Obama’s war on America

The Washington Times

Has President Obama and his Congress declared war on the United States? With the recent release of Mr. Obama’s unsustainable and alarmingly massive fiscal 2011 budget, we are close to losing our AAA credit rating, which would gravely increase our cost of borrowing. In short, this budget will kill our nation’s economy.

Miranda rights are given to terrorists while our government makes plans to try them in civilian courts. Mr. Obama and Congress will not secure our borders. Our soldiers, who are fighting and dying on the battlefield, have fewer rights and privileges than enemy combatants. This is killing our national security.

Mr. Obama is pushing his corrupt, monstrously sized health care bill. It will increase health care costs and health insurance premiums. It will decrease the quality of health care, and there will be rationing.

The cap-and-trade bill is still on the table despite the revelation of widespread global-warming deception. This bill will kill businesses and jobs. Our energy costs will soar.

Congress must vote no on this budget and on the potential destruction of our great nation. Our country is about to change in ways we never dreamed it could. Wake up, America. Tell Mr. Obama and his Congress, “We are not the enemy.”


Fairfax Station, Va


Presidential Eligibility: Three Simple Requirements

The Post & E-Mail

by Sally Vendée

(Feb. 19, 2010) — Everyone knows, or should by now with all of the “birther” hullabaloo, Article II of the Constitution and its three requirements for the Commander-in-Chief:  He must be a “natural born Citizen,” at least thirty-five years old, and have resided for at least fourteen years within the United States.

Most Americans, according to the media, accept Obama’s alleged place of birth as Hawaii and his US citizenship. Many, though, especially in “tea party” circles, express frustration with his seeming lack of “transparency,” want to see more than the short-form birth certificate posted on the internet, and ask questions like: “Where do we put the plaque?” Everyday Americans must show a birth certificate and other credentials to get jobs, drivers’ licenses, loans, passports, play on sports teams, etc., and they wish that Obama would just present his so we can get on with it. These viewpoints earn them the dreaded label of “birther.”

The majority of “birthers” consider themselves “Constitutionalists,” and whether or not they have questions about Obama’s Hawaiian birth, they do have reservations about the “natural born” part— because of his Kenyan father, who was not an immigrant and never a US citizen, resulting in Obama Jr. admittedly being a dual citizen at birth. Scholars and attorneys could debate the definition of “natural born” for hours. Combine that question with the current political correctness of birthright citizenship, dual citizenship/allegiance and immigration, and the arguments become even more heated.

But what if the eligibility issue was much simpler to grasp: What if it had to do with the simplest of the three Presidential criteria—Age?

Imagine this:

A man runs for President, and the mainstream media doesn’t investigate, amid rumors and questionable statements and evidence, whether or not he is in fact at least 35 years old.  An online organization which calls itself a “fact-checker,” even though its employees have no actual credentials or legitimacy for doing so, posts a digital image purported to be his driver’s license showing he is 35 years old.  The media never directly asks this candidate his age, and he never directly offers it.

The man “seals” and/or relies on federal and state privacy laws in keeping his birth, medical, school and college records and other documents hidden from the public, making it impossible to verify his eligibility.  Friends, fellow students, and colleagues are strangely silent.

Concerned citizens, before the general election, before the electoral votes, before the inauguration and after, attempt to pursue every avenue of inquiry and protest.  Some urge their national party headquarters to raise questions and ensure he is properly “vetted.” Others file complaints with their secretary of state or state attorney general to ascertain that they verified that he was constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot.  Some petition their electors to ask questions.  They ask their senators and congressmen to object at the meeting of the Electoral College.

Complete Story:

Terminally ill’ Lockerbie bomber living the good life in Libya

American Thinker

Phil Boehmke

Our elected leaders in Washington D.C. have come to rely on the short attention span of the American people and the media. With the sheer volume of breaking news stories and the continuing battle over health care, cap and trade and other less publicized administration attacks on our liberty it is easy for us to forget to follow up on “old news”.

It has now been six months since we were outraged over the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and the intrigue surrounding the decision to grant him his (relative) freedom. Megrahi is better known as “The Lockerbie Bomber.” The UK Telegraph now reports.

Megrahi, is now living in a spacious two-story villa with his wife and their five grown-up children in a prosperous suburb of Tripoli, the Libyan capital.
The property has a spacious garden and an area where the family erects a large tent to entertain visitors for celebrations.
The Megrahis, who are part of a prominent tribe, are well off and it is understood that his family was paid substantial compensation by the Libyan Government after he was jailed for life.

When Megrahi was granted his release on August 20th of last year it was on humanitarian terms as he was terminally ill and expected to die within three months.
President Obama was outraged by the decision of the Scottish government to release the Lockerbie bomber and loudly condemned the action. Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary was lionized by the media and singled out for blame although according to CNN.

He had talked to families of British and U.S. victims, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, British authorities, Libyan officials, and al Megrahi himself, declassified Scottish government records show.

Upon hearing of Megrahi’s release, there were calls for a Senate hearing from a number of prominent leaders including Senator Frank Lautenberg. The Hill reported.

In a letter to Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) and ranking Republican Richard Lugar (Ind.), Lautenberg drew attention to recent media reports that the Scottish government may have released Abdel Basset al Megrahi after serving eight years of his 27-year sentence because of a desire to improve commercial ties between Britain and Libya.

“Specifically, the committee should explore: Whether commercial interests played a role in the decision to release Mr. Megrahi,” Lautenberg wrote.

Six months have passed and there has been no Senate hearing. The only action taken by the Senate was to unanimously condemn the release in a remarkable show of bi-partisanship. There has been no further inquiry into the complicity of Hilary Clinton, Eric Holder or President Obama in this matter and Megrahi continues to live in luxury, although he is still said to be gravely ill. The 270 persons (including 189 Americans) who died by Megrahi’s hand should not be so easily forgotten.

Ft. Hood suspect was Army dilemma


WASHINGTON – Army superiors were warned about the radicalization of Major Nidal Malik Hasan years before he allegedly massacred 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, but did not act in part because they valued the rare diversity of having a Muslim psychiatrist, military investigators wrote in previously undisclosed reports.

An obvious “problem child’’ spouting extremist views, Hasan made numerous statements that were not protected by the First Amendment and were grounds for discharge by violating his military oath, investigators found.

Examples of Hasan’s radical behavior have previously been disclosed in press accounts based on interviews with unnamed Army officials, including his defense of suicide bombings and assertions that Islamic law took priority over his allegiance to the United States.

But the Pentagon’s careful documentation of individual episodes dating back to 2005 and the subsequent inaction of his superiors have not been made public before.

The Globe was permitted to review the Army’s more complete findings on the condition that it not name supervisory officers who did not act, some of whom are facing possible disciplinary action.

In searching for explanations for why superiors did not move to revoke Hasan’s security clearances or expel him from the Army, the report portrays colleagues and superiors as possibly reluctant to lose one of the Army’s few Muslim mental health specialists.

The report concludes that because the Army had attracted only one Muslim psychiatrist in addition to Hasan since 2001, “it is possible some were afraid’’ of losing such diversity “and thus were willing to overlook Hasan’s deficiencies as an officer.’’

“Several of his supervisors explicitly mentioned Hasan’s potential to inform our understanding of Islamic culture and how it relates to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan,’’ the investigators found.

In one classroom incident not previously described by the Army – which parallels another episode around the same time that has received press attention – Hasan gave a presentation in August 2007 titled “Is the War on Terrorism a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective.’’

But the presentation was “shut down’’ by the instructor because Hasan appeared to be defending terrorism. Witnesses told investigators that Hasan became visibly upset as a result.

“The students reported his statements to superior officers, who took no action on the basis that Major Hasan’s statements were protected by the First Amendment,’’ the investigation found. “They did not counsel Hasan and consider administrative action, even though not all protected speech is compatible with continued military service.’’

It added: “Soldiers have rights under the First Amendment, but they are not the same rights as civilians. . . . [T]hese statements violated the Army . . . standard to hold a security clearance.’’

Hasan, 39, allegedly opened fire on fellow soldiers Nov. 5 at the Texas base, killing 13 and wounding 32 others. If convicted by a military court, he could face the death penalty.Continued..

Obama Tried Bribing Arlen Specter’s Opponent

The Obama File

Judicial Watch is reporting a major political scandal orchestrated by the Obama Administration.  A popular Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania has revealed that the White House tried bribing him to drop out of the upcoming U.S. Senate race.

Congressman Joe Sestak said in a television news show that the White House offered him a top federal job in an effort to keep him from challenging Senator Arlen Specter in the state’s Democratic primary.  A five-term incumbent, Specter switched from Republican to Democrat last spring after giving Obama the critical vote for his disastrous and fraud-infested $787 billion stimulus program.

Obama clearly wants to return the favor by helping the controversial lawmaker keep his job.  In fact, Obama endorsed Specter at the White House and has raised money for the 80-year-old lawmaker.  Besides Obama, many top Democratic leaders have also tried to dissuade Sestak, a retired Navy admiral, from challenging Specter.

However, attempting to bribe a legislator with a “high-ranking” federal job is deplorable and downright unethical to say the least.  Obviously this is why Obama and his White House staff are enraged that Sestak disclosed the unscrupulous backdoor offer to keep him out of the upcoming Democratic primary.

Before Specter bailed on Republicans Obama assured the contentious lawmaker he’d do everything in his power to help him win reelection if he switched parties.  The White House assured Specter there was no Democrat in a position to make a realistic challenge against him and that he had the “full backing” of Obama, which includes campaigning and fundraising by the commander-in-chief.

That plan evidently blew up in Obama’s face so he resorted to bribery.  Not only does Specter face stiff competition from Sestak in the Democratic primary, the Republican (former Congressman Pat Toomey) expected to make the general election leads both Specter and Sestak in head-to-head match-ups by about ten points.


Obama selects a voice of radical Islam

Washington Examiner

President Obama has made some terrible appointments during his first year in the White House, including now-former White House environmental adviser Van Jones, who once signed a petition accusing President George W. Bush of allowing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a pretext for going to war. Jones also defended a radical Marxist group in San Francisco known as Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.

But, as Examiner columnist Cal Thomas wrote recently, Obama’s selection of Rashad Hussain, his deputy associate White House counsel, as U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, “should be of concern to Congress and the American people.” Comprising 57 member states, the OIC’s charter makes clear its purpose is to “defend” and “disseminate” the Muslim faith. Whenever human rights collide with Islam, the OIC sides with the latter.

In announcing Hussain’s selection as a U.S. diplomat, Obama first cited the fact that the Texas-born Yale Law School graduate is a Hafiz, a person who has memorized the Arabic language version of the Quran. Put aside the uproar that would have ensued had Bush enthused that his hypothetical selection for the Court of St. James was mainly qualified because he had memorized the Anglican Church’s Book of Common Prayer. Hussain’s Muslim beliefs appear to go quite beyond merely knowing Quranic verses. As Thomas points out, Hussain has a long history of participating in activities connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, a major organizational and theological wellspring for radical Jihadists who seek to impose Shariah law on America and the rest of the world.

Among the most disturbing elements of Shariah law are its sanctions for killing apostates (i.e., those who leave the Muslim religion), suppression of speech by individuals and organizations that is critical of Islam, criminalization of adultery and homosexuality (including provision of the death penalty for both), “nonviolent” wife beating, and lying to advance Muslim interests. Clearly, there is no room in Shariah law for the core principles ingrained in the U.S. Constitution and embodied in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech, assembly, petition and religion.

So the question for Obama is this: How can Hussain be a forceful advocate to OIC and other international forums on behalf of individual rights that are most brutally and routinely suppressed by Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran? Or is this no longer a topic American diplomats are allowed to bring up on the world stage?

Americans: Government is broken big time

Capitol Hill Blue

Nearly nine of every 10 Americans think the government of this country is broken but they still hope that the it can be fixed.

That’s the result of a new CNN/Opinion Research poll released Sunday.

The poll of 1,023 adults found 86 percent feel the nation’s government is broken.

Of that 86 percent, 81 percent feel that the parts of government that is broken can be fixed.

The number has grown eight percentage points since 2006 and is the highest on record.

“That increase is highest among higher income Americans and people who live in rural areas,” reports CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Americans overwhelmingly think that the government in this country is broken, according to a new national poll. But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Sunday morning, also indicates that the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed.

Eighty-six percent of people questioned in the poll say that our system of government is broken, with 14 percent saying no. Of that 86 percent, 81 percent say that the government can be fixed, with 5 percent saying it’s beyond repair. “Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but those are the groups that make up the bulk of the Tea Party activists today.”

The poll was conducted February 12-15 and has a sampling error of  plus or minus 3 points.


Citigroup Warns Customers It May Refuse To Allow Withdrawals

Business Insiders

The image of banks locking their doors to keep customers from making withdrawals during a bank run is what immediately came to mind when we heard that Citigroup was telling customers it has the right to prevent any withdrawals from checking accounts for seven days.

“Effective April 1, 2010, we reserve the right to require (7) days advance notice before permitting a withdrawal from all checking accounts. While we do not currently exercise this right and have not exercised it in the past, we are required by law to notify you of this change,” Citigroup said on statements received by customers all over the country.

What’s going on? It seems that this is something of an error. The seven day notice policy only applies to customers in Texas, Ira Stoll reports at The Future of Capitalism. It was accidentally included on customer statements nationwide.

“Whatever the explanation, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in Citi,” Stoll writes.  “But it’s hard to believe a bank would be sending out a notice like that on its statements.”

UPDATE: According to Stoll, Citi issued a statement saying that it has been required to make this change by Federal regulations–and it no longer sounds like it’s limited to Texas:

Update: Citibank has now released the following statement by way of explanation: “When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal. We recently communicated this technical requirement to our customers. However, we have never exercised this right and have no plans to do so in the future.”