May 152010

Big Government

Thanks to provisions buried within the Obama/Dodd financial deform bill, your personal information — from ATM withdrawals to loans — will now be collected by the federal government with no protections to your personal privacy.

The legislation creates another federal bureaucracy — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that is nothing more than a systematic government invasion of your personal finances of every consumer creating a financial fingerprint for the government to watch over.

Dodd’s bill deputizes the CFPB to act as a new federal watchdog agency to collect consumers’ personal financial information and transactions including records from Automatic Teller Machines from any financial institution or firm.

Don’t believe us — read the bill.

Section 1022 – Under Dodd’s bill the CFPB is granted unprecedented power to write, administer and enforce federal consumer financial law with no Congressional oversight.

Section 1071 – Dodd’s bill compels financial institutions like banks, credit unions and stock brokerage firms to maintain records of all financial transactions including the number and dollar amount and to submit that information to the CFPB.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the bill is it leaves it up to the discretion of the CFPB bureaucrats to determine how to use the personal information collected on American consumers and to share that data with other Federal agencies as it sees fit.

The Dodd bill constitutes an unprecedented intrusion into the privacy of the American people. For this reason alone, it deserves to be defeated.

May 152010

~ Rasmussen

Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that just 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.

The proposal failed to pass in the Democratically-controlled State House last month by a 75 to 82 vote.

Fifty percent (50%) of voters in Massachusetts oppose a boycott of Arizona like the one just passed by Boston City Council to protest that state’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration. Thirty-four percent (34%) favor such a boycott, while another 16% are undecided.

But just 41% favor a law like Arizona’s that empowers local police to stop anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. Forty-eight percent (48%) oppose such a law. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

Nationally, 58% support a law like the one recently adopted in Arizona.

The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Massachusetts was conducted on May 10, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Bay State voters are at least somewhat concerned that a law like Arizona’s might violate the civil rights of some U.S. citizens while 30% don’t share that concern. Those figures include 40% who are Very Concerned and 11% who are Not At All Concerned.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) favor a welcoming immigration policy that only excludes “national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system.” Just 23% disagree with such a policy. This is comparable to findings among voters nationwide.

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday criticized the public benefits proposal and denounced the Arizona bill, saying he would veto a similar law if passed by the state legislature. However, he also said the state would not follow Boston’s example and divest state funds from Arizona as a protest.

His two chief opponents for governor, Republican Charlie Banker and Democrat-turned-independent Tim Cahill, both favor the legislation barring illegal immigrants from public benefits. Cahill has defended the Arizona law; Baker has not commented in detail on it.

Patrick now earns 45% of the vote in his bid for reelection to Baker’s 31% and Cahill’s 14%.

Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party overwhelmingly support the proposal that would stop illegal immigrants from getting public benefits, as do 53% of Democrats.

But 52% of Democratic voters favor a boycott of Arizona, while 74% of Republicans and 66% of unaffiliateds oppose it.

When it comes to having a law like Arizona’s, however, 64% of GOP voters are in favor of it, but 68%of Democrats are opposed. Among unaffiliated voters in Massachusetts, 46% favor such a law, while 39% oppose it.

May 152010


RUSH: Here’s Obama now walking to the steps of the Rose Garden. I saw a story last night that he is livid; he is just ticked as hell at British Petroleum for not stopping the oil leak — and he’s going to express his anger, I am told, in this presser. We’re not going to JIP it. We’re not gonna. We’re rolling on it and if that’s indeed what he does, we will play for you whatever is relevant. Here’s the thing about this: This is exactly what he wants. This is a great day for Obama! The market’s down 200 plus; the euro is falling. More chaos, more tumult. Obama can look over all of this, and what they’re doing is blaming capitalism. “Capitalism is responsible for where we in the United States are!” That’s what they’re saying.

That’s what they’re going to get away with saying. “George W. Bush. British Petroleum. Look what capitalism does! It destroys,” while Obama is in the process of destroying. Europe is socialist. That’s what you focus on. But he loves this opportunity. The government has not helped at all with this spill. So they get to sit around as bystanders and spectators and now raise holy hell, if that’s what he’s doing here, with British Petroleum for not doing anything faster about the leak. Remember the Apollo 13, you’ve seen the movie about the Apollo capsule that lost all of its power on the way back from the moon. A massive effort was made from all sector. Everybody who had anything to do with manufacturing the capsule — NASA, private sector people, government sector people — pooled all of their resources to come up with a plan to save the astronauts and get them back. And they did.

That’s the kind of thing that needs to be happening here with this oil spill. And it’s not. The government is sitting by, sending people down there, SWAT teams, taking notes, waiting for time to go by, putting out news, “The spill is even larger than we thought. The original figures larger than we thought,” and so now it’s time to really dump, and instead of partnering up and instead of trying to fix this, this is another instance where the Obama regime is taking advantage of a crisis to advance their agenda. Okay, so here’s the private sector, unable to clean up — or unwilling! That’s what he’s going to say: “They’re unwilling because they don’t care about the environment, and they don’t care about all this oil that they’re losing. They don’t care about all the profits they’re losing because of all the oil they’re losing. No, no, no.”

He’s gonna use this as an opportunity to say, “See? I need more power to keep this stuff from happening. I need more power and government needs to be bigger to make sure this stuff doesn’t happen. We can’t rely on the private sector. You told you last week: They won’t do the good things in the world. They don’t do things because they have hearts. Government has to have the power to do those kinds of things.” I’m guessing that that will be one of his themes today in the remarks he’s making at the moment.

JUST finish the transcript

May 152010

Media Contact:
Neil Grace for Family Security Matters
Phone: 202/530-4558
$100,000 Reward to Locate Criminal(s) Who Stole Mojave Desert War Memorial
Family Security Matters Announces Contribution from Anonymous Donor

Washington, D.C. (May 13, 2010) – A $100,000 reward is being offered for information leading to the apprehension and conviction of the individuals who seized the Mojave Desert War Memorial earlier this week.

The $100,000 is being offered by a donor to the group Family Security Matters ( The donor is an anonymous U.S. Military wounded veteran who was the recipient of the Silver Star Medal.

“Family Security Matters is honored, on behalf of an anonymous U.S. Military wounded veteran – a recipient of the Silver Star Medal – to announce this reward,” said Carol Taber, President of Family Security Matters. “We are confident that our donor’s generosity will help to bring the criminals to justice and that the message rings loud and clear: we will never allow such a vile crime that defiles the memory our nation’s war dead to stand. Not now, not ever.”

Earlier this week, the memorial was stolen from its longtime perch in California’s Mojave Desert. It was first erected 75 years ago as a memorial in honor of America’s World War I veterans and became known as a symbol to honor all veterans who have served their country. Less than two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court order, returning the case to the District Court, and thus enabling the symbol to stay on federal land for now.

Thomas J. Tradewell Sr, the national commander of the 2.1 million member Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) said: “We are extremely grateful for the $100,000 anonymous contribution to the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial reward fund that Family Security Matters was able to arrange from a private donor.”

“We may never know the donor’s name, but the VFW wants to personally thank him or her for caring enough to get involved,” he said. “These thieves desecrated a national war memorial that was erected to honor America’s war dead. They must be caught, prosecuted and jailed in a federal prison, and we hope that will happen quickly now that the total reward money has been upped to $125,000.”
Family Security Matters has established a tip hotline and a private email address for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators of this crime. Anyone with information is asked to call 202-528-4665 or to email at To contribute, click the Mojave Desert War Memorial Fund at this URL:

About Veterans of Foreign War

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is a nonprofit veterans’ service organization composed of combat veterans and those who currently serve on active duty or in the Guard and Reserves. Founded in 1899 and chartered by Congress in 1936, the VFW is the nation’s largest organization of war veterans and is one of its oldest veterans’ organizations. With 2.1 million members located in 7,900 VFW Posts worldwide, the VFW and its Auxiliaries are dedicated to “honor the dead by helping the living” through veterans service, legislative initiatives, youth scholarships, Buddy Poppy and national military service programs. The VFW and its Auxiliaries contribute more than 13 million hours annually in community service to the nation. For more information or to join, visit the organization’s Web site at


The ACLU won at the district and appeals court level but lost at the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 decision issued a narrow ruling allowing the cross to stand but returning the case to the lower court. The cross had been covered for about eight years, most of that time by plywood, following a court order.

So this is a “Coincidence?!

June 8, 2009 ACLU Aims to Tear Down War Memorial Cross

Details on this case ~ Vandals tear down, steal Mojave Memorial cross

May 152010

Given the economic damage inflicted on us by the current administration and many state governments, most readers of this column would probably be quite happy to live in a state where:

* The official unemployment rate in March was 6.6%.
* The average unemployment rate in 2009 using the most comprehensive definition was 10.5%, the fourth-lowest in the nation (behind three much smaller states), and far lower than the national average of 16.2%.
* The number of people either working or looking for work has actually grown during the past twelve months (in most states, the labor force has contracted significantly).
* The economy grew in 2008, and probably did so again in 2009.

Unless you live in Oklahoma, you’re not in that state…

posted by : Nancy Kennon on May 14, 2010

May 152010

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the United States and other Western nations on Thursday against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Interfax news agency reported.

The European Union has said it may impose unilateral sanctions if a U.N. Security Council resolution fails.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has been lobbying Western companies not to do business with Iran, but has not imposed sanctions against them.

Countries facing Security Council sanctions “cannot under any circumstances be the subject of one-sided sanctions imposed by one or other government bypassing the Security Council”, Lavrov was quoted as saying by Interfax.

“The position of the United States today does not display understanding of this absolutely clear truth.”

Russia is in talks with the United States and other U.N. Security Council members on a fourth round of sanctions. Moscow has indicated it could support broader sanctions but has stressed they must not harm the Iranian people.

Washington has not publicly warned of unilateral sanctions but has made clear it wants tougher measures than veto-wielding Security Council member Russia is likely to accept.

Permanent Security Council member China has joined Russia in opposing Washington’s plans to impose tough, wide-ranging sanctions on the Islamic Republic over its refusal to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment activity and open up fully to U.N. nuclear inspections.

Lavrov’s warning came just before the arrival in Russia on Thursday of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, a non-permanent member of the Security Council that is also opposed to further sanctions against Iran.

Lula was expected to meet senior Russian officials on Friday to discuss how to revive a stalled nuclear fuel swap deal meant to minimize the risk of Tehran using enrichment for military purposes. Lula will travel on to Iran on Sunday.

Lavrov, speaking to deputies from Russia’s upper house of parliament, said the United States tended not to see international law as having pre-eminence over national laws.

“We are now confronted with this problem during discussion of a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran.”

Despite his criticism, Lavrov said that relations with the United States had shown clear signs of improvement, specifically with the signing of a nuclear-disarmament treaty that would reduce their deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

He said the document would soon be submitted to Russia’s parliament for ratification.

(Writing by Conor Humphries; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

June 16, 2008 — 8-year old Casey performs a cover of The Beatles “Back in the USSR” at his elementary school’s annual talent show.

May 152010

Infowars ~ Kurt Nimmo

In addition to attacking the First Amendment, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court also argued against the Second Amendment.

“I’m not sympathetic,” to the Second Amendment, said Kagan.

In 1987 as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, Elena Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol, according to Bloomberg.

The man argued “the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

Kagan believes the state has the right to impose restrictive gun laws and she disagrees with the language of the Second Amendment.

Kagan told lawmakers last year when she was the nominee for solicitor general that she accepted the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court. “There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms,” she said.

Kagan, however, added that the Constitution “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” thus leaving the door open for future regulation.

In answers to written questions by Patrick Leahy submitted in February of 2009, Kagan said: “Like other nominees to the Solicitor General position, I have refrained from providing my personal opinions of constitutional law (except in areas where I previously have stated opinions), both because those opinions will play no part in my official decisions and because such statements of opinion might be used to undermine the interests of the United States in litigation.”

Kagan’s previous stated opinions on the Constitution include her belief that the First Amendment should be modified by the government in order to prevent societal harm.

In addition to papers written in the 1990s on this subject, Solicitor General Kagan argued in favor of prohibiting political speech by corporations. Supreme Chief Justice John Roberts directly criticized Kagan’s argument that the government has the authority to ban political pamphlets.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts.

“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Justice Kennedy said the law had defended as an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”

In addition to opposing the First and Second Amendments, Kagan has argued against the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

According to the New York Times, Kagan said “that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

Kagan’s “elastic interpretation” of the Fourth Amendment echoed remarks made by Eric Holder during his confirmation hearing for the position of Attorney General.

In 2009, Obama outlined his policy of preventive detention, without trial, for people he suspects might commit crimes in the future.

We Have Elena Kagan’s College Thesis

May 152010

Logans Warning

When it comes to Islam our Constitution is not protecting us, so we have to try and protect ourselves. To do this we must continue to educate our fellow countrymen, to the rising threat of the Islamization of America.

Another Mosque is getting set to rise in America, and this time the target is Wisconsin. Only one more step is needed, and that is the approval by the Town of Wilson’s next board meeting, which is in two days. Please give them a call, or send them an email, and warn them of the true threat of Islam. The contact information can be found HERE.

Mosque Plan Headed To Town of Wilson Board

TOWN of WILSON, Wis. (WHBL) – A proposed mosque in the Town of Wilson will be debated before the Town Board after the Plan Commission gave it the thumbs up.

Following the positive recommendation by the Plan Commission, final approval for the mosque at 9110 Sauk Trail Road is now on the agenda for the Town of Wilson’s next board meeting Monday. During the Plan Commission meeting, concerns over what activities the mosque may bring to the area were again raised when the discussion turned to specifically mentioning that firearms or weapons should not be allowed on the property.

Stacy Salman, who is with the Islamic Society of Sheboygan County, hopes the mere presence of the mosque leads the community to a better understanding of Islam.

Mohammad Hamad, also with the Society, says the center will be open to all and given the current climate in the world, Society members are eager to start a dialogue with anyone who has questions.

The Town of Wilson’s Board meeting will be at 6 P.M. Monday the 17th at the Town Hall.

Of course they will not tell the truth. Instead they will play the Islam is a religion of peace game. That is where your help is needed. Don’t be shy, pick up the phone and call the board.

May 152010


In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.

The academy’s committee on bioethics, in a policy statement last week, said some pediatricians had suggested that current federal law, which “makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States, has had the unintended consequence of driving some families to take their daughters to other countries to undergo mutilation.

“It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm,” the group said.

But some opponents of female genital mutilation, or F.G.M., denounced the statement.

“I am sure the academy had only good intentions, but what their recommendation has done is only create confusion about whether F.G.M. is acceptable in any form, and it is the wrong step forward on how best to protect young women and girls,” said Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, who recently introduced a bill to toughen federal law by making it a crime to take a girl overseas to be circumcised. “F.G.M. serves no medical purpose, and it is rightfully banned in the U.S.”

Georganne Chapin, executive director of an advocacy group called Intact America, said she was “astonished that a group of intelligent people did not see the utter slippery slope that we put physicians on” with the new policy statement. “How much blood will parents be satisfied with?”

She added: “There are countries in the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.”

A member of the academy’s bioethics committee, Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said the panel’s intent was to issue a “statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context.”

Dr. Friedman Ross said that the committee members “oppose all types of female genital cutting that impose risks or physical or psychological harm,” and consider the ritual nick “a last resort,” but that the nick is “supposed to be as benign as getting a girl’s ears pierced. It’s taking a pin and creating a drop of blood.”

She said the panel had heard anecdotes from worried doctors.

“If we just told parents, ‘No, this is wrong,’ our concern is they may take their daughters back to their home countries, where the procedure may be more extensive cutting and may even be done without anesthesia, with unsterilized knives or even glass,” she said. “A just-say-no policy may end up alienating these families, who are going to then find an alternative that will do more harm than good.”

Currently, more than 130 million women and girls worldwide have undergone female genital cutting, according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It is mostly performed on girls younger than 15 in countries including Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia. Consequences can include severe complications with pregnancy, childbirth and sexual dysfunction.

The academy’s statement acknowledged that opponents of the procedure, “including women from African countries, strongly oppose any compromise that would legitimize even the most minimal procedure.”

Dr. Friedman Ross said, “If you medicalize it and say it’s permissible, is there a possibility that some people will misunderstand it and go beyond a nick? Yes.”

But she said the risk that people denied the ceremonial procedure, usually on the clitoris, would opt for the more harmful one was much more dangerous.

And the statement said that, “in some countries where FGC is common, some progress toward eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual ‘nicks’ for more severe forms.”

In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.

Group Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option

May 152010

I thought with all this illegal issue we all needed a boost…Never fails to bring tears

I’m proud to be an American – American Soldier Tribute