United Conservatives of Virginia: HR 61
Submitted by Delegate Chris Peace.
31 May 2009
Campaign season is officially open. Local politics will be the focus for the next 3 months and then we move into the 2010 campaign cycle. We had some great candidates in 2006 and 2008, but the political machines at the local levels prevented some of them from getting on the ballot and others were outspent.
We can’t let that happen in 2010. It’s time to take over the process and show the machine we know where the shutdown switch is.
This is where grassroots conservatives need to exert the most influence. We need good solid conservatives.
This blog will give first consideration to any veteran who wishes to declare his or her intention to seek an elected office, especially here in the Commonwealth. The leadership skills and the oath to defend the Constitution are the qualifications needed to insure our Nation remains the reality the Founders envisioned.
We need a good candidate for VA-03. It’s time for Mr Scott to retire. The good folks in southeast Virginia deserve someone who is more in tune with the grassroots and is familiar with the Navy and veteran’s issues. Someone with experience in the VA and DoD.
International treaty gives foreign troops identity of American gun owners
Related stories at We Are Change C/S
Man Held On $500,000 Bond For Having To Much Ammunition
All Patriots Are Gun Owners But Not All Gun Owners Are Patriots
Secret Homeland Security Threat Assessment Labels Gun Owners Potential Terrorists
27 May 2009
The War in Afghanistan
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 3:38 PM
Along the Durand Line, Northeast Afghanistan
The view from the Karir Pass on the Durand Line separating Afghanistan from Pakistan is spectacular. To the west, a river meanders toward the city of Jalalabad. To the east, Pakistani towns lie amidst emerald green swaths of farmland that stretch to the horizon. I am accompanying Lt. Col. Mark O’Donnell, commander of the 1st Battalion of the 32nd Infantry Regiment, and his scout platoon on a visit to the Pakistani outpost, 100 miles northeast of Kabul. Although their post has a panoramic view, the Pakistani soldiers say they haven’t challenged anyone crossing the border. They explain that they cannot even visit the nearby Pakistani village, because the Taliban would kill them.
Because the Pakistani (and Afghan) border forces aren’t up to the job, the mission of the 1st Battalion is to control an 80-mile section of the border. But the Durand Line runs for 1,600 miles. Looking down on the valleys on both sides gives an impression of the vastness of the challenge. After leaving the Durand Line, I visit the seasoned French 10th Mountaineer Brigade, operating in the mountains and valleys east of Kabul. I ask their commander what the critical strengths of the Taliban and the ten other fundamentalist gangs opposing him are. “Watchers and information manipulation,” he says, succinctly summarizing the security problem.
By “watchers,” he means the network of sympathizers and sentries, including women and the ubiquitous goat herders, who warn of the approach of NATO forces. When I accompanied patrols with Viper Company of the 26th Infantry Regiment in the Korengal Valley, the interpreters could hear the watchers reporting our movements over handheld radios. The fundamentalists took inaccurate shots at us from 600 meters away and then ducked into ravines when our A-10 jets appeared. This system of over-watch has enabled the enemy to control their casualties in their mountain strongholds, while in the villages their spies intimidate the people, preventing the flow of information to friendly forces.
When I accompanied a U.S.-Afghan army platoon to make a rare arrest in a thriving town north of Kabul, hundreds of unsmiling Afghan males with folded arms gathered around us. Some muttered “feringhee” (foreigner) as I walked past. Well, I was wearing my Red Sox cap in a cricket-playing nation. But who was watching them? “I don’t know what’s in their minds,” First Sgt. Jason Rivas said, staring back at the dispassionate crowd. “I do know the Taliban owns the night. They come and go as they please. We’re rarely out here, and everyone knows when we’re coming.”
Maj. Jason Dempsey, the battalion’s operations officer, showed me pictures of teenagers placing boulders behind U.S. vehicles so they cannot turn around when under attack. The Taliban and other opposition groups appeal to a mixture of tribal jealousies, xenophobia, and Islamic fundamentalism. Yet instead of issuing a nationalist rallying cry to discredit the Taliban, Afghan president Hamid Karzai emphasizes civilian casualties caused by American air attacks. “We don’t have the moral high ground,” Karzai said recently, while comfortably ensconced in a TV studio in Washington, D.C. A weak leader likely to be reelected for another five-year term in August, Karzai is politically tone-deaf. He reinforces the disinformation campaign of the Taliban, instead of developing messages that undercut theirs. Despite little fighting and very low casualties by Afghan or other historical measures, his administration has lost ground to the Taliban and like-minded fundamentalists. A shadow government has gradually emerged in large swaths of the rural areas.
In response, over the past year, the U.S. military in Regional Command East, around Kabul and to its north and east, has adopted the Petraeus model from Iraq and deployed over 100 U.S. and Afghan companies in outposts among the population. This maneuver has reestablished some control, as evidenced by a drop in violence affecting civilians. But the Americans are still foreigners controlling a population that, fearing retribution, rarely offers information that identifies the fundamentalists. In Iraq in 2007, Gen. David Petraeus presided over a shift in Sunni attitudes that led to a steady flow of information against al-Qaeda. Nothing similar has happened in Afghanistan. Until the local population decides to inform, the government in Kabul faces a serious problem.
In Regional Command South, including the key poppy-growing centers and the city of Kandahar, the security situation is worse. But 10,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines are surging into that area to clear the populated zones and then turn over the task of population protection to Afghan forces. By the fall, they can be expected to push back the Taliban. But what happens after that? How will Kabul solidify the gains?
On May 11, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates replaced the commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Changing commanders had less to do with redirecting strategy than with strengthening teamwork. In March, President Obama had announced a new Afghanistan-Pakistan policy that sounded like a continuation of the Bush policy. At that time, Bruce Riedel, Obama’s point man on Afghanistan, stressed that the president had laid out “a strategy” and that “it’s not intended to be a campaign plan.”
Not picking up on the clear signal that a campaign plan was necessary but still missing,
McKiernan failed to produce one. Petraeus, when in Iraq, had issued clear letters of his intent to all the soldiers. In contrast, McKiernan did not share his vision with his soldiers. He remained aloof and detached from his troops and from Washington. So Gates, in a shift that showed the power of Petraeus behind the scenes, selected some aggressive but compatible personalities. McChrystal had worked closely with Petraeus, Gates, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Because they are comfortable with one another, these four men share perspectives candidly. Soon there will be five: Adm. James Stavridis has just been appointed NATO commander. For the past three years, he has served as U.S. commander for Latin America, dealing with the drug wars. That experience is critically needed in Afghanistan, which is a major opium producer.
Gates must insist that either Mullen or Petraeus provide an objective risk assessment, independent of McChrystal. By way of analogy, every corporate board of trustees has an assigned risk assessor. Some senior general must remain detached enough from the day-to-day diplomatic and military crises in Afghanistan to warn if the strategy writ large is going awry.
As for the military campaign plan itself, it has still not been written. “Our mission,” Gates said, “requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders.” Does that mean that the deployment into outposts was a mistake — or that the Marines are wrong to try to clear the populated areas and then transition population protection to Afghan forces? No: The basic concepts appear sound. But operations are proceeding at a slow pace, because the size and bulk of each unit leaving the bases is large in order to minimize casualties.
So what “new approaches” should be included in the campaign plan? The first step is to agree that the goal is not to win, but to turn the war over to the Afghans. Many — perhaps most — Afghans have become accustomed to letting America and NATO do most of the fighting for them and deliver economic improvements. At the same time, they want to keep their distance from foreigners, accommodate the fundamentalists, and cling to the tribal values challenged by modernity. How do we put Afghans in the lead in their own country, to settle their own differences, while not losing the country to fundamentalists intent on attacking us?
There are two basic options. First, we can put more resources and urgency into the standard counterinsurgency approach. Militarily, this means recruiting more local militia at the village level. Once the overt Taliban fighters are pushed out of a populated area, a force has to come in to impose order, and that includes arresting seditionists. The traditional solution would call for improving the wretched police and installing American civilians to advise (and supervise) the district and provincial officials and thus strengthen the sinews of government. This approach would take several more years and several hundred million dollars not yet budgeted.
The second approach is more radical: strengthen the Afghan military as the backbone of government. Since the war cannot be won by killing the fundamentalists, they must be separated from the population. That is not happening. The U.S. holds about 600 prisoners in Afghanistan. Another 400 are held in the central Afghan prison. The number of enemy fighters imprisoned is absurdly disproportionate to the violence and intimidation — and amounts to a severe critique of intelligence and police effectiveness.
The enemy lives somewhere; it needs housing, food, transportation, resupply, etc. We have not trained Afghan units to acquire and run agents at the village and district levels, and to arrest the supporters of the fundamentalists. Our Special Operations Forces and CIA do a good job with the high-level enemy operatives, but the lower-level agents are walking around free and without fear. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and 13,000 Americans were arrested under martial law. There must be a similarly stiff penalty for sedition, and knowledge among the population that the Afghan government has agents, a net of informers, a military that makes arrests, and adequate prisons.
The U.S. should fund a pension plan to allow the quick retirement with dignity of a raft of superannuated Afghan officers who are performing poorly but have no means of living if they retire. In return, the U.S. should insist on joint U.S.-Afghan promotion boards for Afghan military and police officers at the company command level and above. As it stands now, our advisers can tell which leaders are poor or corrupt — but they can do little about it.
The police cannot function without a military umbrella, but the military can function as police. Instead of moving frequently, Afghan battalions should remain for years in one locale, so they become acquainted with the local politics. The police should be placed under army control. The army can also supervise the services supposedly provided by district and provincial officials.
This is a step back from the democratic model by which the Eastern European nations emerged from Communism. It points toward Turkey or Pakistan, or Mexico until recently. The American goal, however, is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming again a sanctuary for Islamic fundamentalists. The Afghan army, the nation’s most respected institution, is already working hand in hand with our military and offers the fastest means of reducing our burden in that country.
Click here for an explanation of each amendment
A Bill Of Federalism
Randy E. Barnett,
05.20.09, 04:11 PM EDT
A detailed proposal to redress the imbalance between state and federal power.
Resolution for Congress to Convene a Convention to Propose Amendments Constituting a Bill of Federalism
Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States begins "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"; and
Whereas the Congress of the United States has exceeded the legislative powers granted in the Constitution thereby usurping the powers that are “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” as the 10th Amendment affirms and the rights “retained by the people” to which the Ninth Amendment refers; and
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ignored or misinterpreted the meaning of the Constitution by upholding this usurpation;
To restore a proper balance between the powers of Congress and those of the several States, and to prevent the denial or disparagement of the rights retained by the people, the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereby resolves:
First, that Congress shall call a convention, consisting of delegates from the several States selected by procedures established by their respective legislatures, for the purpose of proposing the following articles be added as separate amendments to the Constitution of the United States, each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States; and
Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without effect; and
Third, that copies of this memorial shall be sent to the secretary of state and presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each of the several states in the union, the clerk of the United States house of representatives, the secretary of the United States senate, and to each member of the Virginia congressional delegation; and
Fourth, that this memorial for a convention is conditioned on the memorials of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states proposing the exact same language contained in some or all of the following articles, and is to remain in effect unless repealed by resolution of this legislature prior to the memorials of two-thirds of the states being reported to Congress:
Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]
Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.
Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.
Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.
Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]
The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.
Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]
Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.
Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power]
No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.
Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press]
The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.
Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power]
Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.
Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress]
No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.
Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]
Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.
Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.
Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.
Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.
Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]
Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.
Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.
Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]
The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.
25 May 2009
It’s Time to Take Stock
By Col. Bob Pappas USMC Ret.
The more one learns about politics, the more the well-known comparison between politicians and harlots makes sense. There was a time in this nation that politicians embodied righteous principle, today’s lot is vastly different than the Nation’s founders, all one has to do is observe Pelosi dance (and now refuse to answer further questions about her outrageous charge against the CIA), Biden’s foot-in-mouth affliction, and Obama’s power lust.
In the early days of this nation, service in Government was an honorable vocation and election to public office a trust not to be betrayed or abused. But today, one can cite so many abuses as to boggle the mind and disgrace by nearly all politicians, at the forefront of which is the current Administration. In the first months of its regime it has done more to change (into socialism) the economic fabric of this nation than all foregoing Administrations combined. One wonders why the U.S. resisted socialism/communism at great expense and sacrifice only to embrace those inherently evil ideologies without so much as a whimper in relative terms.
What has gone wrong? Like most things in life, change has been incremental, one small erosion at a time. As long at it didn’t affect one personally, as long as changes were small enough, people became less aware and increasingly lackadaisical. In the writer’s opinion, the decline began with the “church.” Ministry became, not a vocation of service, called of God, but a way to escape the military draft or to become self-serving demigods who relished power over people and their pocketbooks. Pastors decided it was okay to be wealthy, okay to live the good life, okay to fleece their willing sheep, okay to live a double standard, okay to “play” religion; and some TV Evangelists have honed it to a fine edge.
There was a time in this nation that if one were to attack basic ethics, Judeo-Christian principles, Church leaders, or religious faith, they would be summarily run out of town. Now that has changed, Church leaders have brought shame upon themselves and the gospel they profess (fingers crossed, of course). Some churches embrace evil in a perversion of God’s intent and word; and politicians have amassed a shameful record, one that even includes criminal activity. Again, one could cite volumes of abuses by both.
Does all that change basic principle? Do their abuses change God or God’s law? Does a Supreme Court ruling that normalizes homosexual conduct change the intent of the Creator of the Universe? Will the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade change the nature of murder at the ultimate Judgment? Can they claim, “I was only following orders?” Orders, that is, from an increasingly ignorant and decadent world that worships pleasure, lust, power and greed.
From all indications, liberals want people to be ignorant so that they can control those ordinary folks’ minds and bodies like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and the other despots of history. Does posting the Ten Commandments in a public place establish religion? Nonsense! But it does provide a moral rudder that liberals abhor because without one, like sharks, they can feed on “the masses” at will. It is reminiscent of the words, “…is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves.” Alas, this is liberals’ finest hour. If one is unaware of the decimation of the nation’s future over the course of the last four months, one is oblivious to events, doesn’t care, or both.
Where are the patriots of old, the Mastodons, as one observer noted? The ones who signed the Declaration of Independence with the words: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions… And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” They would be run out of town by the liberal media and their congregation of liberal followers in Government.
Somewhere along the line, politicians, abetted by church leaders, abandoned their faith, if they ever had “faith,” and reduced politics to a shell game that is devoid of ethical, moral or spiritual content, and now, they ravage the nation.
Will real Conservatives please stand up? No, not RINOs or their fellow traveling Democrats. And, this call is not for those who feed on division and hatred. Needed today are political and religious Conservatives who have read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, American History (warts and all) and who might have actually read and internalized the message of the Bible.
Sometimes, the best step forward is a step to the rear, a return to the basics; and if church leaders and politicians won’t lead the right way, it’s time for the laity, ordinary people, to take charge and lead the nation back to its founding principles; one can be sure, bottom feeders that they are, politicians and church leaders will follow.
Copyright © May 22nd, 2009, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed. It may not be used in any way, in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.
You have no powers here.
To the anonymous poster whose comment I rejected: no one tore up our signs in 2005, and when your asshat buddy showed up that Sunday on the Mall and tried to burn a flag, he was escorted out of our permitted area by 4 Park Police. You know, even I am not crazy enough to attempt a stunt like that, and I've been diagnosed as crazy.
So, by all means, bring your ass to the November Rally. Make your presence known. I'm sure you'll be warmly received. Bring your WCW hump buddies, your Black Bloc anarchist assholes, your IVAW wannabes, bring your mother, for all I care. You won't last 30 seconds.
I hope the Park Police can save your miserable ass.
24 May 2009
First, I want to thank everyone who encouraged and supported me while I fought to put the originial event together. This event was always about the milbloggers and the troops. I would not have considered it had I not received the full backing and endorsement from some heavy hitters in the milblog community.
That being said, Gathering of Eagles has decided that November 7 in Washington DC is a good time to hold this event.
There are two things that need to be said:
1. I had nothing to do with that decision. I was not consulted or asked, and only found out when I received a phone call from a friend who is an ACTIVE Chapter leader.
2. I have resigned as Special Events Coordinator for Gathering of Eagles.
Apparently lack of funding is no excuse for my failure to make the June event a huge success.
23 May 2009
You've probably noticed the new avatar on the right side of this webpage. Thats the link to the Warrior Legacy Foundation, a new organization started by two very outstanding individuals, one of whom is a friend of mine. I signed up and I think you should too, if you feel the same about our Warriors, past, present and future.
Remember General George Washington's words:
“The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars to be treated and appreciated by their nation.”
Washington, DC 26 May 2009:
This Memorial Day we launch a new group, The Warrior Legacy Foundation- a non partisan organization committed to the protection, promotion and dignity of America’s Warriors. The membership of the group is open to anyone who believes in this cause.
Across every generation, at war and at peace, America has asked her citizens to protect liberty anddefend freedom at all costs. And no matter the terrain or political climate, America’s Warriors have met every challenge and made every sacrifice that was asked of them in order to defeat our enemies andprotect our way of life. The Warrior Legacy Foundation is a passionate advocate for the preservation and elevation of the hallowed legacy of the American Warrior Class. Join us and stand firm in defense of the heritage of those brave souls who have protected our sovereignty throughout our great nation’s history.
They have asked for nothing and have given us everything.
Below is a message from our Executive Director, David Bellavia:
“Welcome to The Warrior Legacy Foundation. By joining our ranks today you are standing shoulder to shoulder with the only organization in our great nation that is steadfastly dedicated to the protecting the legacy and honor of ALL those who have served this great nation. A Warrior is not defined by valor awards, era, deployments or branch of service. Rather a Warrior is someone dedicated to a noble code entrenched in honor and understands the importance of protecting our American way of life no matter what is asked of them. At WLF, there is no distinction in service to our nation. No generational bigotry. No valor elitism. One unapologetic message with millions of messengers. Veterans make the community in which they live a better place.”
WLF will work to educate all Americans about those who bought them the freedoms they enjoy each and every day. We will ensure that children grow up with the knowledge that brave men and women volunteer to face our enemies abroad so they can be safe here at home. We will capture the stories of all those who came before us and preserve them for posterity. We will never forget that the sacrifices of those who went to war bought the freedom and liberty we enjoy daily.
If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.
Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution.. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.
That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley , Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.
So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers...President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America 's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans.
Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
21 May 2009
ABC News' Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:
The other day we heard a comment from a White House aide that never would have been uttered during the primaries or general election campaign.
During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said
"the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world --
you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father --
obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago."
Reading list at the end of this post. I'll edit later when I have time
WHAT CAN WE DO?
By Lynn Stuter
May 19, 2009
The evidence concerning the eligibility of Also Known As (AKA) Obama to the office of president is really quite simple.Regarding the document AKA claims is his birth certificate:1. That document is not a birth certificate; it is a Certification of Live Birth; an entirely different document than the birth certificate.2. No one, outside a very select group of people close to the AKA campaign, has actually seen the Certification of Live Birth document although innumerable pictures of it supposedly exist.3. The pictures of that document that appear on the internet do not constitute legal proof of anything.4. The pictures of the Certification of Live Birth that appear at, Daily Kos, Poliitfact.com, Fightthesmears.com, and latimesblogs.latimes.com (here, here, and here) have all been altered/forged. How do we know this? Because, as these are digital images, they are represented by digital files, ie, computer language which can be opened using a text editor program. Every digital file of these so-called "birth certificates" shows that the original digital file has been forged/altered. At this time, proof exists of at least three different computers being used to forge/alter these documents. This issue was addressed in my article, Bogus Documents Passed as Real Thing, with pictures provided of what the altered digital files disclose.5. The Department of Health, Hawaii, has stated, emphatically, that they cannot authenticate the document that AKA is presenting as his birth certificate, which is not a birth certificate but a Certification of Live Birth.6. The Department of Health, Hawaii, has produced no documents signed by AKA in which a request for his birth certificate or legal facsimile thereof has been made. Absent the proof that a written request was made by AKA to obtain his birth certificate or legal facsimile thereof, it can only be concluded that the COLB AKA is presenting is a forgery.7. There has been no proof presented that AKA was not born in Kenya as his step-grandmother claims, making him, at birth, a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948; in 1961 Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was not of sufficient age to have conferred her citizenship to AKA if he was born in Kenya.8. Not one member of Congress has seen, touched, or examined AKA's actual long form birth certificate issued at the time of his birth.9. Not one member of Congress has seen, touched, or examined the Certification of Live Birth that AKA is presenting as his birth certificate.10. Not one member of Congress knows, with certainty, where or when AKA was born.The issue of AKA's birth certificate and place of birth, however, becomes moot in consideration of the following:1. AKA has stated that he was, at birth, a dual citizen. His admission to this is on his own factcheck.org website. This precludes him from eligibility as the Founding Fathers made it quite clear that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 did not extend to individuals of dual loyalty, ie, dual citizenship, themselves excluded under the particular part of Clause 5 which reads "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution …"2. On January 1, 1967 AKA was enrolled in the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia. The picture of that registration was taken by an Associated Press photographer, Tatan Syuflana, released on January 24, 2007 and appears at DailyLife.com. This picture shows AKA's name as Barry Soetoro (not Barack Hussein Obama); his father as Lolo Soetoro (not Barack Obama, Sr as shown on the COLB, the authenticity of which is in question), his citizenship as Indonesian (not American). There has been no documents provided that AKA had his name legally changed from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. This indicates that Barry Soetoro is his real name and Barrack Hussein Obama is an alias. The divorce papers of Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro indicate two children: 1 minor (Maya Soetoro) and one over 18 (Barry Soetoro). This indicates that Barry Soetoro is the legal child of Lolo Soetoro, if only by adoption.3. In late 1981, AKA, by his own admission, traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia. Could AKA have traveled on an American passport? The answer to that question is no. In 1981, Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's no travel list. This means that AKA had to have traveled to Pakistan on a foreign passport. If AKA had been, at birth, a United States Citizen, he could have reclaimed his citizenship at the age of 18. That he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, at the age of 20, on a foreign passport means that he was not, at the age of 20, an American citizen; that he did not, at the age of 18, reclaim his American citizen (if he had a right to reclaim it in the first place). This means that the most AKA can be is a naturalized American citizen. There is no proof that he is even that. Such precludes him from eligibility under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, United States Constitution.
People ask, "What can we do about this?" The courts, both state and federal, have refused to address the issue. We hear rumors that judges, Supreme Court Justices, and elected representatives in Congress have been told to leave the issue alone, to not address it.If that is the case, as I and many others suspect it is—if by no other evidence than the consistent refusal of the courts and Congress to address this issue, such should be a very clear message to the American people that …1. They did not elect AKA; the election was fixed; vote fraud was rampant. In the day and age of electronic voting machines that can be programmed to insure a specific outcome, this is highly likely. What this also means is that the claim that 66,000,000 people voted for AKA is bogus, that the number who actually voted for AKA could actually be quite low.2. The people "elected" (remember that when elections are fixed via programming of electronic voting machines, the winner is selected, not elected) to serve in Washington, DC, represent no one but those who selected them; in this case the same shadow government that selected AKA.On May 15, 2009, Michigan News published an excellent article by Sher Zieve entitled The Fast and Furious Growth of the Obama Dictatorship. In that article Zieve provided a list of despotic actions, taken by AKA, to destroy this nation:1. Forced impoverishment of the US population (it’s easier to control the poor than it is the rich).2. Full power of US government to be exerted against Obama opposition.3. End of legal contracts—IE Chrysler bondholders—if Obama doesn’t like them.4. HUGE political pay back to Obama’s friends and gutting of economy for We-the-People taxpayers.5. Obama-supporting/opposition-suppressing youth goon squads being put in place.6. Enforced limited or non-existent free speech.7. Enforced limited or virtually non-existent citizen mobility.8. Obama-determined US workers’ monetary compensation.9. Obama and his officials to determine who is allowed to live and who should die.I will add one more to that list:10. total disarmament of the American people such that defense against Obama's tyrannical policies is not possible.On April 29, 2009, Representative Peter King (D-NY) introduced H.R. 2159. This bill sets about to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone who is "appropriately suspected" of being a terrorist. But, you rationalize, terrorists wear white robes and live in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq; they have weird sounding names and are associated with al-Qaida, Islamic fundamentalists and Osama bin Laden. Why wouldn't we want to keep firearms out of the hands of these types?Understand that how you define "terrorist" is not how AKA—bowing in fealty to the royalty of Saudi Arabia, kissing up to the leaders of the Middle East, and more than strongly suggesting his worldview finds basis in Islam—define "terrorist."According to reports put out by AKA and minions, being the denigrators of all that is America (including freedom) that they are, the paradigm has been shifted. Remember that under a paradigm shift, that which was down is now up, and that which was up is now down. As such, according to AKA and minions, foreigners intent on destroying America are not terrorists, they are "man-caused disasters" (undoubtedly, according to AKA and minions, the fault of the United States) while you are a terrorist if you oppose the Marxist policies of AKA, as duly noted in various documents put out under their aegis. Those documents can be read here, here, and here (requires Adobe reader).This, of course, places you under the heading "appropriately suspected" terrorist; giving the government the right to deny you your Second Amendment Rights.Remember the words of a wise man — he who is willing to give up freedom for security will, in the end, lose both freedom and security (Benjamin Franklin, paraphrased).Following in the footsteps of Bush—the man AKA scorned vociferously before being elected, AKA and his minions are playing on the fear of the America people—of what "might happen"—to take from them their rights. This is the schmuck who said, a few short months ago, that he would not operate on fear. Just another lie told by a snake oil salesmen who has told so many lies that it's hard to keep up with them all.On May 13, 2009, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), known for her opposition to the Second Amendment, introduced H.R. 2401. This bill sets about to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone who ends up on the "no fly" list. The bill is called the "No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009."No due process, no need to prove you are actually a threat to the people of this nation, your rights will be denied if you end up on a no fly list for whatever reason, whether by some joker at the airport that didn't like the way you looked or some government hack making the kind of mistake they are prone to making!There is, of course, no end to the possibilities this slippery slope provides. The bottom line is that this is back-door gun control and the intention is to disarm the American people. People continually ask what can they do.I will ask people, in response, 1. Do you want to live under the oppressive Marxist government that AKA is rapidly establishing with the help and support of Congress?2. Do you truly believe that someone as greedy for power as AKA is going to back off if asked nicely to do so?3. Do you truly believe that, given their track record of ignoring the Constitution, Senators and Representative to Congress are going to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution?4. Do you truly believe judges, given their track record in dismissing cases out-of-hand brought regarding AKA's eligibility to the office of president, are going to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution?If your answer to these questions is no, then you already know what the answer to this unfolding situation is.
This is our country. It is not AKA's country. The evidence shows that he is not even a citizen of this country. For those in Congress who have refused to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, this is also not their country. In refusing to protect and defend it, they are nothing short of traitors. The same is true of the judges.As established (and irrespective of AKA's ignorant remarks to the contrary), the power in this country flows from God to the people to the government, establishing inalienable rights; the legitimate government being of the people, by the people, and for the people.We must remember that those who are doers of Satan's evil fear, above all others, God, for it is God who can snatch victory from the jaws of what seems to be inevitable defeat. Remember David and Goliath. Remember that so long as we walk with God, Satan walks in fear.We must, first and foremost, walk with God and seek the wisdom and council of God.Recommended reading:
1. Barack's Epistle to the Egyptians
2. Whaddya mean, 'America is not a Christian nation'?
3. Dead People Being Sent Stimulus Checks
4. The Times They Are A Changing
5. Cracks in the Façade; Fissures in the Obama Totem
6. Obama's Competence Gap
7. Critics Still Haven't Read the 'Torture' Memos
8. FBI Agent: Obama Making Another 9/11 'Inevitable'
9. Government Readies Youth Corp to take on Vets
10. How America lost its freedom (an what Americans must do to get it back)
11. Obama the Destroyer
18 May 2009
On 13 March 2009 Glenn Beck introduced us to the 9-12 Project. He prefaced this introduction with a history lesson. He reminded us of the greatness that is America and her citizens.
He then introduced a lot of Americans to the one person who, in my mind anyway, personifies the American spirit, American courage, and the way we should all strive to be.
That person was Marcus Luttrell, former Navy SEAL, member of SEAL Team 10, and part of Operation Redwing, the deadliest mission a SEAL Team has ever undertaken. The book "Lone Survivor" is the story of that operation. I urge everyone to get a copy and read it.
Glenn established the first rule of the 9-12 Project:
We Honor Our Military. We acknowledge the sacrifices made and we thank those who chose to defend us. We do so willingly, without reservation. We do it because it's the right thing to do.
We do it because the men and women who make up our Warrior class are worthy of the effort. They have earned it.
The Tea Parties were started by a reporter from the floor of the Chicago Board of Exchange. It was picked up and the tipping point was reached around the time of CPAC 2009. The Tea Party movement is about taxes and excessive government waste.
The 9-12 Project is about America's soul.
15 May 2009
10 May 2009
United Conservatives of Virginia: CURRAHEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Screw zerobama, screw specter, screw the trolls.
You want to see a real hero? Click the link.
H/T TSO and ThisAintHell
Labels: 101stABN, Petraeus, screaming eagles, This Ain't Hell, TSO
Posted by concretebob at 11:50 PM
*Ms. Burlingame is a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, and the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.*
Originally published 8 May 2009 in the Wall Street Journal
Obama and the 9/11 Families
The president isn't sincere about 'swift and certain' justice for terrorists.
Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.
Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in. The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.
On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.
Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.
Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with
ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.
Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them." How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.
News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing.
"[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."
"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.
Believe . . . feel . . . hope.
We'd been had.
Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed,
including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.
The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told German reporters that 30 detainees had been cleared for release. This includes 17 Chinese fundamentalist Muslims, the Uighurs, some of whom admit to having been trained in al Qaeda and Taliban camps and being associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Party. This party is led by Abdul Haq, who threatened attacks on the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing and was recently added to the Treasury Department's terrorist list. The Obama administration is considering releasing the Uighurs on U.S. soil, and it has suggested that taxpayers may have to provide them with welfare support. In a Senate
hearing yesterday, Mr. Holder sidestepped lawmakers' questions about releasing detainees into the U.S. who have received terrorist training.
What about the terrorists who may actually be tried? The Justice Department's recent plea agreement with Ali Saleh al-Marri should be of grave concern to those who believe the Obama administration will vigorously prosecute terrorists in the federal court system.
Al-Marri was sent to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, by KSM to carry out cyanide bomb attacks. He pled guilty to one count of "material support," a charge reserved for facilitators rather than hard-core terrorists. He faces up to a 15-year sentence, but will be allowed to argue that the sentence should be satisfied by the seven years he has been in custody. This is the kind of
thin "rule of law" victory that will invigorate rather than deter our enemies.
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.
The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.
Most recently, Mr. Obama appeared at the CIA after demoralizing the agency with the declassification and release of memos containing sensitive information on CIA interrogations. He appealed to moral vanity by saying that fighting a war against fanatic barbarians "with one hand tied behind your back" is being on "the better side of history," even though innocent lives are put at risk. He promised the assembled staff and analysts that if they keep applying themselves, they won't be personally marked for career-destroying sanctions or criminal prosecutions, even as disbelieving counterterrorism professionals -- the field operatives and their foreign partners -- shut down critical operations for fear of public disclosure and political retribution in the never-ending Beltway soap opera called Capitol Hill.
It worked: On television, his speech looked like a campaign rally, with people jumping up and down, cheering. Meanwhile, the media have moved on, even as they continue to recklessly and irresponsibly use the word"torture" in their stories.
I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House.
"They saw it for what it was."
09 May 2009
United Conservatives of Virginia: Richmond Tax Day Tea Party - Success!
A group of over 30 Americans, who reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia, hand delivered to their federal citizen representatives' Richmond offices a Petition for Redress of Grievances. A copy of the Petition can be found here…www.villagenewsonline.com/patriots.pdf The results and reactions varied by federal office. It ranged from a cordial and frank conversation about the status of our country to muffled conversations behind a bank teller window. The bottom line is Americans deserve answers and these citizen representatives were formally asked to respond in a forum that is appropriate to reach their constituents.
Here is a copy of the cover letter submitted with the petition.
May 8, 2009
Citizen Rep. Eric Cantor
Citizen Rep. Randy Forbes
Citizen Sen. Mark Warner
Citizen Sen. Jim Webb
From: Your Constituents
Subject: Our Petition for Redress of Grievances
On April 15th of this year, We the People posted in our local paper, the Village News, our Petition for Redress of Grievances. We addressed it to you as our citizen representatives. As this practice is protected by First Amendment, we expect your thoughtful, written response to each of our concerns. We the People are watching and are taking steps to protect our liberty. We wanted to make sure that our citizen representatives heard our concerns loud and clear. Therefore, we decided to hand deliver our message to you such that you make no mistake about our grievances and our unwavering mandate. We are requesting the following four actions:
1.To cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers;
2.To formally and publicly recognize the natural and Constitutional rights of the American People in a manner appropriate to your branch of government;
3.To answer, point by point the questions contained herein;
4.To honor your oaths to support the Constitution or resign immediately from your positions.
We the People will continue our march toward liberty, not looking left or right, until they are heard and responded to.
Commonwealth of VA Homepage 05.08.09 - 8:01 pm #
Posted by concretebob at 10:51 AM
08 May 2009
My buddy CJ from A Soldiers Perspective and YouServed has uploaded some video to Great Americans.
I would consider it a personal favor if everyone would go say hi, and become a fan.
Its free, its easy, and Great Americans is the pro-military answer to youtube.
07 May 2009
06 May 2009
American Vision is reporting they received a call from a Lady in Louisiana:
"We just received a call from ******* in Ball, Louisiana alerting us that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased and displayed a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his car.
The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included—and include—illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law.
The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.” Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration. But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election.
The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion. Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition—and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states,"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I think I might have to go buy some more of those stickers.
Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its controversial report warning against "right-wing extremists" in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups – animal rights activists, black separatists, tax protesters, even worshippers of the Norse god Odin – as potential "threats."
Though the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" was reportedly rescinded almost immediately, Benjamin Sarlin of The Daily Beast recently obtained and published online a copy of the unclassified memo, dated March 26, 2009.
While many of the groups listed in the lexicon – such as Aryan prison gangs and neo-Nazis – may indeed be widely considered extremists, others will likely take offense at being described as a potential "threat."
For example, the memo defines the "tax resistance movement" – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as "groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified." (yep, that pretty much describes me)
The report, however, continues in its assessment of tax protesters, asserting that members "have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."
and for the record, I have never advocated or engaged in criminal activity or plotted acts of violence or terrorism to advance my goals
Similarly, the lexicon concludes its definition of "black separatists" by asserting, "Such groups or individuals also may embrace radical religious beliefs. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence directed toward local law enforcement in an attempt to advance their extremist goals."
In his blog piece titled "Who You Calling an Extremist?" Sarlin writes, "Partisans leapt to decry the first DHS memo as part of a Democratic conspiracy to marginalize right wingers. But it became clear that DHS's broad descriptions of extremists were symptomatic of an ongoing agency problem that crossed ideological lines."
05 May 2009
It looks as though we are entering a new phase on the Obama citizenship issue. It appears that a rumor has surfaced from an FBI agent that a forgery of Obama's birth certificate is under way. This would explain the 120 days requested by Obama's legal team to address an issue regarding a birth certificate, an issue any lawyer worth his salt - let alone one worth millions, himself surrounded by million-dollar lawyers - would put to rest months ago in a heartbeat by simply producing the document and using the moment to belittle his detractors - a technique not at all beneath Obama as we have seen. Paper and ink can be chemically treated to fool dating analysis, but needs a little time to settle in. Inks and papers can be carefully reproduced. Does anyone believe that a man whose ambition is to be the most powerful person on earth would be above such tactics? Can we risk indulging in the happy thought that he would not?
We must assume that this is a new, clock-driven phase we're in. Any other assumption is terribly irresponsible. Time, if half these rumors are true, is against us.
NOW - is the time to stop posting on message boards in anything but a clear, concise organized attempt to draw large national attention to the Obama citizenship issue.
NOW - is the time to put contact numbers and e-mails HERE for immediate dispersion.
NOW - is the time to use those numbers and e-mails. If you are worried about being identified and having your life ruined by vindictive left-wing activists - a legit concern - use *67 when you call in, which will block your name and number to the radio show or congressional office.
NOW - is the time to call Hannity and wait for 3 hours to get on, using a false topic for clearance through the call-takers and then condemn him before millions for betraying his country by not bringing this issue up with so many guests available and such news-worthiness behind it. Let him know on-air you're calling for all his listeners to turn off their radios for the day in protest and as a sign of strength. That you'll contact his sponsors and threaten to boycott his program on the radio and Fox TV.
NOW - is the time to do the same to Rush.
NOW - is the time to do the same O'Reilly.AND Savage.AND Ingraham. And local conservative stations.
NEXT:Your congressmen care about only one thing: the next primaries.
NOW - is the time to contact them - anonymously if necessary (it's legal, use *67 or separate free Yahoo e-mail accounts created for the purpose) and politely tell them you'll campaign like hell against them in the next primary, never forgetting, to your last breath if need be, if they don’t confront this issue head -on NOW.
Tell them tomorrow is too late - for their re-election.
We don’t have months to organize a tea party on this matter.
The clock may very well be running out.
There is a reason why a million-dollar lawyer consulting with million-dollar lawyers won’t turn over a document you need for a passport or your kid needs to get his drivers license. The reason isn't for the fun of it.
NOW - is the time to take pen to paper, hand to keyboard, voice to phone, and make this go viral this week, the week of May 4, 2009. The week after next may simply be too late if even half of what we’re hearing turns out to be true(that 120-day stall request by Obama's lawyers probably has a very large safety zone built into the timetable as a contingency, just in case)
NOW - is the time to do all these things.
NOW. Not tomorrow. Not in 2 hours. Put off dinner. Forget the movie, or the game, or your favorite reality show. Dinner can stay warm. Your favorite shows will be waiting for you next week.
THE TIME TO LET THOSE WITH THE BULLY PULPIT TO MILLIONS KNOW THAT IF THEY FAIL THEY WILL BE DESPISED FOR THEIR COWARDICE FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES IS NOW.
Sound melodramatic? Sure, but melodrama is their trade. You're only speaking to them in the language they respect when you put it like that. Cut and paste this wherever you will. Add to it. Subtract from it. But get the word out.
If we're responsible, if we care and love this still-free country, if any of what he have heard is in fact true (there are many people still alive who remember Hitler's rein of terror - never confuse the unthinkable with the impossible), then we have no responsible choice but to err on the side of caution - and indignation, quite frankly - and assume the clock may very well be ticking, now. Time waits for no one, and don't expect an evermore-corrupt government to do you any favors.
There is no harm in doing all this if this rumor turns out to be untrue. Indeed, it simply clears up a very, very troubling, nagging issue all the faster. The question is: do you love your country enough to spend a little time on a gamble to save it in the event even half of it is in fact actually true?
Our Founding Fathers are watching you. What would you have them think?
Keep this thread alive with contact info, reports on what you are doing, cut-and-paste it elsewhere and provide links here. It's time to get to the bottom of Obama's citizenship status once and for all - BEFORE he covers his tracks.