.” Seventy percent of voters “favor a government that offers fewer services and imposes lower taxes over one that provides more services with higher taxes”; 74 percent of Americans “trust their own economic judgment more than that of the average member of Congress.” Sixty-six percent “trust their own economic judgment more than President Obama’s”; and “Nearly four out of five voters [think] the problem is not their unwillingness to pay taxes [but is] their elected representatives’ refusal to cut the size of government.”

Source:

Air America Goes Off the Air

Fox News

Air America Radio, a progressive radio network that once aired commentary from Al Franken and Rachel Maddow, said Thursday it is shutting down immediately.

The company founded in April 2004 said it ceased airing new programs Thursday afternoon and will soon file to be liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. It began broadcasting reruns of programs and would end those as well Monday night.

Air America said 10 consecutive quarters of declining ad revenue and the difficulty of making money on the Internet contributed to its financial woes.

“The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America’s business. This past year has seen a `perfect storm’ in the media industry generally,” the company said in a statement on its Web site.

The network had some 100 radio outlets nationwide.

Franken, a Democrat, hosted his own show from 2004 to 2007 before going on to become a U.S. senator from Minnesota last year after a close election. Maddow went on to host her own TV show on MSNBC.

Source: