The Sheep Dog Rag - 8th ed. - 12-01-2009

The Sheep Dog Rag
Inspired by Dave Grossman
8th Edition - December 2009

Slim@outdrs.net



This months issue will be just a bit different. I have come across much information that explains what is going on with nobamma. It is scary at best. It will mostly be excerpts from a site called The Obama Files. Another source is an editorial from an American muslim who is also a writer. I also have in store for some more jokes both on and off topic. Much of what I put in the rag comes from conservative sites. I try to beware though because, sorry to say, even conservatives have been known to lie.
Not only do I publish this rather crude rag, but I comment on news stories in many states. I keep a log of worts of where I comment. I have changed a few minds here and there. Especially in California and New York. I have commented on nearly 200 sites so far and counting. Many of them multiple times. I get e-mails from people all over also. Most of these are checked thoroughly before I use them. I have trusted sources that I do not feel a need to check most of the time. Some of these, the person sending me the info has checked it out before hand.
If anyone of you reading this are on the internet, I would gladly e-mail the rag to you every issue. Even back issues and such. My e-mail address is on the front page. The home page I use is the outdoors unlimited site outdrs.net. It is conservative, has much news, general, political, and sports. It has jokes and humor, submissions from subscribers, conservative views and much more. I have items posted there myself and I know some of the other posters. Come visit.
A group of interest is now forming in Denison. It is called VETO NOW. I expect it to go national soon. I have been telling people all over the internet about it. A copy of their ad is on the back page of this. Check it out on vetonow.com or write them at the address provided. I have checked the guy out and he is solid.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America
by Mohamed Akram May 19, 1991
This May 1991 memo was written by Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the introductory letter, Akram referenced a "long-term plan…approved and adopted" by the Shura Council in 1987 and proposed this memo as a supplement to that plan and requested that the memo be added to the agenda for an upcoming Council meeting. Appended to the document is a list of all Muslim Brotherhood organizations in North America as of 1991. Notable quotes:
Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state, wherever it is.
In order for Islam and its Movement to become "a part of the homeland" in which it lives, "stable" in its land, "rooted" in the spirits and minds of its people, "enabled" in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established "organizations" on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain "the keys" and the tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a "Civilization Jihadist" responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Barack Hussein Obama
Who is this guy?
I've read everything I could get my hands on about this guy in the last two years and I know less about him now than I did at the beginning.
Despite his "poor-boy" myth, Obama is a privileged African-American, educated at the finest schools, who has not shared the black American experience. By birth, blood and training, he was a Muslim, who became a member of a Marxist, Black-African church. He's a socialist whose politics are rooted in Marx and whose tactics were
2
conceived by the communist, Alinsky. He's a master at shaping his own mythology, completely unqualified to be Commander in Chief, and, he is not now, nor ever has been, a "natural born citizen."
Let's begin with the original Obama rumor. He's a Muslim. Is he a Muslim? -- I don't think so. But, I don't think he's a Christian, either. He's a Socialist, at best -- and worse he's an Alinsky socialist, and Alinsky described himself as a communist. Just check out Obama's close friends and associates.
Yet, there is a part of Obama that is Muslim. There's the prepubescent youngster who lived in a Muslim household, in a Muslim country, attended a Muslim school, undoubtedly eager to please his peers and teachers, and doing his best to be a good little Muslim boy to please his new step-father. The Jesuits would say, "Give me the child, and I will mould the man." Here's one Muslim's view -- "he's a Muslim."
And, suddenly, young Obama is in Hawaii -- abandoned by his father, and now, his mother and stepfather. During the day, he's going to school with the children of the Islands' elites, telling his classmates that his father was an African prince, the leader of a proud and successful people.
During the evening, he's tutored by Frank Marshall Davis -- grampa Stanley's drinkin' buddy -- who assumes the role of father-figure. Under Frank's tutelage, Marx replaced Muhammad. There's still some Muslim in there somewhere -- some influence -- some sensitivity -- some empathy -- but, he's not a Muslim.
Davis, a radical black communist, fed the impressionable Obama a constant diet of "pissed off" and "blackness" all through his high school years. Davis's parting words to Obama on his leaving for Occidental College were, "college is an advanced degree in compromise" and he warned Obama not to forget his "people" and not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit."
Obama, who grew up in a comfortable white household, has struggled to find an identity as a righteous black men ever since. Obama accepted "the pure and heady breeze of privilege" to which he was exposed as a teenager, but rejected his "white skin privilege" -- or at least tried to. At Occidental, Obama sought out the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists. However, Occidental wasn't black enough for him and after two years he headed east to Columbia University -- on the edge of Harlem.
Obama's Columbia experience is a complete mystery. No one, absolutely no one, remembers Obama from Columbia -- Fox News asked 400 ex-students and all Fox got was shrugs. There is no picture of him in the yearbook. The only thing we really know about this period is that Obama spent a lot of time at the Marxist-Socialist conferences at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn.
Obama stopped drugging sometime during the Columbia period. He started abusing marijuana and cocaine at Punahou. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he wrote.
Obama briefly flirted with New York, doing his first community organizing in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). created by Ralph Nader in the 1970s. It's New York State's largest student-directed consumer, environmental and government reform organization.
After Columbia, Obama spent a year in New York and was then hired by a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. The "Project" was funded by Bill Ayers' Woods Fund, which raises the question, "did Obama meet Ayers" while both were students in New York? They lived and attended school in the same neighborhood. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community.
Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to, in Alinsky's words, "rub raw the sores of discontent." Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. "The organizer," Alinsky wrote, "is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God."
Alinsky wrote, "Rules for Radicals," a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the "first radical'" For Alinsky, "Change" was his mantra. By "Change," Alinsky meant a quiet, Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means that turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class, and by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through "people’s organizations'" One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an interviewer of The New Republic, about Obama: "He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."
Watch Obama work a crowd at a town hall meeting. He comes out, says a few words in greeting and then begins his laundry list of all the stuff that's wrong with America, getting the audience all revved up. When the crowd is engaged and sufficiently "pissed off," Obama presents a solution to the all the things that are "pissing them off" -- the chosen one, the anointed one, the Obama -- as president.
Alinsky's goal was to slowly turn the United States into a Communist dictatorship; to this end he tried to
3
convince various groups of poor people and labor unions to push for legislation in that direction; he did this by appealing to their self-interest -- whether valid or not -- instead of using charismatic leadership -- but now we have Obama, who is skilled in the Alinsky method and charismatic.
The unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, was a constant during Obama's "Alinsky" period. Alinsky supplied the method but Bill Ayers supplied the money and the connections to the Chicago Left that allowed Obama to grow his activism into political office. When Obama wasn't agitating, he was elbow to elbow with Bill Ayers on one project or another. One of Ayers' and Obama's schemes, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, spent $150 million to radicalize Chicago schoolchildren.
When Obama undertook his agitating work in Chicago's South Side poor neighborhoods, he was un-churched. Yet his office was in a Church and most of the folks he needed to agitate and organize were Church people -- pastors and congregants, who took their churches and their church-going very seriously. Again and again, he was asked by pastors and church ladies, "Where do you go to Church, young man?" In the paperback version of "The Audacity of Hope," in the chapter entitled "Faith," beginning on page 195, and ending on page 208, Obama is telling us that he doesn’t really have any profound religious belief, but that in his early Chicago days he felt he needed to acquire some spiritual "street cred."
So, at 28, Obama finally joined a church, in part to deepen what one friend called "a whole web of relationships" in the community. It also gave him a strong political base and a well-connected mentor. Obama didn't join just any church, but a huge black nationalist church, the Trinity United Church of Christ (UCC). Its pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, a former Muslim and racist black nationalist, unabashedly preached a "black" gospel" and the Marxist "Black Liberation Theology." Membership in this congregation gives Obama the political cover he needed. He now introduces himself as a Christian, although he has never been baptized. Swearing allegiance to the "Black Value System" of a church whose foundation is "Black Liberation Theology" does not a Christian make. But it is good politics on the South Side.
Harvard Law School changed everything. Being the first affirmative-action president of the Harvard Law Review netted Obama a book deal -- which he booted -- he spent the money but didn't produce a book -- but he got a second advance and headed off to Bali, Indonesia, to finish his fable, "Dreams From My Father," the source of almost everything we know about Obama.
In the early 90's, Obama married and practiced civil rights law for a couple of years and then, with the publication of "the book," Obama started blossoming out. He cut back on his law practice. He began teaching at the University of Chicago. He chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And, finally, Obama saw the chance to run for the state senate in a district that included Hyde Park, the home of the University of Chicago and some of the poorest ghettos on the South Side.
Obama challenged hundreds of signatures on his rivals' nominating petitions and kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot and won unopposed. The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
During his run for the Illinois state senate seat, Obama received the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Obama was/is an associate of the Chicago branch of the DSA, and a member of the "New Party," and signed documents seeking their support. Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position.
When Obama was considering a run for the US Senate in 2003, he paid an intriguing visit to Emil Jones, Jr., the Illinois Senate Majority Leader. "You have the power to elect a U. S. senator," Obama told Jones, a former Chicago sewers inspector, who had risen to become one of the most influential African-American politicians in Illinois. Jones looked at the ambitious young man smiling before him and asked, teasingly: "Do you know anybody I could make a U. S. senator?" According to Jones, Obama replied: "Me." It was an audacious step in his spectacular rise from the murky political backwaters of Springfield, the Illinois capital. Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's kingmaker. Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio program. I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows: "He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. senator.'" "Oh, you are? Who might that be?" "Barack Obama." Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation in the senate, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. "I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," state senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation, yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at
the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit." "I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book." Every bill Obama passed as a state senator was passed his last year. During his seventh and final year in the state senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law -- including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as
4
inexperienced. It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics -- and he couldn't have done it without Jones.
When Obama decided to run for the U. S. Senate he was virtually unknown in his own state. Polls showed fewer than 20 percent of Illinois voters had ever heard of Barack Obama. But he got a boost, when, on June 2004, the billionaire, George Soros threw a big fund-raiser at his New York home for Obama’s Illinois Senate campaign. Soros and family personally chipped in $60,000. No telling what Soros' buddies chipped in. Then the Democratic Party introduced Barack Obama to the nation on July 27th, 2004, when Obama delivered his now-famous speech before the Democratic National Convention.
During the 2004 senate campaign, Obama ridiculed as "a silly question" whether he would run for president or vice president before his term ends in 2011. "I’ve never worked in Washington," he said. "I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois." In November, 2004, Obama was elected to the United States Senate, mostly through the self-destruction of his top opponents in both the primary and general elections. Almost immediately after his swearing-in Obama's beatification began when Time magazine named Obama one of "The World's Most Influential People." He was listed among other leaders and revolutionaries. The British journal, New Statesman, named Obama one of "10 People Who Could Change the World." In the first 18 months of his first Senate term Obama was also writing his second book, "The Audacity of Hope." Immediately after finishing it, he built up support for his forthcoming Presidential campaign by campaigning for other Democrats in 2006, took part in a book tour, made a few appearances on entertainment shows, and began his campaign for the presidency. Not much time for doing what he was elected to do -- represent the people of Illinois.
On Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, less than two years after his swearing-in, Obama, who has been repeatedly identified as the most liberal member of the U. S. Senate, took the first step toward running for president by filing papers to create a presidential exploratory committee. Pretty much, everybody that cares, has watched what has gone on since. The elevation of Obama to cult status as the Obamamessiah. The "we can change the world" slogans and mass crowds. The Alinsky-inspired challenges about "the world as it is, and the world as it should be." But, there was a downside to the campaign. The Rev. Wright's hateful, racist and anti-American sermons become public and, after 20 years, Obama swore he didn't know anything about it, saying, "I wasn't in church that day." The names Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn bubbled up and Obama went, "Who?" His pal and money-man Rezko was found guilty and Obama said, "What?" The Annenberg Challenge? The only executive experience Obama has, is missing from his resume.
ACORN? Nuts! Obama doesn't know anybody or anything.
Have you noticed? Obama doesn't have any close friends. Obama doesn't have a "best friend," a pal or a buddy, who goes back to Punahou, or Occidental, or Columbia, or Harvard, or the projects -- not one. But, the people that are around Obama all have one thing in common -- they all hate America -- and there's a bunch of them that are hard-core communists. His wife (Michelle), his mentor (Davis), his druggy buddy (Rafik), his pastor (Wright), his other pastors (Pfleger, Meeks, Watts), his associates (Ayers, Dohrn, Klonsky) or his supporters at the Daily Kos and Code Pink all have one thing in common -- they all hate America -- and they all say so, all the time -- and Obama feigns surprised that anyone would question his patriotism, even as he disrespects his country's symbols. Obama and all his friends have clearly stated their goals. America, as it is and has been, needs to change and the change they have in mind is socialism -- at best.
I know this is true, because these people have repeatedly and clearly said so. They're all up to their ears in the "quiet revolution," first described by the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, and they feel it is at hand. They can taste victory and it all hinges on Barack Hussein Obama. The mainstream media provides cover for Obama. It has completely abrogated its role and responsibility to vet him. On the Internet, there is an organized, systematic cleansing of Obama-related content. Every couple of days I get an email telling me this link, or that link, connects to a "Page not found -- 404 error." The extensive body of Obama web-knowledge, that has evolved over the last 20 years, is shrinking. Stuff that's considered an Obama smear or unflattering is sent to the Obama '08 cyber shredding machine. And the campaign is getting help from some really big web service providers.
A good example is Kristof's famous New York Times article, in which Kristof quotes Obama saying that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth" and in which Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" -- that's gone -- from The New York Times (It's here though). And, the Trinity UCC website has completely changed. Now, it's all sweetness and light. Gone are all those great Rev. Wright "God damn America" videos and anti-Israeli Trumpet magazine excerpts. Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no bona fides -- no paper trail -- nothing.
Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released, Certificate of Live Birth -- Released -- Counterfeit,
Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released, Obama/Dunham divorce -- Released (by independent investigators),
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released, Soetoro adoption records -- Not released, Soetoro/Dunham divorce -- Released (by independent investigators), Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released, Punahou School records -- Not released, Selective Service Registration -- Released -- Counterfeit, Occidental College records -- Not released, Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released, Columbia College records -- Not released, Columbia thesis -- Not released, Harvard College records -- Not released, Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, unsigned?),
5
Baptism certificate -- None, Medical records -- Not released, Illinois State Senate records -- None, Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost, Law practice client list -- Not released, University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None, The Illinois State Archives told Judicial Watch that they never received any request from Senator Obama to archive any records in his possession. In 2007, Obama told Tim Russert that his records were "not kept.", And there's less on the web every day. In time, the entire Obama body of knowledge will consist of 3 documents -- "Dreams From My Father" -- "The Audacity of Hope" -- and the latest -- "Change We Can Believe In" -- all written by Barack Hussein Obama or his "ghost-writers."
Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. Just himself. So, you can understand why I say, I know less about Obama now than I did at the beginning. The critical stuff is disappearing and all we have left is Obama's idealized version of events. Now, this undocumented stranger, who has repeatedly been rewarded for the work of others, is sitting in the Oval Office. All evidence points to the fact that Obama, who finds it hard to praise the United States for any achievement without mentioning some sin or grave shortcoming for balance, is, by law, not even eligible for POTUS because he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. And, Obama is already building a cadre to lead his own "private army" -- his own "Movement."
His "Movement" is structure around Alinsky's "people's organization" and training programs designed to build a core group of "community organizers" dedicated to "social change" in their communities. Their charter will be to bring about "Change." They'll do this through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation -- getting people "pissed off" -- the tactics of Alinsky.
Obama is cloning thousands of baby Obamas -- a "people’s organization" -- and on our dime. He's got an Internet database of 3 million names that can be pointed at -- or away from -- an issue at the drop of a database-generated email. A "movement" -- dedicated to social change by getting people "pissed off" -- and there will be thousands of them in the neighborhoods and hundreds of thousands more on the Internet. Just what do you think he has planned for these guys?
Remember this? On July 2nd, 2008, Obama spoke in Colorado Springs and hit themes of national service, foreign policy, and national security. In that vein, Obama proposed a rather extraordinary idea -- that the US should spend as much money on a civilian national security force as it does on the military. (video) "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
And what color shirts will they wear? Lenin said this about socialism, "The goal of socialism is communism."
None of this is good.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Obama To Attend Pro-Islamist Conference
Obama will visit Turkey between April 6-7 to attend an annual forum of the Alliance of Civilizations in Istanbul, Spanish diplomatic sources said on Monday. Turkey’s president said Tuesday Obama's planned visit was very important. Obama will attend the second annual forum of the U.N.-led Alliance of Civilizations initiative, co-chaired by Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his Spanish counterpart Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
The Global Muslim Brotherhood Report describes the Alliance of Civilizations as an organization which is represented in the U.S. and Europe by individuals sympathetic to the global Muslim Brotherhood. According to the AOC website, the AOC "High Level Group Members" in the U.S. and Western Europe are: Prof. John Esposito (United States), Rabbi Arthur Schneier (United States), Hubert Védrine (France), and Karen Armstrong (United Kingdom)
Esposito is an apologist for the radical Islamist movement; Impugning those who equate Islamist movements "with radicalism and terrorism," Esposito claims that such thinking merely "becomes a convenient pretext for crushing political opposition." Islamist movements, he explains, "are not necessarily anti-Western, anti-American, or anti-democratic." Moreover, he minimizes the fact that those nations that have adopted Islamic law are, for the most part, totalitarian states that export terrorism and egregiously violate the human rights of their inhabitants. " Contrary to what some have advised," he writes, "the United States should not in principle object to implementation of Islamic law or involvement of Islamic activists in government." In fact all of the attendees above are apologists of either the radical Islamist movement or to the Muslim Brotherhood. The question is why is the US Commander of Chief of a War on Terrorism attending a conference that supports a radical Islamist point of view?
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq. Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.
6
President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights." Major General Smedley Butler, US Marine Corps 1930
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Abortion Lies
In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as "persons." The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted "present" on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.
In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked "neutrality" language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.
Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one -- so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence I would advise violence." Mohandas Gandhi
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Obammas fraud
Can it be possible that high ranking office-holders and Democratic party officials already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States... that he is a fraud... a usurper? According to J.B. Williams with CanadaFreePress.com, the answer is yes. In fact, Williams goes so far as to claim that "a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party." Williams provides documentation to back up his assertions and claims Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi "knew that she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama." Williams argues: "A political national committee, the Chair of the Party convention, the Secretary of the Party, Party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many many more, have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.... They plotted and planned an act of evil, unlawful, treacherous fraud in a blind quest for unbridled political power...."
Such a story, to put it mildly, is a bombshell. Williams, to be fair, makes a credible argument that officials in the highest level in our government may actually believe that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. So why does the Mainstream Media refuse to address this bombshell? No answers are forthcoming on why they won't investigate allegations published in the Canadian press... even to refute them... no attempt to either verify or refute William's claims... not even an easily answered softball question directed at Nancy Pelosi asking her to respond to William's assertion that "she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama."
There can no longer be any doubt that what you and at least 100 million other Americans suspected all along is true. Simply put, the editors and publishers and reporters of the Mainstream Media may actually suspect that Obama is constitutionally ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States and their stonewalling and ridicule is an egregious attempt to cover-up (rather than cover) the story. And such blatant political advocacy (even on the part of a biased media) cannot be allowed to go unanswered. With your help, we're going to demand answers right here and right now.
A Tale Of Two Documents.
Williams reveals a disturbing and indisputable fact; namely that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) produced and notarized two separate documents certifying the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama.
The first reads: "This is to certify that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."
7
The second reads: "This is to certify that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:"
Click On The Images To Enlarge (I WAS UNABLE TO REPRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION ON MY COMPUTER. BUT I DID SEE THEM AND THEY ARE AS REPRESENTED ABOVE-YOUR SWEET OLD EDITOR)
The second document, which according to Williams was filed in 49 states with the exception of Hawaii, is clearly missing the phrase, "and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."
Both documents were notarized on August 28, 2008 by Shalifa A. Williamson and signed by Nancy Pelosi (in her capacity as Chair of the DNC) and Alice Travis Germond (Secretary of the DNC). And the question that no one in the Mainstream Media is asking is: Why.... Why were two documents produced and why was the document that omits the phrase "and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" the version that was filed in as many as 49 states?
According to Williams "the fact that two DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway." Perhaps. Or then again, perhaps there is a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation as to why the two documents exist, but Pelosi's office won't comment other than to acknowledge that they are aware of the controversy. And the Mainstream Media isn't asking any questions? Why not? It's time for us to push the point.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"Free men have arms; slaves do not." William Blackstone (1723-1780), English jurist and professor of common law at Oxford
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
On getting our government back by a citizen who cares.
Before I start this I will state a few truths. I am not a scholar in the accepted sense. I only have a high school education. However I have read extensively and remember much of it. Although I was not raised in a Christian environment, I did become a Christian in my teens. Even then I did not follow the basic tenants to the letter. My only excuse is “but nobody does”. So therefore I have sinned. My knowledge is not infallible and never will be. However I do have a fair IQ and an ability to figure things out. So what I am trying to say here is, to the best of my ability, what I say is truth. Truth according to what I am able to understand as a human being with all the inherited faults. What I am trying to give is with all the sincerity I have because of my love of my country, my people and our freedom which is not matched even closely by any other country in the world. I am a Sheepdog. I love my sheep. I want my sheep to be safe from the wolves who infest the world. The Sheep do not really like me because I cannot hide my fangs an so I look somewhat like a wolf that strikes fear in the sheep. One big difference though. I cannot and will not deliberately harm a sheep just like the rest of my brethren both male and female. And so I give you what little I have left as an old and grouchy man.
In light of the fact that those we have elected to public office and especially our Federal government, we must realize one thing that we have been led to believe. These elected officials are our leaders. WRONG! They are not our leaders! No they are not. They are our hired hands. They apply for a job by putting their names on a ballot and campaigning for the job. We hire them by voting for them. The one who gets the most votes lands the job. Very democratic with its inherent checks and balances.
Looked at in another way: our government is “Of the People, For the People AND By the People”. what does this tell us? Read it slowly and carefully and ponder it for a few minutes. To me this says that we are the government. There are too many of us to decide things so we hire people to do this job for us. We do not hire them to do their will but to do our will. The voting process is part of the checks and balances. Everyone will not be happy. That is what The leaders who wrote the greatest document in the world intended for the Federation between the various states that form this nation to be and to do. There will always be different opinions for everything. Make no mistake, what we should wind up with will not please everyone. BUT that is what, under such a government, we must get. Yes a compromise. Checks and balances. That is what a representative Democracy means and what it has to be. Any other means of government is either not a free society or is not a free society. Take your pick.
Somehow this has been bastardized until these employees think they are our bosses. Not only that , they have convinced themselves and many of us that they are our bosses. How? They have become very corrupted and we have allowed it to happen. We the People went to sleep. After all we hired people to do the job and told them what we wanted them to do so that should be then end of the matter. WRONG! Here is how things were originally set up as simply as I am able to explain it. I follow the old saying as much as possible-KISS. Or rather Keep It Simple Stupid! In the beginning there was a handful of states. They got together and kicked England’s butt and became free states for the first time. They wished to continue to be free and to give everyone in the states a say in their own government. By themselves these various states were in fact weak. Too weak to stand alone for long because they now had several enemies that would easily defeat them individually. You can use the old analogy. One stick is easy to break. Bundle
8
several together and they are not. So they formed a FEDERATION. This they did by designing a Constitution, or common law, that allowed them to still keep their own identity and laws but have an entity to do certain things for them and thus form a “More Better Union”. They (the states) gave some of the powers necessary for the Federation, or the Federal government to do what the States wished it to do for them. (state governments had and still do have checks and balances inherent in a democracy).
One of the things that the states wished for the Federation to do was to provide for the common defense of the member states. To do this the new government needed money. So the new entity would use tariffs. This was a two fold benefit. Not only were the people not taxed but the industries of the people were protected also. Checks and balances. The civil war changed that. The war itself and the illegal “reconstruction” of the south proved so expensive that a tax on the people proved necessary. (government was not ruled by banks at the time so they could not merely print more money and let the dollar go down the drain like the idiots in our employ do). So enter the IRS. It was against the constitution but was only supposed to be temporary so no real squawk was made. How long is temporary??? Nobody knows. Ahh but an ever increasing power among our employees, which we allowed, has kept it going every since so they could profit.
This federal government was set up with certain checks and balances for the purpose of keeping one branch of government from becoming more powerful than the others. The branches are the Administrative, the Legislative and the Judiciary. The actual power is in the legislative branch which makes the laws. The administrative branch actually is supposed to administer those laws. However the president who is the head of this branch can deny a laws passage by vetoing it. That is unless the legislative branch can raise enough votes to override that veto. Checks and balances. The president can also ask for some laws to be devised. However if congress does not wish such laws they will not pass such laws. Over all the power in our kind of government actually lies in the legislative branch.
The Administrative is the Presidency. Here all laws written by the Legislative branch are enforced. This branch also asks for some legislation and it has the power to either approve or disapprove all laws passed by the legislators. It does this by either signing it into law or rejecting it (veto). If the legislator feels strongly enough about a law it is possible for them to over-ride a veto. Thus you have a check and balance between the two. Contrary to the beliefs of most today, the President is not allowed to make law. He can only approve it or not. However he must administrate that law if it is ultimately passed. For this he has a cabinet of helpers and advisors. I must note that the larger this cabinet and its helpers, the more money is needed from the taxpayer. The President initiates buroughs to facilitate the administration of the laws. Again the more of these the more it costs the taxpayer. There is no such thing as Government Money. Every penny the government spends comes out of the taxpayers pocket. Every debt accrued must, along with interest, be repaid by the taxpayer.
The legislative branch is really two branches who are co-dependant. The larger is called the house of representatives. The state is divided up into sections by population called districts. The idea is roughly that birds of a feather flock together. So each district has a distinct majority that may differ in opinion from all other districts in that state. The majority of the people who vote decide who will be hired and they supposedly hire someone who mostly agrees with them. Thus you have many reps. From each state. The senate is the other branch. They are numbered according to the population of each state. They each represent many more people than the reps. Do but the same people. The districts are mostly geographical governed by population. This difference is to provide checks and balances between the two branches because they are from a collectively different flock. Ingenious system. This is so that a large group will be more accurately represented by the people who are the ultimate bosses over their government. This has served our country well. Our government has outlasted every government of its kind that has ever existed. It may not exist much longer because the people have forgotten what it is and have allowed the wolves to enter and take it over so now it is not any longer what was envisioned but is becoming a totally different entity. If this continues there soon will be no freedom left in the world. Not even those who have destroyed our freedom will be free. But then wolves do not worry about the future, just about filling their bellies now.
Here I must go back to the original document. As it was first written, there were no amendments. The states said hey man, ain’t good enough. We came here to get away from oppressive government. So we want some insurance! These governments we escaped from would not allow us to own any kind of arms to protect ourselves because they knew they were oppressive and feared the people would use those arms against them. And it was so with the other amendments first added to the Constitution. These amendments were called the BILL OF RIGHTS and were designed to prevent an oppressive government. So it was that before the states would sign the Constitution certain things were understood and the power of the Federal Government was severely curtailed and the states retained most of the power. Only the rights needed to do the intended job of protecting the Union were granted to the Federal government by the federation of states. Since the people are not taught adequately about this and the trained liars called lawyers re-state the real law and misrepresent it in order to get their way or the way of the special interests, violations of the constitution creped in. The administration under Abraham Lincoln violated states rights and we had a civil war over it. NO! The war between the states was NOT fought to free the slaves but to free the various states from a Government that overstepped its bounds and would not back off. The second big violation of the Constitution came after the civil war when the south was “reconstructed”. The next was when the IRS was founded to fund the Civil war. Now we have an oppressive central government who literally takes our moneys without representation whether we wish to pay or not.
9
Then came the great depression. Insult was added to injury when the welfare state was instituted. In a way it was a good thing because many were hungry and lost all they had. I am sure it was meant to be a temporary program. Like IRS. However it soon turned into an entitlement. Several generations abused the system. So now the federal government took our money by force and gave it to the people who would not work. That is the kind of socialism that destroyed ancient Rome and is destroying our Democracy today. Read your history. But I digress. We have a very large class of people now who are in poverty and such. They are their own worse enemies. They would rather blame the haves for their condition and demand that which they are not entitled to. These are the present generations of those who turned a temporary help into an entitlement. They refuse education, they refuse morality and they embrace crime. They have babies out of wedlock for the purpose of more of the handouts they felt entitled to. These babies grew up and still grow up without a father who can or will teach them anything except become an athlete and become a millionaire or become a rock star and embrace filthy things and get rich. Or just sell your body or sell dope or rob and steal. These are the rabble that the nobammas champions and the same rabble that destroyed Rome and are destroying us now. Are we not the new Rome?
Now we have two houses in congress that provide checks and balances to each other and to the other two entities. If the senate does not approve, the representatives must change it until the Senate does approve it and visa-versa. Some bills are initiated by the senate and they will fail without the houses approval. Both can get together and override a presidential veto. So do not blame the president for that which the congress shoves down his throat or refuses to consider. Like many have blamed both Bushes.
Now we come to the Judicial. These judges are appointed by the President on the approval of the congress. They are there mainly to settle differences of opinion. According to my understanding there is no room for OPINION there. They must know the Constitution in pure context of the time and language of the time and also by what the writers intended, by studying what they wrote outside of the document and what they said in their speeches about it along with what it says in the language of the day it was written on. This is not happening. Congress is supposed to weed the oddball out so he cannot sway too much. Again checks and balances. What congress really does is try to keep someone out that will vote the truth. The judiciary is supposed to check and balance what the congress and the administration does. This is not happening either. In fact the judiciary has been legislating which is not its intended function. We have a body for that purpose called congress. The judicial body is there to uphold the Constitution above all else. Obviously the court needs to study the constitution but has not. We must force them to do so.
Okay, let us consider a few things. First, is the legislative branch. Everyone there is corrupted to some degree. They are, after all, career politicians. Most career politicians are liars and thieves. Nowadays, they have more self interest than virtue. Their collective power is greater than all other branches but they do not the will of the people and they are destroying the very thing that allows them to exist.
Let us go way back to our first President. According to the story I was TAUGHT IN SCHOOL TO BE FACT, he chopped down his fathers cherry tree. When approached on the subject, he proclaimed “I cannot tell a lie. Yes I chopped down the cherry tree.” Bull honkey. If you believe that I have a toll bridge just outside of town I will sell you cheap. Even old “Honest Abe got in the act”. He supposedly walked twenty miles to repay a penny he owed. And it goes on, on and on. The man who washed his hands and caused Christ to be beaten and hung on a cross was a career politician. Brutus, the man who stabbed Caesar to death was a career politician. And so it always has been. After all, there really is no honor among thieves.
The cure? This will take a long time and dedication. It has been suggested that we get together and buy our employees back. Could be done but that does not cure the main problem. They are still being bought. Which reveals how corrupt they are. Our tax money is used to pay back the moneys the special interests (both domestic and foreign) give for our employees campaign funds mostly in laws that allow them to “earn” it back. Why should we give them more money and have these jackals bite us in the back by still voting the special interests way. Besides that the sheeple just say bah and go on grazing because they refuse to see the wolf until it is upon them.
No! we must impeach the leaders of this pack of wolves. Then we must vote the rest out. This must be nationwide to be real effective and quick. Remember, it is very hard for a new face to run against an incumbent He or she is running against name recognition and all the perks involved and much more money to spend. So a new face is not too likely to win unless the incumbent has really screwed up and made the constituents mad, voluntarily resigns or he gets caught in a really bad situation. Look at Kennedy. He got drunk, drove drunk while transporting a woman not his wife so he could have illicit sex, drove his car off a bridge into deep water, saved himself and left the woman to die, failed to report the accident and got re-elected over and over till he finally died. So we had a lawbreaker making laws we could be prosecuted for breaking. CHEEIT!!!!! However The newbe doesn’t, although it would be nice, have to win but make a good showing. That will get real attention. It does not really matter if the newby is just as bad or worse than the one we are trying to get rid of whether he wins or not. Why? Simply because we have lost nothing but gained a little. One, it sends a message to the others that the natives are restless so to speak. Especially since we have just impeached their head wolves. They will then start trying to understand what has us pissed off. Two, it sends a message to other wannabees that they could win due to the current situation. So party affiliation does not matter at all for all intents and purposes here. That takes care of the next election. The biggie in another 2 years is the one that really counts. We do the same thing. There will be many more newbees to choose from. See where I am going? The shock
10
will cause a few to straiten up a bit. Cannot and do not trust. They have not deserved trust. Hittum again, harder - harder. By the end of the next two years, those guys and gals will be messing their drawers. Ahhhh! Hittum again even harder. Now you have a somewhat more pliable bunch of employees. Order them to outlaw lobbying. Now we are cooking. We allow anyone who runs for office so much money from the taxpayers pocket to run on. They are not allowed to use any of their own money or donated moneys and must repay immediately what they did not spend. The cost to the taxpayer will be much-much less than our present system which gives us bigger and bigger government which costs more and more in a big part because of the lobby system. Also, everything that can be dug up about any candidate will be dug up and the mass media will be required to furnish this information to the public just as they received it or rather verbatim. There is absolutely nothing wrong with mud slinging so long as the mud is truth. Also publish the voting records if any. That will get rid of a bunch more. Kinda levels the playing field don’t it. Then we can start on the constitutional aspects.
For this we empanel a commission of scientists and historians, none of whom are lawyers, who will study the Constitution in all of its aspects and in context. They will then study every law on the books in the light of the truth. If it is not constitutional it will then be voided. I believe this will eliminate the IRS and all its bloated crap filled entities. We will still need a tax system though. We are too far in debt to not do so at least for a few years.
There are two tax systems I have heard proposed. Both are much MUCH better than what we have. The first I heard about was the Flat Tax. under this system, everybody pays a fixed percentage of their income. This does away with 99% of the overhead needed to administrate the system work. There will be no need of the bloated burocracy we have now. No tax returns to check out for errors. No checks to be issued. No offices in every city. No several employees in each of these offices. Eliminate most of the paperwork involved and eliminate paychecks for all those people. All of this crap and the wages and the buildings and the furniture and etc; etc; will be eliminated. Yea, a bunch of people will be put out of work but the competent, in the growing economy resulting, will go back to work very quickly. The number crunchers for this have said we could pay off the national debt in just a few years like 3-5 depending on the %? The only administration required is a few central locations that simply record the money and deposit it. It has a flaw though. How much do you think the government would have to spend to find all those little accounts the wealthy have that are furnishing income that is hidden and not declared? Yea.
The other one which I like better is simply a national sales tax. It is simply the fairest tax. And so it is called The Fair Tax. This taxes only what you spend. The more you spend the more tax you pay. Oh Horrors some will say. But it is not so. Every dime that is spent, will be taxed except basic food that is not pre-prepared for consumption such as in a restaurant or pies and cakes and such or candy. This eliminates the IRS which spends at least one dollar out of the three collected on overhead. And with the government employees union that amounts to a bunch of money! What with all the offices and furniture that amounts to a bunch of money. Also there is the problem of getting tax money out of the rich man. He puts his money in shelters that cannot be taxed. He hides his money overseas and such. Costs a bunch just to find it and tax it. So it has mostly not been cost effective to do that. That is where the Fair tax shines. Whatever he spends and wherever he spends, he pays the sales tax just like everyone else. I think that, although the administration costs will be a bit higher the ultimate result will be on par with the flat tax if not better. I have no quarrel over either although I favor the fair tax over the other because of the beaurough the flat tax will create. Also I would include a sunset clause that would eliminate either all or most of it as soon as the national debt is retired. I would also outlaw any spending of more moneys than is present in the bank at any given time. I would take away the retirement perks as they are at the present time. I would outlaw anything but social security for our employees. If it is good enough for those who are paying for it it is good enough for our employees and any problems with it will get fixed, I guarannnteee! I would also require all elected and appointed employees to be required to take the course on the constitution and pass a test with at least a B before being hired. If any president, senator, congressman, or judge gets it wrong the second time they are automatically fired.
Okay, we got rid of a bunch of crooks, reformed a few more, eliminated the problem of lobbying, got the illegal laws off the books, and got the national debt paid off. So what now?
We in the meantime levy a stiff tariff against anything made in another country. This makes more jobs for the people here because it does not allow any price advantage from outside the country. In the meantime we face illegal immigration head on. Things are so much better here for the immigrants which is why they come here in the first place. However for the feds to extort my hard earned cash and give it away to someone who is not a citizen and pays no taxes is WRONG -WRONG- WRONG!!! I am compassionate. If someone wishes to voluntarily help some of these people I, nor should you, have any objections. Anybody does not work for it is not entitled to food, clothing or shelter. Not even those who cannot work for it are entitled to it. If someone wishes to help, which most people do, I have no problem with it. I will help also all I can. But they better be grateful for it because they ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT EVEN IN THE BIBLE. I resent my employees extorting my money that I worked for to give it to someone who will not work. Contrary to what seems to be common belief, taxes are not voluntary! Illegals should be shipped out immediately. They have broken our laws. If they wish to sign up for citizenship, sign them up and turn them loose. They break the law again they get sent back and lose everything they have in fines except the clothes on their backs. The second time they will go to prison and will have to work for their keep. Good behavior or a willingness to join the armed forces can set them free. Anchor babies cut no ice. Send the parents back and put the child into someone else’
11
hands. If they want to return legally allow them to do so and give them their kid back. We are actually a nation of immigrants. My great-great-great grand father was an immigrant
Another thing that needs to be addressed is the Global warming thing. I do not believe that what the media and the president and so forth say about it is the truth. The original data used was not kept. Many other cool minds have addressed the so called problem and have concluded that it is pure BS. The world is warming some in a general trend but there was a mini Ice Age about the time the Europeans were migrating to the new world. In fact that was the biggest reason they moved here. The growing season became so short that the people were starving to death. The earth has been warming long before the industrial age came along. The only difference in the ice pack is in its distribution More at the south pole and less at the north. Ocean levels have not changed in hundreds of years. I am old and have much time on my hands so I have researched the thing somewhat. Google global warming and read the articles and see which makes the most sense. And remember much of it is based on no longer existing data that was destroyed after being changed to fit what the guy wanted it to say. There are both pros and cons there. The earth has actually cooled a bit the last few years while the CO2 levels have increased. Earth orbit around the sun varies somewhat. The spin on its axis causes the earth to wobble a bit and change the weather patterns. Sunspots play a big role, more sun spots more heat. More clouds more heat less clouds less heat. Water vapor controls temperatures more than CO2 does. The CO2 released by opening all those beers and soft drinks than is released by running automobiles. More CO2 more and healthier greenery. More and healthier greenery means more and healthier animal life. Both mean more food for a starving people. I heard about this in the mid 50’s I believe. I look around and we are supposed to be under an extra 10 feet or so of water on our coastline by now because so much ice has melted at the north pole. Where is it at??? We do have much more ice at the south pole though. Accounts for that absent at the north pole. The earth wobbles on its axis like a slowing spin on a top. Its exposure to the sun varies because of this and a not so round orbit and the sun hitting the earth at different angles. CO2 is captured and held in the plant life in the oceans and large lakes where when the plants die it is carried to the bottom to form the oil, gas and coal for the future. We will never use the reserves up because we will keep finding more and still more is being made all the time. CO2 is carbon and that is what makes it all possible. There are scientists and there are those who claim to be scientists. Darwin for instance. He had a belief instilled by his father or grandfather (?). He never collected a specimen that disagreed with what he believed already. Therefore he was not a scientist. A true scientist looks for facts and lets the results fall where they may. He does not manufacture facts or try to study only that which agrees with preconceived ideas.
Co2 is essential for life on this planet. All life here is carbon based. We breath in oxygen and out carbon dioxide. All animal life does this. Plants take up the carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. The more Co2 the more abundant and healthy the plant life is and the more food there is for the animal life. Co2 is trapped by dying vegetation and deposited in low places and under water forming fossel fuels that the dummies claim is not a renewable resource. Water vapor has more influence on temperatures than the so called greenhouse gasses. When the sky is clear the temperature of the earth is cooler at night because more heat escapes. When the sky is cloudy the temperature stays warmer because it blocks heat loss like one big comforter. So the pseudo-scientists and the people with an agenda use this to mess us around. If a dummy like me can look it up and figure it out anyone can.
Anyway, the main thing right now is to take our Government back from the career politicians’ and give it back to the people where it belongs. Then we can change things back to what they were meant to be. Then we can tell all those borrow-craps who have been eating our flesh to get lost. We can initiate term limits that will stop idiots like Kennedy from gracing our government with his odious presence for so long. Guess I had better shut up ‘for my Government tries to kill me for exercising my right to free speech. BY SLIM - THE WILD EYED EDITOR HEE HEE!
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Categorized | Featured, Founding Principles, State Sovereignty Movement
Tags | Enumerated Powers, Government, Liberty, state Sovereignty
They Can’t Push Us Around Forever
Posted on 20 October 2009 by State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN-57th) The following is a letter from Tennessee to the other 49 State Legislatures
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates. It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body. 12
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
Susan Lynn [send her email] is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly; serving on the Commerce Committee and Chairman of the Government Operations committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history. She is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." Suzanna Gratia Hupp, Texas State Rep.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Tired of corruption among our leaders 2.
I was reading the opinion page in this newspaper this morning and came across a readers comment like this one with the same heading as this one. The writer was mostly correct and it was a good article. I am of a similar mind.
The only thing is it rang a bell in my head. It called those in our government LEADERS which is wrong. They are, in fact not leaders and never were meant to be. They are our EMPLOYEES. We hire them by ballot since they are all of our employees. They are corrupt because we, the employers, allow them
13
to be. They steal from us by voting in their own benefits and salaries including their retirements and health benefits. They steal from us by lying to us about most things. They do not work for the benefit of their employers. They sell their votes to the highest bidders. This is called LOBBYING. Special interest groups contribute to their campaign funds on agreement that our employee will steer things so that the special interest group will benefit. Hence the good guys pay them to vote one way. The bad guys pay them to vote the other way. The vote goes the way of the most money. Enemies of our country are among the lobbyists.
We have allowed this to happen and it must stop. For suggestions and proof e-mail me at slim@outdrs.net, and you will be pointed to various other sites. Hi Chuck visit with me.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." John F. Kennedy
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
ACORN Videos Prompt More Calls for Investigations Across the Nation
The taxpayer-funded group is already investigation in at least 20 states for potential fraud and voting irregularities. The tally may grow following the release of five videos that appear to show ACORN workers encouraging illegal activities. FOXNews.com Thursday, September 17, 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has signed on to recent calls for investigations into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, saying Thursday that the advocacy group with a history of legal troubles is ripe for a review. The speaker commented the day after the release of a fifth video of ACORN workers advising two undercover journalists posing as a pimp and prostitute about how to evade tax and housing laws.
At least 20 states are now investigating fraud and potential voting regularities by the taxpayer-backed group. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a state probe of ACORN late Wednesday.
"Any group needs to have scrutiny that is applied to it," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing with Capitol Hill reporters. "It is totally unacceptable and inexcusable in my view. Hundreds of people have embarrassed ACORN. We have to have our own investigation. It's up to the (House) Appropriations Committee to scrutinize them."
The latest video, released Wednesday on FOX News, appears to show an ACORN worker offering to help bring underage girls into the United States to turn tricks. The previous videos purports to show ACORN workers advising "pimp" James O'Keefe and his partner "prostitute" Hannah Giles on how to hide their prostitution "ring" involving foreign, underage girls from federal authorities.
The videos released so far -- filmed in Baltimore, Washington D.C., Brooklyn, San Bernardino, Calif., and San Diego -- have led to the firing of four workers, an investigation by the Brooklyn D.A. and the termination of a nationwide partnership with the Census Bureau to participate in next year's decennial headcount.
The Senate on Monday voted overwhelming to block HUD from providing funding to the group. The move still has to be approved by the House before it becomes law. That may be difficult to do though since the money may already be in the pipeline and difficult to get back.
The White House signed off on the Census Bureau ending its partnership with ACORN, the first sign of evidence that the Obama administration is taking a closer look at ACORN and the federal funding it receives and perhaps beginning to distance itself.
Candidate Barack Obama paid ACORN $800,000 for its voter registration services during the presidential campaign and said at the time that the group could have a seat at the organizing table.
The release of the latest video from San Diego came on the same day that ACORN announced the launch of an "internal review" to examine all the systems and processes called into question by the videos. In addition, ACORN won't accept new admissions into its community service programs, effective immediately, and within the next few days will conduct staff training, the group's chief executive, Bertha Lewis, said in a written statement. However, Lewis told ABC News that all the negative attention is a "modern day form of McCarthyism" and said ACORN's efforts help make sure "poor people, young people, minorities are participating in this democracy.""There is an undertone of racism here. I think they're basically saying these people shouldn't be trusted, how could they be trusted? You know, they're all poor black and brown people," Lewis said.
But any effort to appear constructive may be too late to contain the damage. On Wednesday Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty ordered his agencies to stop all state funding to ACORN, unless it was illegal to do so. Schwarzenegger also sent a letter to Attorney General Jerry Brown asking his office to look into ACORN's activities, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday. The attorney general's office will review the videos and investigate or refer the matter to the local district attorney if it is believed there is any wrongdoing, Brown spokesman Scott Gerber said. ACORN fired back at Minnesota, saying neither it nor its affiliates receive any funding from that state. But a federal investigation might be next. Aside from Pelosi's position on a congressional inquiry, several Republican senators are asking the FBI to step in and investigate not just possible criminal activities but also whether ACORN itself is a criminal enterprise.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday that he had only recently heard about the ACORN videos but that given the preliminary information, it is the type of thing that the FBI and Justice Department "would look at."
Republican lawmakers are also urging the Internal Revenue Service to sever ties with group. The IRS partners
14
with ACORN to assist the poor with free tax preparation. In a written statement, the IRS said it has partnered with hundreds of community and volunteer organizations to provide free tax assistance. "We are aware of recent events, and we are conducting a thorough review of our relationship with ACORN," the IRS said.
FOX News' Molly Henneberg and Major Garrett and FOXNews.com's Stephen Clark contributed to this report.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"Anyone in a free society where the laws are unjust has an obligation to break the law."
Henry David Thoreau
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Iraq And Lies
On this sixth anniversary of America's invasion of Iraq, there is finally a consensus among supporters and opponents that we’ve won the war. The surge that Bush launched and Democrats opposed has been successful and, as a result, Iraq has become a Middle Eastern democracy, an anti-terrorist regime, and an American ally. It would be hard to imagine a more remarkable turnabout or a more comprehensive repudiation of conventional political wisdom. Yet this has not led to a comparable reappraisal by critics of the war of their previous attacks, or to any mea culpas by Democrats who launched a scorched earth campaign against the president who led it, and continued it for five years while the war dragged on.
The Democratic attacks on the war described America’s commander-in-chief as a liar who misled his country and sent American soldiers to die in a conflict that was unnecessary, illegal and unjust. This made prosecution of the war incalculably harder while strengthening the resolve of our enemies to defeat us. It is time to re-evaluate the words and actions of the war’s opponents in the stark light of a history that proved them wrong.
In the fall of 2002, a majority of Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans in voting to authorize President Bush to use force to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. In July 2003, only three months after Saddam had been removed, the Democratic National Committee launched a national campaign which accused President Bush of lying in order to trick Democrats into voting for the war. It was the beginning of a five-year campaign designed to paint the president as the liar-in-chief and America as a criminal aggressor, and the military occupier of a poor country that had not attacked us.
What had changed in the intervening three months to turn Democrats so vehemently against the war they had authorized? The answer can only be found in domestic politics. In those three months, an unknown antiwar candidate named Howard Dean had taken the lead in the primary polls and was looking like a shoe-in for the Democratic presidential nomination. As a result rival candidates who had voted for the war, including eventual nominees Kerry and Edwards, changed their positions 180 degrees and joined the attacks on President Bush. Naturally, the Democrats couldn’t admit their attacks were motivated by crass political calculations. Instead, they claimed that they had been deceived by the White House which had manipulated the intelligence on Iraq, persuading them to support the war on false premises. This allegation was in fact the biggest lie of the war.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carry a war arm... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." Arkansas Supreme Court-1878
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Rules for Radicals
In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote a text on grassroots organizing titled "Rules for Radicals" Those who prefer cooperative tactics describe the book as out-of-date. Nevertheless, it provides some of the best advice on confrontational tactics. Alinsky begins this way: What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
His "rules" derive from many successful campaigns where he helped poor people fighting power and privilege For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it.
According to Alinsky, the organizer -- especially a paid organizer from outside -- must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a
bad situation. Alinsky would say, "The first step in community organization is community disorganization." Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a "mass army" that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.
Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.
15
RULE 1: "Power is not only what I have, but what the enemy thinks I have." Power is derived from two main sources -- money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: "I never go outside the expertise of 'my people'." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, I go outside the expertise of the enemy." I look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, I send 30,000 letters. I can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? He wants to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one 'my people' enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different than any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't let it become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." I keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, I hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: "If I push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to my side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." I never let the enemy score points because I'd be caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." I cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. I go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." (that’s our olbummer!)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"It is better to live one day as a lion, then one hundred years as a sheep" Old Roman Proverb.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Alinski's Rules: Must Reading In Obama Era
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY | Posted Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Immediately after the Democratic National Convention in Colorado, the Boston Globe published a letter from David Alinsky. He boasted about how Barack Obama had made effective use of his training in the methods of David's late father, the famous Chicago radical, Saul Alinsky.
David Alinsky gloated: "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."
What was Saul Alinsky's model that Barack Obama used so successfully to defeat the Clinton machine plus the Republican Party in a dramatic one-two punch never before seen in politics?
What is known today as "the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power" are fully set forth in Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals."
16
Alinsky's worldview was that mankind is divided into three parts: "the haves, the have-nots and the have-a-little, want mores." His purpose was to teach the have-nots how to take power and money away from the haves by creating mass organizations to seize power, and he admitted "this means revolution." He wanted a radical change of America's social and economic structure, and he planned to achieve that through creating public discontent and moral confusion. Alinsky developed strategies to achieve power through mass organization, and organizing was his word for revolution. He wanted to move the U.S. from capitalism to socialism, where the means of production would be owned by all the people (i.e., the government). A believer in economic determinism, he viewed unemployment, disease, crime and bigotry as byproducts of capitalism. "Change" was Alinsky's favorite word, used on page after page. "I will argue," he wrote, "that man's hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change."
Alinsky used what he called "general concepts of change" to move us toward "a science of revolution." What he called change meant an alteration of our socioeconomic structure; what he called organizing meant pursuing confrontational political tactics. Alinsky taught the have-nots to "hate the establishment of the haves" because they have "power, money, food, security and luxury." He claimed that "justice, morality, law and order are mere words used by the haves to justify and secure their status quo." Alinsky didn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He was more devious; he taught his followers that "moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means."
To achieve his goals, he sought local community organizers who projected confidence and vision as well as change. Barack Obama fit the profile. Alinsky didn't want just talkers. He wanted radicals who were prepared to take bold action to organize the discontented, precipitate crises, grab power and transform society. He taught his organizers how to infiltrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties, gain influence in them and introduce change.
The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were ego ("reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God"), curiosity (raising "questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern"), irreverence ("nothing is sacred"; "detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality"), a sense of humor ("the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule") and a personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only "as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved." The organizer must "rub raw the resentments of the people of the community, fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. . . . stir up dissatisfaction and discontent."
Alinsky trained his community organizers to adopt a "middle-class identity" and familiarity with their "values and problems." After achieving "the priceless value of his middle-class experience," he will "begin to dissect and examine that way of life as he never has before." Alinsky's trainees are instructed to return to the suburban scene of the middle class with its variety of organizations, from PTAs to League of Women Voters, consumer groups, churches and clubs. Alinsky boasted: "With rare exceptions, our activists and radicals are products of and rebels against our middle-class society. . . . Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class."
Put "Rules for Radicals" on your must-read list if you want to understand much of contemporary politics.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. Dante
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Commentary
My Muslim President Obama
Asma Gull Hasan, 02.25.09, 12:00 AM EST
Why members of the Islamic faith see him as one of the flock.
I know President Obama is not Muslim, but I am tempted nevertheless to think that he is, as are most Muslims I know. In a very unscientific oral poll, ranging from family members to Muslim acquaintances, many of us feel, just as African-Americans did for the non-black but culturally leaning African-American President Bill Clinton, that we have our first American Muslim president in Barack Hussein Obama.
I know it's odd to say this. At first, I thought I was the only Muslim engaging in this folly, and I am reluctant to express it lest right-wing zealots try to use "Muslim" as a smear and cite my theory as proof of an Islamic traitor in the White House or some such nonsense. But, since Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, "I have to support my fellow Muslim brother," would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice.
"Well, I know he's not really Muslim," I would quickly add. But if the person I was talking to was Muslim, they would say, "yes he is." They would cite his open nature and habit of reaching out to critics, reminiscent of the Prophet Muhammad's own approach, and also Obama's middle name, Hussein. Most of the Muslims I know (me included) can't seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim.
Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam. These realists said that, although not an avowed and practicing Muslim, Obama's exposure to Islam at a young
17
age (both through his father and his stint in Indonesia) has given him a Muslim sensibility. In my book, that makes you a Muslim--maybe not a card-carrying one, but part of the flock for sure. One realist Muslim ventured that Obama worships at a Unitarian Church because it represents the middle ground between Christianity and Islam, incorporating the religious beliefs of the two faiths Obama feels connected to. Unitarianism could be Obama's way of still being a Muslim. (And let's not forget that the church Obama worshiped at for so many years had a minister who reminds most Muslims of their own raving, excitable ministers. Even if Obama really is Christian, he picked the most Muslim-esque minister out of the bunch to guide him.)
The rationalistic, Western side of me knows that Obama has denied being Muslim, that his father was non-practicing, that he doesn't attend a mosque. Many Muslims simply say back, "my father's not a strict Muslim either, and I haven't been to a mosque in years." Obama even told The New York Times he could recite the adhan, the Islamic call to prayer, which the vast majority of Muslims, I would guess, do not know well enough to recite.
I think many of us Muslims see Obama as Muslim, or at least of Muslim heritage, because his background epitomizes one of the major Muslim experiences--a diverse upbringing that eludes any easy classification as specifically one religion or one culture. So many of us Muslims around the world have Islam in common, but an altogether different culture from one another. Many Muslims share a culture with a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist community but not the same religion. When faced with such diversity, there are no hard and fast rules for Muslim identity.
The Qur'an speaks often of the umma, or the worldwide community of Muslims. In the early days of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad led the small umma. Every decision, every effort, everything was for the umma--people who were often unrelated by blood but had become related by choice as Muslims. In those early days, many Muslims had gone against the wishes of their own families in converting to Islam, pitting brother against sister, father against child. Perhaps that's why the concept of umma became so dear and is still echoed today--in my opinion, echoed more than that Western favorite jihad--in Muslim homes, whether those homes are in the United States or in Palestine.
Perhaps it is my--and most Muslims'-- loyalty to the umma that is behind our insistence on seeing Obama as Muslim. Islam survived and continues to survive because Muslims believe we have to respect and take care of each other, as members of the umma. If we were to start excluding members, or revising our broad guidelines for admittance, the very essence of the community feeling that is important in Islam, that gives me and other Muslims comfort everyday, would be undercut. So when Obama says he's not Muslim, my umma mentality says I know better. Once you have a Muslim parent, especially a dad, you're in. Whether you like it or not, Muslims all over the world see you as one of them.
I work with my father, and, once, we were seeking business with a white American man who had married a Muslim woman. Noticing how much fond attention my dad paid to this man, I asked him why he liked the man so much. My dad responded that, in his marriage to a Muslim woman (who wasn't related to us), "He's our brother-in-law!" So if that white, middle-aged man can be my brother-in-law, then Obama can certainly be my Muslim president.
Asma Gull Hasan is the author of Red, White, and Muslim: My Story of Belief.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor." Leviticus 19:16
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
White House Draws Fire for Requesting 'Fishy’ Information From Supporters on Health Reform
The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send "fishy"information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov.
The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send "fishy" information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov.
Conservatives have pounced on the request, accusing the White House of acting Orwellian. "If you get an e-mail from your neighbor and it doesn't sound right, send it to the White House?" said Sen. John Barasso, R-Wyo. " People, I think all across America are going to say is this 1984? What is happening here? Is big brother watching?"
"They're looking for tattletales," he said. "They're looking for snitches. They're looking for informants."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, charged the White House with compiling an "enemies list."In a letter to the president, Cornyn urged Obama to provide Congress with more details on what the White House plans to do with anyone reported for "fishy" speech. "I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests," he wrote. "You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program. As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights," he wrote. The controversy is part of a larger debate on health care reform that has led Democrats to portray town hall
audiences protesting a Democratic-sponsored bill as angry mobs duped into hostile actions by special interest groups. The Democratic National Committee released a Web video and e-mail on Wednesday blasting opponents of the 10-year, $1 trillion plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said lawmakers will continue to press for reform "in spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings."
Republicans say counter that lawmakers have a responsibility to listen to constituents and their concerns.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 18
If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson, and pencils cause misspelled words.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
GEORGE CARLIN (His wife recently died...and George followed her, dying July 2008) Isn't it amazing that George Carlin - comedian of the 70's and 80's - could write something so very eloquent. And so very appropriate.
A Message by George Carlin:
The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways , but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.
We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive to fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.
We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor.. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.
We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less
These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.....
Remember; spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.
Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.
Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent..
Remember, to say, ' I love you ' to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.
Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again..
Give time to love, give time to speak! And give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.
AND ALWAYS REMEMBER: Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. George Carlin
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
OBAMA WANTS YOUR GUNS
By Bob Beers Sunday, September 20, 2009
Those who worship at the feet of the Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, will probably yet again claim that this is a racist column and that CFP should immediately begin distancing themselves from its writer. Little do they know that the Canada Free Press publishes this column because we found each other to be of like minds. Liberals cannot conceive of something like that.
They are emphatically convinced that they are the majority opinion in the world and that those who disagree with them are at best deluded and at worst a danger to their “freedoms” that must be eliminated, the law be damned.
CBS, of all places, released a well written story dealing with the Second Amendment and the upcoming Supreme Court Case that will decide, yet again, whether or not American citizens can legally own firearms. Here is a snippet from that article: “Nobody has been hurt by the protesters who have legally carried guns to events where the president has been speaking, and I know of no evidence that they were even close enough to see the man. Nevertheless,
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s non-voting Democratic rep in the U.S. House of Representatives, wants mandatory “gun-free zones around the president, his cabinet and other top federal officials,” according to a report by the local Fox affiliate. Similarly, the Brady Campaign told CBS News that guns have no place at such an event.”
Since the 1939 decision in United States v. Miller, liberals smugly understood that an individual’s right to own a gun was not protected by the constitution. They claimed that because of the “well regulated militia” line that the
19
right was a collective rather than individual right. The ACLU, not an organization known for deep thinking, published an opinion on the recent Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller where the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The liberal left fought back, having friendly justices at the Ninth Circuit Court who were also uneasy with law abiding citizens packing heat in the same neighborhood as the President, even if their skin tone resembled his. They are feeling pretty smug again with the elevation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, especially since she has a record of ignoring common sense and the law in favor of leftist agendas.
Several leftist pundits and writers have expressed disdain at those of us who warn of the dangers of Obama’s policies. Of course, few of them are as idiotically crass as former Presisdent Jimmy Carter and refrain from calling those who disagree with Obama racist, but many come awfully close. If you sneer at the statements of babbling fools like Louis Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright you must be a racist, right? Funny thing is, if Doctor Martin Luther King were alive today, he would be one of those doing the sneering. Would they call him a racist?
Obama made a very telling statement. One he has tried to distance himself from, even going so far as to deny it came from him. He made the original comments while speaking to a group of wealthy California donors in San Francisco. This is the hot button portion:
“And it’s not surprising when they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” In other words, when you see your freedoms being eroded, jobs being shipped overseas and illegal immigrants being given for free medical care you cannot afford, you shouldn’t become bitter. You should bless the government for being so compassionate. Don’t bother to read the Constitution, that’s something for your betters to understand.
Check out my column on the Second Amendment. What is really interesting about it is that not one of those lefties sending me hate mail has even tried to rebut my interpretation. As it is written the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is unequivocal in its granting of the individual right to own your own gun. Those who dispute this do so because that right interferes with their agenda. Obama has a willing lackey in Eleanor Holmes Norton. The question you need to ask yourself is, after two precedent-setting supreme court decisions establishing that right, why is he trying to overturn them?
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
A man who beats his sword into plow shares will plow for the man who doesn’t.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
THE AXIS OF IDIOTS
J.D. Pendry
J.D. Pendry is a retired Marine Sergeant who writes for Random House. He is eloquent, and he seldom beats around the bush.
Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinski while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the first Trade Center bombing and our Embassy bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were of building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine , sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marines ass. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders to Soviet style Gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were opened under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to the communist victory there. You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent
20
on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all the while sitting on your wide, gin soaked rear end in Washington.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barrack Obama, chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic Jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.
American news media, the New York Times particularly: each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoon, but you can help Al Quaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Quaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer…
You are America’s “AXIS OF IDIOTS.” your collective stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing.
Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to the people who are willing to defend it.
No, Mr. President, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies: those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the AXIS OF IDIOTS. America must hear it from you that these self -centered people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The above was written and published about the time that the last presidential campaign began if not before. Our studies show that it is factual. There is many more facts not expressed in this article however, or at least partially. All of the people described as “THE AXIS OF IDIOTS” were in fact screaming FOR war in Iraq long before it became a fact. When the Congress presented the permission, President Bush entered us into that war, it suddenly became a no-no. I personally know this for a fact because I was very interested in what was going on and had been for some time. I fully agree with the portrayal of the character of each and every one of the people portrayed in this article. If I had my way every one of you traitorous scheming idiots would be in front of a firing squad where you belong. Get out of dodge, you are not wanted!!!! You are traitors and the enemy of my beloved country!
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
From the Blog: A Short Lesson on the Supremacy Clause
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
--James Madison
Freedom, Federalism and the Constitution by Josh Eboch
Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country. Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.
There is no way to make everyone happy with every law, but abandoning the futile and divisive quest for a “one size fits all” centralized government, and returning the states to their rightful role as competing laboratories of democracy is a good start.
21
Before America can rediscover the promise of her founding, people on both sides of the aisle must come to grips with the fact that the federal government does not exist to impose on the nation either the Right’s or the Left’s vision of freedom, morality, or social justice.
The Constitution: It’s not just for Conservatives
Posted on 01 October 2009 by Josh Eboch
Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.
Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority. Questions involving but not limited Health Care:
If the framers had intended the federal government to establish and manage hospitals and Alms Houses within the states, they would no doubt have given it the explicit authority to do so. To misconstrue the general Welfare Clause in such a way as to conjure that authority out of thin air is to commit a blatant act of intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, regarding those words, “general welfare,” James Madison himself said: “To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
This also includes Medicare and Social Security, both of which are preparing to default on a massive scale thanks to the sort of bureaucratic mismanagement and fiscal shell games at which governments excel.
Of course, nowhere does the Constitution say that states cannot establish and bankrupt their own socialized medicine or retirement schemes. See: Massachusetts and California.
Drugs:
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were hemp farmers, and drugs themselves have existed in various forms for thousands of years. They were certainly not unknown to the framers of our national government. Yet, excepting the (repealed) 18th Amendment, there is no mention of drugs or prohibition in the Constitution.
It is thanks to an expansive and unlimited interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the federal government now claims the power to ban certain substances. But in 1787, the Commerce Clause was worded to make trade regular between the states by preventing protectionist tariffs, not to give Congress the power to impose national standards of morality on the marketplace.
In recent years, some states have tried to reassert their authority on this issue, but a senselessly violent war continues to be waged by the federal government against the personal purchasing decisions of people in every state.
Marriage:
The positive impact of creating social and financial bonds between consenting adults was likely as obvious in the eighteenth century as it is now. But the framers had a much healthier distrust of the federal government than we do today. They gave it no power to define marriage because the framers did not feel compelled to ask or grant the blessing of the federal government in forming private religious unions.
Neither do we need it today to legitimize private unions, religious or otherwise. But as long as both parties seek to engineer social policy through the federal income tax code, the issue of marriage will needlessly divide our country, and state governments will remain unable to fully implement their citizens’ will.
The list goes on and on, but the point remains the same: America was built on individualism and freedom of choice, and what’s right for one person or one state is not necessarily right for them all. There is no way to make everyone happy with every law, but abandoning the futile and divisive quest for a “one size fits all” centralized government, and returning the states to their rightful role as competing laboratories of democracy is a good start.
Before America can rediscover the promise of her founding, people on both sides of the aisle must come to grips with the fact that the federal government does not exist to impose on the nation either the Right’s or the Left’s vision of freedom, morality, or social justice.
Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government."
Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837 22
NO NATIVITY SCENE IN WASHINGTON THIS YEAR
The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the United States' Capital this Christmas season. This isn't for any religious reason. They simply have not been ableto find Three Wise Men in the Nation's Capitol. And a search for a Virgin continues…There will be no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable...
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Obama and Clinton cede to UN small arms treat October 16, 4:02 Paul Valone
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses Moscow University
As noted in “British gun control: Coming soon to a country near you? ” seven countries, led by the United Kingdom, are attempting to revive U.N. efforts to restrict imports and exports of small arms. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the United States would reverse Bush administration opposition to international small arms control, potentially paving the way for the British-led effort, which calls for a vote by the U.N. General Assembly by year’s end.
The U.S. would support the “Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” as long as it was conducted under rules of “consensus decision-making,” interpreted by some to require unanimous consent, Clinton said. Non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Oxfam, which support international restrictions, objected to requirements for a consensus.
The Heritage Foundation, calling demands for consensus “irrelevant” and “dangerous,” expressed opposition to the conference. The NRA has long opposed treaty efforts on grounds they would be used to abridge American’s right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Concealed carry debate reloaded
by Brian Moon on October 16, 2009 in Crime & Courts, Legislature
A proposal by Milwaukee’s police chief and district attorney has reloaded the debate on carrying concealed guns in Wisconsin. Police Chief Ed Flynn and the DA John Chisholm told a Common Council panel they’d support concealed carry as compromise for tougher gun control laws. Currently carrying a concealed firearm is a misdemeanor but they’ve proposed making it a mandatory felony for anyone who carries without a permit.
Jim Fendry-Director of the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement, supports a change in law allowing concealed carry but would only favor felonies for those unlicensed carriers if they use their weapon to commit a crime. Fendry is skeptical of the proposals saying what ends up “in writing” may differ from what is initially discussed. The gun rights advocate believes if Governor were on board with conceal carry it would pass as all Republicans and many Democrats support such licensing.
However the director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort Educational Fund hopes that isn’t the case. WAVE’s Jeri Bonavia She says Wisconsinites are not in support of the conceal carry either as a Public Policy Forum poll a few years ago indicated more than 70 percent of Wisconsinites were opposed to the idea. She says one need only look to other states that have implemented “shall issue” licensing, a policy that requires anyone who has passed a background check and safety course to be issued a conceal carry permit if requested. Wisconsin is one of two states that does not allow concealed carry.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Police to get 'blade' detectors
Published Date: 17 October 2009 By ANGUS HOWARTH
EVERY police force in Scotland will be issued with new metal detectors to help tackle knife crime, it was announced yesterday. The Scottish Government has invested £90,000 in the scanners which can be used in settings such as nightclubs, football matches and large public events. Unlike archway detectors, the pole-shaped scanners are port-able, take less than 60 seconds to set up and can do a 360- degree pick-up.
The detectors are aimed at reducing the number of knives being carried and also to reassure public and staff at venues. Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "Far too many lives are lost and people injured through acts of mindless violence, often as a result of the blade culture that blights many communities. "Changing the booze and blade culture won't be quick and it won't be easy but we cannot go on as we are. I want to make sure that our police forces are armed with the equipment they need to make our communities safer."
Chief Inspector Graham Goulden, anti-violence campaign co-ordinator for the Violence Reduction Unit, said: "The benefit of metal detecting poles is threefold. "Not only can they be used to detain those carrying weapons, they send out a clear warning to those thinking of carrying them that such behaviour will not be tolerated." Each police force, including British Transport Police, will be given one scanner each – except Lothian, which will receive two, and Strathclyde, which will get seven.
The full article contains 250 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper. Last Updated: 16 October 2009 8:06 PM Source: The Scotsman Location: Edinburgh Related Topics: Law and Order
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- --
23