Say Anything Blog

”>

Inside kid is there with a tape recorder, and the Obama White House and the NEA conniving to set up the taxpayer-supported National Endowment for the Arts as Ministry of Propaganda?

Big Hollywood’s Partrick Courrielche broke the story of these – to say the least – controversial NEA conference calls on August 25th, calls obviously designed to promote President Obama’s domestic agenda, especially health care. 

The Washington Times picked up on the story, contacted NEA Communications Director Sergant and asked him about the calls. He denied the NEA was responsible for sending out the conference call email invitations:

WASHINGTON TIMES: Hey, I understand that there was a conference call on August 10th that the NEA invited producers, artists, marketers, etcetera.

SERGANT:  The NEA didn’t invite…We were a participant in a call.  It was a third party that did the invitation.

WASHINGTON TIMES: I see.  I was wondering If you could send me, if possible,  a copy of the invitation?

SERGANT: Umm…It didn’t come from us, so I don’t have it to distribute.  You’d go to them for that.

Courrielche’s follow-up piece proved the complete opposite was true. Not only had the invites come from the NEA but from Sergant himself.

During all this Glenn Beck picked up the story:

Were laws broken?

George Will seems to think so.

Yeah, these guys are lying filth.

Face it, the US was attacked on 9-11 and we counter-attacked those places we thought were sources of the Threat that both posed the greatest danger (see below) and were the most reachable.

The Left, who’d set us up for attack by dropping our guard prior to the attack (see Able Danger reference below) and have constantly sought to prevent our victory once we were engaged, are as guilty of the terrorists themselves.

Indeed, more so, since terrorists fight at least for their own cause, rather than betray the country of their birth, as the filthy Left has consistently done.

That being said, this thread is to those fighters with boots on the ground, off-shore or in the air who have been laying the smack-down on terrorists ever since.



Here’s to you—our best Americans.




Mudville Gazette - MilBlogs

‘Milbloggers’ are typing their place in history

MY WAR (more...)

From HuffPo
     

Glenn Beck has struck again.

Yosi Sergant, who recently popped up on Beck’s radar for his involvement in a conference call on national service, has been asked to resign as communications director by the National Endowment for the Arts, sources familiar with the move tell the Huffington Post.

At issue was an August conference call in which the NEA encouraged select artists to participate in an administration project dubbed “United We Serve” and led by the first lady.

Beck attacked Sergant and the NEA on his Fox News talk show, accusing the agency of propaganda efforts similar to those used by Nazi Germany.

And now Sergant has been tossed overboard, making him Beck’s second victim in his campaign to rid the administration of perceived radicals, socialists, communists, fascists, anarchists and all other manner of nefarious influences.

(WOOOT!)

Perhaps not coincidentally, both Sergant and Van Jones - Beck’s first takedown - have roots in on-the-ground organizing and were tightly connected with the grassroots progressive community.

The NEA wouldn’t comment on Sergant’s situation specifically, saying that it was a confidential personnel matter.

...

UPDATE: The NEA has updated their statement to emphasize that Yosi Sargent remains with the agency, but in a different position: “As regards Yosi Sergant, he has not left the National Endowment for the Arts. He remains with the agency, although not as director of communications.”

Sources familiar with the situation say that the move represents a significant step down and was the result of the controversy. Discussion about his new duties is still ongoing.

From NewsMax

Eight years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. is still in “terrible shape” in the fight against terrorism, former CIA counterterrorism expert Michael Scheuer tells Newsmax.

Scheuer also said President Barack Obama “doesn’t have a clue” about the realities of world terrorism.

Scheuer, whose latest book is “Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq,” spent several years as head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit.

Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter asked Scheuer why the U.S. still has not captured bin Laden.

“I think we are doing all we can with the number of troops and intelligence officers we have committed in Afghanistan,” he said.

“Very few of them have time anymore to go after Osama bin Laden because they’re trying to keep [President Hamid] Karzai in power and trying to build a democracy and trying to fight an insurgency.

”Mister Bush never sent enough people to Afghanistan, and very clearly as the situation has gotten worse Mister Obama does not intend to send enough people either.

”The reason we don’t have him I think is simply we don’t have enough troops on the ground to find him and he’s living in a place that has the highest mountains on earth.”

Walter asked if the U.S. is safer or more vulnerable eight years after the 9/11 attacks.

“I think we would be hard put to say we’re much safer than we were in 2001,” Scheuer responded.

“We still don’t have an idea of where our enemy is. We’re clearly on the defensive in Afghanistan. And if you step back and take a bigger look at the world, there are terrorists now being produced in places where there were no insurgencies back in 2001 — Somalia, Yemen, Mindanao in the Philippines.

“We’re still faced with a situation that I think neither party has come to grips with…

“I think we’re in terrible shape right now. We have to remember that al-Qaida’s war goals are to help lead us to bankruptcy, to spread out our military forces and our intelligence services, and to create dissension in politics here at home. They’re succeeding on all three of those.

”The key thing any administration has to do is control our borders, to close them and then regulate the entry of people, to give U.S. law enforcement at all levels a chance to figure out who is in our country and who is entering it.”

Asked what the U.S. should do to slow down the spread of terrorism, Scheuer said: “At some point we need to begin to consider applying more military force when the option is presented to us. Certainly in Afghanistan we have a wide scope for killing many more of the enemy than we are.

“We also have to look at our problems with policy. Our foreign policy is really an inducement, a motivation for the enemy.”

At the top of the list in that regard “is not healthcare, it’s energy,” he added. “We need to do something about energy to be able to disassociate ourselves from the tyrannies that govern the Middle East.”

Walter asked what credit the Bush administration deserves for the fact the U.S. has not suffered another devastating terrorist attack since 9/11.

“I think we owe the Bush administration a vote of thanks for doing they thought was best to do in America’s interests,” Scheuer said.

“I was a severe critic of what they did because they didn’t do enough, but I never had any doubt in my mind that they were really intent on defending America. I thought they did it inadequately but I thought they intended to do it.

”The current administration has undercut virtually everything Mister Bush established and used to fight terrorism, as insufficient as that was. Mister Obama has dismantled virtually all of it without replacing it with anything.

“Both Afghanistan and Iraq are producing well-trained people who are going to fight America or attack America’s interests around the world. So it’s a spreading phenomenon, not a constricting one.

”Mister Obama doesn’t appear to have a clue about what the world is and how it works. He’s surrounded himself with surrenderists left over from the Clinton administration.

“And I think he really is a man who doesn’t have much interest in America. He appears to be more concerned with what the world thinks of him.

”My dad used to say, beware of men who like to show off in front of children. And I think the president’s discussion with schoolchildren [on Tuesday] is a good example of a man to beware of.”

Arguments planned Jan. 11 for major Obama challenge

A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications
under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party’s chairman, also were restored to the case.

But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz’ motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president’s still-concealed records.

Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz’ challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.

Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and “possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief.”

...

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

In the U.S. Justice Department’s motion to dismiss, attorneys didn’t address the concerns directly, but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can’t be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office.

...

“It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for president can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute. “Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch.”

President Obama’s defenders also said they would file a motion seeking to block any discovery of evidence at this point.

Kreep said said his addition to the case probably will mean additional arguments over the president’s eligibility.

Among the long list of plaintiffs are former ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes and longshot vice-presidential candidate Gail Lightfoot, both of whom ran in 2008.

Justice officials say because neither had a mathematical chance at winning, they were not directly harmed by the election of Obama.

But among the issues that appear to be looming is a claim that Obama’s actual birth certificate from Kenya has emerged.

(more...)

We don’t like homeless guys who smell strongly of urine and who stare fixedly at the children to hang out near playgrounds, and for slightly different reasons, we don’t like Obama doing an end-run around us to get to our kids either.

What do the other commentators have to say about the subject?

Plenty, so it seems.

Michelle Malkin

Obama’s classroom campaign: No junior lobbyist left behind

My syndicated column today digs a little deeper into President Obama’s September 8 speech to schoolchildren. The school guides now featured front and center on the http://www.ed.gov website were developed by the White House Teaching Fellows — a group which includes several activist educators as you’ll see below.

Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in old neighborhood pal and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers’ pedagogical philosophy. It was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge way when the two served as board members of the educational foundation — and it is the Washington Obama way now.

Steve Foley

Obama’s Back-to-School Programming

Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, has another explanation for it: “As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology.”

“The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer,” the state GOP chairman maintains, “so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to American’s children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American’s youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves.”

Caleb Howe

Don’t Drink the Skool-Aid

There is abundant reason and a yardstick-long history timeline’s worth of reasons to distrust what Obama is actually going to say to students, but that’s being ably covered by others, especially Michelle, Vodka Pundit, Dana Loesch, and Steve Foley.

Instead, I’m going to relate an anecdote.

I have two little girls. They attend a public school. Last year, we went to my oldest daughter’s classroom to see them present their “holiday” play. You don’t say “Christmas” play, see, because then you’re indoctrinating students.

So we are sitting in class, and my daughter and a few other kids, third-graders all, stand in front of the class. We parents then sat through the recitation of an excruciating litany of horrors that the world would be facing now that global-warming was here to destroy us all. Little scenes of animals dying were acted out. Prognostications about the end of man were made. Armageddon, as related by 8 and 9 year olds.

My own little girl stepped forward and told us all that in five years, if something wasn’t done, Myrtle Beach (where we share many happy family memories) would be lost under the waves forever. Guess how the play ended? With an exhortation to the parents of course. “Mom and Dad, what can you do? Turn off lights, drive hybrid vehicles, and vote for candidates who are working to change the world for the better.” A small child’s voice barely squeaked out “Obama” before the applause, and a few knowing chuckles, erupted among the yuppies, yippies, and go alongs.

Vote Democrat! …. says their teacher. This is not the first or last time overtly partisan, overtly leftist rhetoric was foisted on my children. That wasn’t even the first or last time that day. Every day they come home with something that I must debunk, refute, or dispute.

Rob Waterson

Does the philosophy of the Left require an implicit acceptance of the notion that government owns its subjects?

I argue that for one to accept that level of control over people by the government one has to accept that we are not free individuals at all but are instead simply livestock on the government Animal Farm. I find that notion egregiously offensive, immoral, and anti-American.

More practically, in almost every case it is also unconstitutional. Not that the statists will ever let that pesky [allegedly “living”] document stand in their way.

And lest we take teachers’ assurances that they are not indoctrinating and indeed browbeating our kids while they have exclusive possession and control, while we are working so we can pay taxes,
let us not forget this gem of adult beating up on a little kid…

From Newsweek, by way of the Gates of Vienna

Ethnic pride is acceptable and desirable and should be encouraged in any group — so long as it’s not white

—Shame for Me, Pride for Thee
Monday, September 07, 2009

I am sure most of you grew up in the late 1950’s, 1960’s and perhaps during the 1970’s.  The landmark Supreme Court power grab case of Brown v. Board of Education (see criticism, immediately below) by then had taken complete control over the US educational system and, by the same token we were constantly being preached at by MSM programming, but we were unaware of the fact at the time.

In fact, many of the most trenchant early criticisms were voiced by commentators like Edmund Cahn, Herbert Wechsler, and Learned Hand, who had no sympathy for the segregationist cause. They faulted the Court, inter alia, for grounding its decision on badly flawed social science rather than legal reasoning; for its unconvincing treatment of its own precedents and the legislative history of the 14th Amendment; for presuming that it could by judicial decree alter long-standing customs that had grown up in no small part because the Court itself had given them legal sanction; for failing to distinguish between what was desirable as a matter of policy and what the Constitution would permit; for failing, in short, to provide a persuasive, neutral constitutional rationale for what the justices themselves knew was a daring, indeed radical, undertaking.

...

judicial power must be limited both because courts cannot as a practical matter accomplish certain goals, and because their constitutional authority rests ultimately, and rightly in Jackson’s view, on the consent of the people. Contrast his practical and constitutional humility with the countervailing presumption, not to say effrontery, of the Brown opinion. The latter exhibits almost no understanding of judicial restraint, whether considered as a principle of constitutional propriety or as a principle of institutional practicality. On the contrary, it magnifies the Court’s constitutional authority and entertains utopian expectations about judicial capacity to alter longstanding legal habits and social customs. Jackson’s fears on both the practical and constitutional points have proved to be remarkably prescient.

—very gentle critique of the Brown decision, in
The Road Not Taken

NEWSWEEK gives us an open window into the racial hatred directed against Whites by so-called Liberal pundits, education planners and the MSM.

Rarely, however, has the anti-White racism so very clear.

But if children heard these preparation-for-bias warnings often (rather than just occasionally), they were significantly less likely to connect their successes to effort, and much more likely to blame their failures on their teachers—whom they saw as biased against them.

Harris-Britt warns that frequent predictions of future discrimination ironically become as destructive as experiences of actual discrimination: “If you overfocus on those types of events, you give the children the message that the world is going to be hostile—you’re just not valued and that’s just the way the world is.”

Preparation for bias is not, however, the only way minorities talk to their children about race. The other broad category of conversation, in Harris-Britt’s analysis, is ethnic pride. From a very young age, minority children are coached to be proud of their ethnic history. She found that this was exceedingly good for children’s self-confidence; in one study, black children who’d heard messages of ethnic pride were more engaged in school and more likely to attribute their success to their effort and ability.
Quantcast

That leads to the question that everyone wonders but rarely dares to ask. If “black pride” is good for African-American children, where does that leave white children? It’s horrifying to imagine kids being “proud to be white.” Yet many scholars argue that’s exactly what children’s brains are already computing. Just as minority children are aware that they belong to an ethnic group with less status and wealth, most white children naturally decipher that they belong to the race that has more power, wealth, and control in society; this provides security, if not confidence. So a pride message would not just be abhorrent—it’d be redundant.

Yeah—freakshows like the author of the passage above made it their business to hijack American schools and media and have been feeding this tripe at you—and more importantly—your children, for generations now.

Time for School vouchers or Home Schooling.

Earlier, we warned against getting too distracted by Trolls, as their purpose here is not to debate—but to incite, divert and disrupt.

The good people at WND reveal that something more sinister may be behind this effort to disrupt.

Before we continue, I should note that the trolls which infest SAB don’t exhibit the brainpower or nuance to indicate that they have an organization like the FBI behind them. 

It is safe to say that the trolls here are simply, for their own part, stupid—and very likely. homosexual—Leftists.  Any other Mod would have banned them long ago and it is very likely that they are here simply because they have been banned everywhere else they posted.

Poor things (snif! ) they’ve got nowhere else to go.

On a far more serious note, we now return to the WND article.

Beginning in 2006, WND chronicled the bizarre behavior of Internet blogger and micro-caster Hal Turner who said he might have to assassinate half the members of Congress.

”As the November 7 Election approaches, I decided to write a few lines to my fellow Americans about the state of our nation and the ugliness that may have to occur if the people who caused these problems are re-elected: They may have to be assassinated,” he wrote in his blog Oct. 27 that year.

They did not appear to be merely the idle words of an irresponsible lunatic.

Turner didn’t say it once or twice. He repeated his ideas several times and even offered fairly detailed plans involving five-men strike forces to carry out their work in wiping out half the U.S. Congress and at least three members of the Supreme Court.

It seemed very strange to us at WND that law enforcement officials paid little heed.

When WND contacted the FBI, officials there showed little curiosity after hearing the name of the person that wrote and said these things – and seemed to be advocating violence against public officials.

By December of that year, Turner was raising the ante.

He claimed to have set a timetable for those killings – adding that any member of Congress who introduces, co-sponsors or votes in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens would be “declared a domestic enemy and considered a legitimate target for assassination.”

Again, both the Secret Service and FBI showed little interest in Turner’s activities.

Now, maybe, we can understand why.

Last month, in a trial over charges brought against Turner by local officials in New Jersey and Connecticut, it was revealed that Turner had been trained by the FBI on how to deliberately provoke violent actions by others. He was an “agent provocateur” for the FBI from 2002 through 2007 and was taught by the agency “what he could say that wouldn’t be crossing the line,” according to testimony in the trial.

His defense attorney said, “His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest.” In other words, the government was paying him to get people to commit crimes they might not otherwise commit.

Prosecutors in the trial acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on “radical right-wing organizations.”

May I ask a stupid question?

Why is the FBI doing this?

This can’t even be blamed on Barack Obama. This was happening during the administration of George W. Bush.

Why are our taxpayer dollars being used to spread anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic hate screeds and murderous rantings and ravings?

Isn’t this a form of entrapment?

Whose idea was this?

Which public officials were responsible for this big idea?

Will this come out in the trial? Or will the cowards and dunces within the FBI claim some legal privilege to preach hate and violence?

The Obama administration shows an amazing lack of curiosity about this extremely bad behavior by its predecessor – even while making plans to prosecute former Bush administration officials for coercive interrogations of international terrorists actually planning real violence against Americans.

Why the double standard?

Is it because of the target?

Is it OK to use any means necessary to ferret out so-called “right-wing radicals”?

I suspect that’s the case.

I have a feeling that a similar government operation designed to locate violent Islamic militants would be broadly condemned by the political establishment – Republican and Democrat.

Why is it considered perfectly appropriate to encourage violence and criminal activity by so-called “right wing radicals”?

Who approved it?

How long did it continue?

Has it stopped?

Why was it initiated?

Does the Obama administration approve of the program?

Is the FBI still involved in this kind of reprehensible and immoral activity?

Someone posted earlier that Conservatives could not possibly come up with parodies that the Left create of themselves.


TEAM AMERICA tried, and were even prescient:

”>

But the enormity of the Left’s stupidity has even outstripped the Southpark creator’s prognosticative abilities.

It seems that Hollywood has fully thrown in its lot with the increasingly-fascist Obama, pledging to be his servant.

This is just the sort of cult of personality one might expect under the Iron-booted regime of Kim Jong Il, (his statue, supposedly made of gold, visible on the upper Left) or the sort of oath of loyalty and vassalhood German soldiers were compelled to swear to obey Hitler, even unto death.

I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath

—Der Fahneneid

This ties in to the Cult of Personality, our very own Dear Leader-in-the-making seems to be attempting with his direct address to Americas’ children.

The adults, so it seems, appear to we waking up to the reality behind his lies, so Obama is endeavoring to do that Young Pioneers / Hitler Youth sort of thing by enlisting the aid and assistance of America’s school children.

Your son is not your personal property, solely at your disposal. He is on loan to you but he is the property of the German Volk. To object to his name being put forward for an elite school is tantamount to insulting the Reich and the Fuhrer

—Koch

This guy needs to be watched.

VERY CLOSELY.

Berlet98, and others, have noted the Treason of Ted Kennedy. 

According to Shakespeare, the evil that men do, dies with them.  Alas, were that only true.

Kennedy and his fellow Leftists saboteurs in Congress, the MSM and other places of influence, have made sure that America has been weakened and our enemies strengthened.

He had much to do with what follows…..

I call upon the scientific community who gave us nuclear weapons to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.

  ~ President Reagan’s “Star Wars” speech, March 23, 1983

Those magnificent words by an equally magnificent leader uttered 26 years ago ushered in Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program whereby nuclear missiles launched against the United States by the Soviets or any other enemy of America could be shot down from the sky. It was a logical, revolutionary and a bold proposal during a time when Sen. Ted Kennedy and the Democratic Party were actively undermining America by seeking clandestine alliances with Soviet communist leaders against their own country.

I first wrote about Reagan’s rational and visionary SDI program in a March 2008 article titled, “Reagan vindicated: SDI works.” My thesis: If SDI were “Star Wars” or some insignificant boondoggle by Reagan, then why did the Soviets and the liberals here in America fight the advancement so vociferously for over 25 years?

While America was beguiled by the cacophony of our government-controlled media with irrelevant stories like the death of Sen. Kennedy or Obama’s 100th speech on why we need universal health care, we ignored an important news item picked up by Breitbart.com on Aug. 26 – “Russia deploys air defense on North Korea missile test.”

The short blurb in its entirety reads:

  Russia is worried about North Korean missile and nuclear tests and has deployed sophisticated air defenses in its Far East region to protect against any potential test mishap, Russia’s top general said here Wednesday.

  “We have an S-400 division there,” said Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, confirming that Russia had deployed its most advanced anti-missile defense system near the border with North Korea.

Amazing! Not so much as a peep from any of the government-controlled media on this crucial story, including right-leaning Fox News, yet for over 25 years since President Reagan first launched the idea of SDI to make nuclear missiles of our avowed enemy, the Soviet Union, obsolete, the idea was constantly fought against by liberal Democrats, communists and communist sympathizers with the same passion as they battled to defame communist foes Whittaker Chambers in the 1940s and Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s.

Think about this.

As we finally are getting to the point that our tests of anti-missile technology are proving that we can consistently intercept nuclear-tipped missiles from the Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea, Iran and other enemies, Obama kills the program.

We have the best fighter aircraft in the world, and Obama kills the program.

This isn’t leadership…

it’s sabotage.

There is also this sobering thought—we invented the Neutron Bomb, but we have destroyed our stocks, and yet our enemies have stockpiles of their own:

In 1979, he was in Paris helping the French build their own arsenal of neutron bombs when presidential candidate Ronald Reagan came through on a European tour. Cohen met with Reagan to brief him on the neutron bomb. Reagan grasped the idea of neutron weaponry immediately, and made a pledge to Cohen, and later a public pledge, that he would reverse Carter administration policy by building and deploying a large number of neutron bombs.

As president, Reagan fulfilled that pledge and approximately a thousand weapons were constructed. But criticism from European allies kept the weapons from being deployed across Europe.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism as we knew it, the Bush administration moved to dismantle all of our tactical nuclear weapons, including the Reagan stockpile of neutron bombs. In Cohen’s mind, America was brought back to Square One. Without tactical weapons like the neutron bomb, America would be left with two choices if an enemy was winning a conventional war: surrender, or unleash the holocaust of strategic nuclear weapons.

Other nation’s haven’t been afflicted by the U.S. blindness regarding neutron bombs. According to Cohen:

Evidence exists that China has neutron bombs stockpiled, and that the United States gave the Chinese the technology to build them.

Russia has a large quantity of such weapons, as well as the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Israel has hundreds of neutron weapons. The neutron bombs would allow Israel to stop advancing Arab armies and tank columns - even one on Israeli soil - without permanently contaminating the land.

South Africa, which constructed a cache of neutron weapons before the end of white rule, claimed it dismantled those weapons before handing over power to the Nelson Mandela government. Cohen, however, claims to have it on good authority that white military leaders still control the secret stockpile as “an insurance policy.”

With leaders like these, who needs enemies?

A Catholic pro-life leader has some scathing words concerning Senator Ted Kennedy’s Catholic funeral.

Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, released this statement concerning Senator Kennedy. “We must, as a matter of precept, pray for the salvation of heretical Catholics like Senator Edward Kennedy, but we do not have to praise him, let alone extol him with the full honors of a public Catholic funeral and all the adulation that attends such an event.”

He adds that while Senator Kennedy called himself Catholic, like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, they are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing.

“They do not hold to the teaching of the church. They, in fact, take every opportunity seemingly to contradict the teaching of our church,” Euteneuer says. “So in the case of Senator Edward Kennedy, he was not only against his church’s teaching on the issue of abortion, but the same with embryonic stem cell research, the same with gay marriage and various other issues which set him in diametric opposition to his church’s very well-defined and clearly articulated teaching.”

Euteneuer says he is speaking out now to remind everyone that Catholics cannot honor a person with a full and public Catholic funeral when, like Senator Kennedy, he really was not.

Federal Reserve Board fights to keep its secrets
Warns disclosing where money went would cause ‘irreparable harm’

The IRS has been leaning hard on Switzerland to finally break its bank secrecy laws so it can go after American tax cheats (those not part of Obama’s cabinet, that is) but when it comes to disclosing where the Federal Reserve sent some $2 Trillion Dollars in taxpayer money is—well—secret.

The Federal Reserve Board, despite being ordered to disclose to whom it awarded roughly $2 trillion in discount “stimulus” loans, is fighting to keep the information under wraps as a protected “trade secret.”

Earlier this week, a U.S. district court judge rejected the Fed’s argument that the names of borrowers are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and ordered the board to release the information by Monday, Aug. 31.

The Fed’s board of governors, however, has now filed a motion asking the judge to delay enforcement of the order, seeking time to appeal and arguing that disclosing which banks borrowed the funds could lead to a backlash from the banks’ customers and stockholders.

“The immediate release of these documents will destroy the board’s claims of exemption and right of appellate review,” the motion said. “The institutions whose names and information would be disclosed will also suffer irreparable harm.”

Bloomberg LP, which sued the Fed on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit for not complying with a FOIA request last year, disagrees.

“Our argument is that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the banks’ interest in secrecy,” said Thomas Golden, a lawyer who represents Bloomberg.

”What has the Fed got to hide?” said Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders in an email reported by Bloomberg. “The time has come for the Fed to stop stonewalling and hand this information over to the public.”

Bernie Sanders???

Hold the phone.  I would think making the Fed fess up would be a good thing, confession being good for the soul, but Bernie is a card-carrying Socialist.  Probably the only honest Leftist in the entire freekin Congress….

Vermont’s Bernie Sanders Becomes First Socialist Elected to U.S. Senate

In Vermont, Bernie Sanders to become the country’s first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Running as an independent, Sanders won 65% of the vote, easily beating his Republican opponent Rich Tarrant. We speak with Sanders about what it means to the country’s first socialist senator.

Key here: self-described—the rest are just liars.

When the banking system threatened collapse last year, the Fed invoked its emergency lending powers to make discount loans to banks that now total into the trillions of dollars with the intent of stimulating the economy and preventing further financial meltdown. The names of the borrowing institutions were kept anonymous.

Bloomberg reporter Mark Pittman then filed a FOIA request in an attempt to get the Fed to disclose the borrowing banks and to identify the assets it accepted as collateral.

In return, Federal Reserve Board Secretary Jennifer Johnson sent Pittman a five-page response, telling him the Fed was withholding over 2,000 pages of information deemed protected against disclosure as “trade secrets” and “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters.”

On Nov. 7, 2008, Bloomberg filed a suit seeking full disclosure, and earlier this week, Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, ruled the Fed had until Monday to release the information.

The Fed’s motion to delay enforcement of Preska’s order argues the board’s “ability to effectively manage the current, and any future, financial crisis” would be impaired by releasing the information and “significant harms” could befall the U.S. economy, as disclosure might unsettle shareholders and set off a run on the borrowing banks by worried depositors.

As WND has reported, a majority within the U.S. House called for greater transparency of the Fed by cosigning onto H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. The Act demands an audit of the Fed, a private institution that virtually controls U.S. interest rates, money supply and other economic influences.

“To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have,” wrote the bill’s sponsor, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in a recent Straight Talk commentary. “They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability.”

“The tremendous grass-roots and bipartisan support in Congress for H.R. 1207 is an indicator of how mainstream America is fed up with Fed secrecy,” said Paul. “I look forward to this issue receiving greater public exposure.”

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has also pushed in the Senate for greater transparency at the Fed.

“The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis,” DeMint said. “Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone.

“Allowing the Fed to operate our nation’s monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life,” he said, according to Reuters.

This winsome gal is one of the 10 finalists for Dallas’s 10 Most Beautiful.

Not only is she in great shape and has a lovely smile, her name gives her extra bonus points, assuming it is Straight Males doing the judging.

.

 

This lovely lasses’ name?

Why, Charity Beaver of course!

”>

Obama - violating the Logan Act - Stolen Election in Kenya 2006

Folks, pay close attention to what has been taking place around the world—rigged, stolen elections that are patently manipulated, stolen and ultimately forced on the population in question.

I’ll list just a recent few that I am aware of, and there may be more.

Once we have taken those precedents into consideration, further take into consideration recent events here at home:

1) A Leftist MSM which is completely and utterly in the bag for Obama;

2) A gathering of perhaps the most extreme Leftist and corrupt administration in recent US history;

3) Obama’s stated intention to raise his own Civilian Defense Force, just as well-funded, just as well-equipped, as our own Armed Forces;

4) The arrogation of Emergency Powers that would seize the single most important means of direct, nationwide communication;

5) The arrogation of the Census to (a corrupt) White House authority, to be administered by a repeatedly-indicted (for vote fraud) ACORN;

6) A rapid-fire series of political acts by a hostile, Leftist Congress to loot and plunder the US treasury, to emasculate national defense, to hobble and witch-hunt our intelligence community; and

7) Any of the other warning signs that Glen Beck has been telling us about….

KENYA 2006

OBAMA’S DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THIS STOLEN ELECTION  In the video above, look to his claim that the country is in crisis.

It is a common practice of tyrants to seize power under the guise of addressing a crisis.  The Nazi’s didn’t wait for one to happen, but created the Reichstag Fire and seized power in Germany under emergency powers.

During Corsi’s trip to Kenya, WND also confirmed the role of the anonymous party source in implementing an Odinga campaign strategy which the source claimed was shared with Obama’s Senate office. The strategy is described in a document titled “Executive Brief on the Positioning and Marketing of the Orange Democratic Movement & ‘The People’s President.’”

The document at one point suggests: “It is possible to trigger a class war by painting the Kibaki Government as an insensitive, uncaring group of Muthaiga Golf clubbers. Available research also suggests that this strategy could also resonate with poor kikuyu youth who feel economically marginalized by their own government. As part of this strategy the party should seek to elevate the emotions within all youth constituents who may it successful, be willing to vote for us in the protest. Visible signs of class disparity will provide important fodder for this theme.”

ZIMBABWE 2008

Claims of vote rigging

Robert Mugabe has been accused of adding ghost voters to the electoral roll. These allegations come after an order was placed for 9 million ballot papers. Zimbabwe has 5.9 million people eligible to vote. Critics also point out that the majority of polling stations were positioned in Mugabe strongholds.

Arrests and crackdowns

Following his party’s loss in the parliament, Mugabe initiated a series of arrests widely viewed as a crackdown in preparation of reinforcing his rule. The opposition leader Tsvangirai withdrew from the runoff election due to threats and violence against him and his supporters.

CNN: Tsvangirai sworn in as Zimbabwe PM (February 11, 2009)1 When the final count was released, Tsvangirai had won 47.9 percent of the vote, short of the 50 percent required to win an election outright.BBC News: Zimbabwe announces poll results (May 2, 2008)

IRAN 2009

But just as a first reaction, this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene. And here is how I would reconstruct the crime.

As the real numbers started coming into the Interior Ministry late on Friday, it became clear that Mousavi was winning. Mousavi’s spokesman abroad, filmmaker Mohsen Makhbalbaf, alleges that the ministry even contacted Mousavi’s camp and said it would begin preparing the population for this victory.

The ministry must have informed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has had a feud with Mousavi for over 30 years, who found this outcome unsupportable. And, apparently, he and other top leaders had been so confident of an Ahmadinejad win that they had made no contingency plans for what to do if he looked as though he would lose.

They therefore sent blanket instructions to the Electoral Commission to falsify the vote counts.

HONDURAS 2009

”>

Manuel Zelaya, a Hugo Chavez wannabe, was elected president of Honduras in November, 2005. He wanted to serve a second term. But there was a difficulty. Under the constitution of Honduras, the president may serve only a single four year term.

Mr. Zelaya proposed to circumvent that difficulty by holding a popular referendum on whether he should be allowed to run for a second term. But there was a difficulty with that, too.

The constitution of Honduras provides only one way for the constitution to be amended. That is by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the National Congress in two consecutive regular annual sessions.

The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled the referendum was unconstitutional, and the National Congress passed a law forbidding referenda within 180 days of a national election. (Honduras’ next is this November.) But Mr. Zelaya pressed on.

When the army—acting on an order from the Supreme Court—refused to distribute ballots for the referendum (which had been printed in Venezuela), the president fired its chief of staff. The Supreme Court unanimously declared the firing illegal, and Honduras’ attorney general asked congress to oust the president.

Push came to shove on Sunday (6/28). The army, acting on a warrant issued by the Supreme Court, arrested Mr. Zelaya and sent him into exile (in his pajamas, to Costa Rica). This was described as a “coup” by the news media, and was denounced by, among others, Hugo Chavez, who threatened military action to restore Mr. Zelaya to power, and the Obama administration.

Obama’s reaction?

Such is the obvious case with the now-exiled Honduran ex-president, the man our President has backed quickly, forthrightly, and with sharp, meddling tones.  It has come to light, too, that even before the Hondurans moved to protect their still-fledgling democracy and young constitution, the Obama Administration made behind-the-scenes, veiled threats in support of the Chavez-aligned Zelaya.

Folks, Obama has plans for the USA and he is watching 2010 even more closely than we are.

He knows that his time is limited.

He will try to cut off supplies of arms and ammunition.

He will try to cut communications.

Buy ammo—NOW

Buy shortwave radios—NOW

.. and perhaps night vision equipment ....