Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
August 13, 2010
Chuck Floyd
All states need to use facial recognition for everyone who is arrested, especially illegal aliens and individuals in the US on a Visa. Many illegals in the US use fraud, multiple identities, and fake identification cards. All people entering the US should be required to go through a facial recognition camera so we can identify them when necessary.
Facial-recognition technology might be regarded as the soul's window cleaner — at least by state officials nationwide who are increasingly using it to catch identity thieves and other fraudsters trying to get driver's licenses or other official identities. England and other countries use facial recognition in their major cities, mass transit sites, major sporting events, and airports to enhance security.
New York this year became one of more than 30 states to deploy the controversial technology at its Department of Motor Vehicles. Gov. David A. Paterson will brief reporters Tuesday on hundreds of cases the state is prosecuting as a result — including at least one that officials will tout as a major criminal apprehension. New York officials would not comment prior to the briefing, but the Empire State is just the latest in a long line to find that facial recognition can be a powerful tool to unmask identity thieves and other impostors.
Facial-recognition software automatically examines digital photographs, comparing the unique underlying structures of the face across different images — flagging suspicious matches.
Officials in Indiana, who started using the technology in November 2008, say they are finding less than half as many fraud cases this year as they did last. "It's a real deterrent," said Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Deputy Commissioner Dennis Rosebrough. Historically, he said, the state had a reputation as an easy place to fraudulently obtain a driver's license or non-driver ID. The Indianapolis Star newspaper once referred to the bureau as "A hotbed of fraud." BMV Spokesman Graig Lubsen told The Washington Times that the bureau had investigated 2,200 cases of suspected fraud in 2009, but only 451 as of the beginning of July this year. "The word is out on the street," added Mr. Rosebrough, "that it is now very difficult to get a fraudulent ID in Indiana."
Among the cases that helped scotch the state's reputation as an "easy mark," he said, was that of William Sherman Smith, known as "Big Daddy." Earlier this year, Mr. Smith pleaded guilty to federal charges of using false identification and counterfeit checks. According to Mr. Rosebrough, Mr. Smith had ID documents in 149 different names and had engaged in check-cashing and other fraud to the tune of more than $250,000.
Let's use technology to identify the criminals and terrorists.
Facial-recognition technology might be regarded as the soul's window cleaner — at least by state officials nationwide who are increasingly using it to catch identity thieves and other fraudsters trying to get driver's licenses or other official identities. England and other countries use facial recognition in their major cities, mass transit sites, major sporting events, and airports to enhance security.
New York this year became one of more than 30 states to deploy the controversial technology at its Department of Motor Vehicles. Gov. David A. Paterson will brief reporters Tuesday on hundreds of cases the state is prosecuting as a result — including at least one that officials will tout as a major criminal apprehension. New York officials would not comment prior to the briefing, but the Empire State is just the latest in a long line to find that facial recognition can be a powerful tool to unmask identity thieves and other impostors.
Facial-recognition software automatically examines digital photographs, comparing the unique underlying structures of the face across different images — flagging suspicious matches.
Officials in Indiana, who started using the technology in November 2008, say they are finding less than half as many fraud cases this year as they did last. "It's a real deterrent," said Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Deputy Commissioner Dennis Rosebrough. Historically, he said, the state had a reputation as an easy place to fraudulently obtain a driver's license or non-driver ID. The Indianapolis Star newspaper once referred to the bureau as "A hotbed of fraud." BMV Spokesman Graig Lubsen told The Washington Times that the bureau had investigated 2,200 cases of suspected fraud in 2009, but only 451 as of the beginning of July this year. "The word is out on the street," added Mr. Rosebrough, "that it is now very difficult to get a fraudulent ID in Indiana."
Among the cases that helped scotch the state's reputation as an "easy mark," he said, was that of William Sherman Smith, known as "Big Daddy." Earlier this year, Mr. Smith pleaded guilty to federal charges of using false identification and counterfeit checks. According to Mr. Rosebrough, Mr. Smith had ID documents in 149 different names and had engaged in check-cashing and other fraud to the tune of more than $250,000.
Let's use technology to identify the criminals and terrorists.
-
0
August 12, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Do you know the history of Social Security? If not, this is a must read. Social security was designed to help the elderly live once they retired, but be the sole source of income. Social Security was supposed to be put in a "Lock Box" for retirement, but over the years Democrat politicians have entirely changed the Social Security system.
We are getting the same "bull, promises, lip-service, and lies" from the current Democrats in Congress concerning the health care law that they passed. Now that the bill has been passed, we are realizing what was in the bill....
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" was printed on the card.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the SocialSecurity (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. The current Democrats targeted George Bush on Social Security changes and issues, but now they want to raise the age of retirees. Wow!!!!!!!
We are getting the same "bull, promises, lip-service, and lies" from the current Democrats in Congress concerning the health care law that they passed. Now that the bill has been passed, we are realizing what was in the bill....
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" was printed on the card.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the SocialSecurity (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. The current Democrats targeted George Bush on Social Security changes and issues, but now they want to raise the age of retirees. Wow!!!!!!!
-
0
August 06, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Every home owner should be "pissed-off" at Obama and the Democrats who helped pass ObamaCare.
Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don't kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama's re-election bid). So funding Freddie and Fannie with billions of tax payer's dollars is not enough, we now have to fund health care for the masses.
You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this new tax. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. I guess this is what Pelosi meant when she said, "We have to pass it so we know what is in it". Do you feel screwed yet by this "hope and change"? Give me George Bush any day to Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress.
This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this Hope & Change great or what? I guess we have to vote out this crowd so we can have elected officials who represent us--the American tax payer--and not the socialist crowd.
Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few congressman that aren't aware of it either. There are a many other surprises and taxes lurking in this health care bill that nobody read.
Let's elect men and women who read bills and know what they are voting on before they vote. We need fiscal conservatives in Congress and a leader in the White House.
Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don't kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama's re-election bid). So funding Freddie and Fannie with billions of tax payer's dollars is not enough, we now have to fund health care for the masses.
You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this new tax. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. I guess this is what Pelosi meant when she said, "We have to pass it so we know what is in it". Do you feel screwed yet by this "hope and change"? Give me George Bush any day to Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress.
This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this Hope & Change great or what? I guess we have to vote out this crowd so we can have elected officials who represent us--the American tax payer--and not the socialist crowd.
Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few congressman that aren't aware of it either. There are a many other surprises and taxes lurking in this health care bill that nobody read.
Let's elect men and women who read bills and know what they are voting on before they vote. We need fiscal conservatives in Congress and a leader in the White House.
-
0
July 29, 2010
Chuck Floyd
As a retired US Army officer, I find the Obama administration and all Democrats are interested in blocking the votes of members of the military. This problem has been around for several years and President Bush tried to correct the situation, but liberal Democrats blocked his efforts since they do not want the military voting--since they usually vote "conservative". The Obama Department of In-Justice wants felons and illegals voting in our elections, but not the members of our military.
Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.
Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won't have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 - but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.
The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section - 2,314 words - to advising felons how to regain voting privileges.
As confirmed by The Washington Times last week, Justice Department official Rebecca Wertz told a Feb. 1 conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State that the new law's requirements are somehow open to interpretation. On July 28, an attendee at that conference - heretofore uninterviewed - told The Washington Times that Ms. Wertz's message was "totally undermining" the law. The earlier reports actually underplayed the effect of Ms. Wertz's comments. "It was even more pronounced at the meeting," said the source. "She undermined [the law] right in front of everybody. When I heard what she was saying, I thought: 'You've got to be kidding!' ... It was a clear reversal of roles for Justice to no longer be enforcing the law."
The voting rights for members of the military who are in harm's way and are deployed to protect our freedoms should be top priority, but under a Democrat controlled Congress and White House, do not want our military voting due to politics. If black or Hispanic voters were treated in this manner, the ACLU, NAACP, and other social organizations would be suing the federal government and targeting our elected leaders. Is race and social justice better now with Obama's hope and change? Guess not.
Protect our military voters so they right to vote is protected.
Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.
Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won't have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 - but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.
The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section - 2,314 words - to advising felons how to regain voting privileges.
As confirmed by The Washington Times last week, Justice Department official Rebecca Wertz told a Feb. 1 conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State that the new law's requirements are somehow open to interpretation. On July 28, an attendee at that conference - heretofore uninterviewed - told The Washington Times that Ms. Wertz's message was "totally undermining" the law. The earlier reports actually underplayed the effect of Ms. Wertz's comments. "It was even more pronounced at the meeting," said the source. "She undermined [the law] right in front of everybody. When I heard what she was saying, I thought: 'You've got to be kidding!' ... It was a clear reversal of roles for Justice to no longer be enforcing the law."
The voting rights for members of the military who are in harm's way and are deployed to protect our freedoms should be top priority, but under a Democrat controlled Congress and White House, do not want our military voting due to politics. If black or Hispanic voters were treated in this manner, the ACLU, NAACP, and other social organizations would be suing the federal government and targeting our elected leaders. Is race and social justice better now with Obama's hope and change? Guess not.
Protect our military voters so they right to vote is protected.
-
0
July 28, 2010
Chuck Floyd
President Obama and his liberal Democrats have again thrown American citizens under the bus for the sake of politics and the "vote". Instead of helping the citizens of Arizona, Obama and his crowd are saying that Hispanics do not have to live by our laws. Obama has used race to divide our country and has supported blacks and browns over whites at every corner.
His Justice Department is being used to hlep his friends and those who voted for him, not the average American. An example is Mr. Tom Perez from Montgomery County who has pushed for the government not to enforce its immigration laws, but what do we expect out of this very liberal and socialist administration.
Criminal and illegal aliens are now given a green light to cross our border since the federal government will not enforce the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer promised an expedited appeal Wednesday after a federal judge in Phoenix blocked the state's new immigration law, saying the provisions place too many burdens on legal immigrants, citizens and the federal government. If the local police force helped the feds, the criminal elements would be reduced. We all have to work together to stop drug smugglers, human traffickers, and the illegals coming acros our borders unchecked.
Mrs. Bewer said she will "battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona." American citizens are angry and upset at the Obama legal action against them and going after drug smugglers and human traffickers. We support her---not Obama. Mr. Obama uses race against his political foes and all white citizens. From his actions, he has supported blacks and browns over whites in every situation from the Black Panthers to the Harvard professor.
Earlier Wednesday Judge Susan R. Bolton, a Clinton appointee who sits in Phoenix, said requiring police to check the immigration status of those they arrest or whom they stop and suspect are in the country illegally would overwhelm the federal government's ability to respond, and could mean legal immigrants are wrongly arrested. The federal governmen tcan do their job and the illegals must not over-run our police system.
"Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona," Judge Bolton wrote, granting some of the Obama administration's request for a preliminary injunction to keep the law from going into effect while court proceedings continue.
The key parts of the law put on hold required police to check the immigration status of anyone they stopped who they suspected of being in the country illegally, and required legal immigrants to carry proof of residency. Individuals who come to this country legally MUST carry their papers with them at all times so why give Hispanics a pass?
The judge did leave in place a new penalty for anyone who transports, harbors, or encourages an illegal immigrant to come into Arizona, and also left requirements that require state officials cooperate with federal authorities to remove illegal immigrants.
The Arizona law has become a major dividing point in the national immigration debate. Polls suggest popular approval of the law and opposition to the administration's lawsuit. But the administration has vehemently fought the law, arguing it is unconstitutional because only the federal government can write immigration rules. Local police must help the feds in enforcing the law--this will in the long run reduce the local police workload.
Mr. Obama---start doing your job and stop using race as an excuse to not enforcing our laws. You have a history of not working for justice or enforcing the law. We, the American people, will not tolerate your actions and we will remove you from office.
His Justice Department is being used to hlep his friends and those who voted for him, not the average American. An example is Mr. Tom Perez from Montgomery County who has pushed for the government not to enforce its immigration laws, but what do we expect out of this very liberal and socialist administration.
Criminal and illegal aliens are now given a green light to cross our border since the federal government will not enforce the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer promised an expedited appeal Wednesday after a federal judge in Phoenix blocked the state's new immigration law, saying the provisions place too many burdens on legal immigrants, citizens and the federal government. If the local police force helped the feds, the criminal elements would be reduced. We all have to work together to stop drug smugglers, human traffickers, and the illegals coming acros our borders unchecked.
Mrs. Bewer said she will "battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona." American citizens are angry and upset at the Obama legal action against them and going after drug smugglers and human traffickers. We support her---not Obama. Mr. Obama uses race against his political foes and all white citizens. From his actions, he has supported blacks and browns over whites in every situation from the Black Panthers to the Harvard professor.
Earlier Wednesday Judge Susan R. Bolton, a Clinton appointee who sits in Phoenix, said requiring police to check the immigration status of those they arrest or whom they stop and suspect are in the country illegally would overwhelm the federal government's ability to respond, and could mean legal immigrants are wrongly arrested. The federal governmen tcan do their job and the illegals must not over-run our police system.
"Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona," Judge Bolton wrote, granting some of the Obama administration's request for a preliminary injunction to keep the law from going into effect while court proceedings continue.
The key parts of the law put on hold required police to check the immigration status of anyone they stopped who they suspected of being in the country illegally, and required legal immigrants to carry proof of residency. Individuals who come to this country legally MUST carry their papers with them at all times so why give Hispanics a pass?
The judge did leave in place a new penalty for anyone who transports, harbors, or encourages an illegal immigrant to come into Arizona, and also left requirements that require state officials cooperate with federal authorities to remove illegal immigrants.
The Arizona law has become a major dividing point in the national immigration debate. Polls suggest popular approval of the law and opposition to the administration's lawsuit. But the administration has vehemently fought the law, arguing it is unconstitutional because only the federal government can write immigration rules. Local police must help the feds in enforcing the law--this will in the long run reduce the local police workload.
Mr. Obama---start doing your job and stop using race as an excuse to not enforcing our laws. You have a history of not working for justice or enforcing the law. We, the American people, will not tolerate your actions and we will remove you from office.
-
0
July 18, 2010
Chuck Floyd
The Obama administration and the Secretary of DHS say that our southern border is secure and there is little cross-border violence. Really? Why is Arizona tops in the nation with human trafficking, kidnapping, and car thefts? Why is Texas having so many criminal issues and American citizens being killed, raped, or threatened? I contend that our southern border is more violent than the borders in Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan.
The first successful car bombing by a drug cartel brings a new dimension of terror to a Mexican border region already shocked by random street battles, bodies dangling from bridges and highway checkpoints mounted by heavily armed criminals. Look at the types of weapons and the no-prisoner mentality of the drug cartels.
The attack, seemingly lifted from an al-Qaida playbook, demonstrated once again that the cartels are a step ahead of both an already guarded public and federal police, who have recently taken over command from the military of the battle against traffickers in Ciudad Juarez, a city across the border from El Paso, Texas. "It's a lot like Iraq," said Claudio Arjon, who owns a restaurant near the scene of the attack and was surveying the damage from behind police lines Saturday morning. "Now, things are very different. It's very different. It's very ugly."
People in Ciudad Juarez already live under siege. Like many restaurant owners, Arjon closes his business long before dark every day to avoid criminal gangs that threaten him and his clientele. Parents take separate cars to the same place so one can warn the other of dangers up ahead. Ambulance drivers and emergency room doctors come under fire from gang members trying to finish off wounded rivals.
A street gang tied to the Juarez cartel lured federal officers and paramedics to the site of the bomb by dressing a bound, wounded man in a police uniform and calling in a false report of an officer shot, said Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes. Among the three people killed was a private doctor who rushed to the scene to help treat the wounded man. Among the injured was a local TV cameraman who had been filming the paramedics treating the man. Even in a country where beheadings and drive-by shootings are routine, they could not imagine the cartels would choose that vulnerable moment to strike.
Federal police said the bombing attack was in retaliation for the arrest earlier in the day of a top leader of the La Linea gang, which works for the Juarez drug cartel. Investigators were still trying to determine what type of explosives the attackers used. Brig. Gen. Eduardo Zarate, the commander of the regional military zone, said as much as 22 pounds (10 kilograms) of explosives might have been used. He said it might have been detonated remotely, adding that burned batteries connecting to a mobile phone were found at the scene.
A senior U.S. law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the Mexican investigation is ongoing, said it is possible Mexican drug cartels were receiving bomb training from foreign groups — but it is just as likely they are learning on their own. "They could be looking at the Internet, and there are publications out there," he said. The cartels have an amazing intelligence capability and they are far ahead of law enforcement. DHS has captured unknown persons on the border from terrorist countries.
Last month, cartel gunmen killed 12 federal police in the western state of Michoacan. A jailed suspect later described the carefully planned ambush to police, making it clear the gang knew exactly where the police patrol was going to be and when. Also, a US embassy person was killed due to her issuing visas to drug runners.
And in another first, suspected cartel gunmen assassinated two candidates during campaigning last month for local and state elections, including the leading contender for governor of the northern border state of Tamaulipas. Never before had drug gangs killed such a high-ranking electoral candidate. Hand grenades and many other military type weapons are being used---which requires our US military to be an enforcer on our southern border.
Is our southern border really safe Mr. President and Madam Secretary?
The first successful car bombing by a drug cartel brings a new dimension of terror to a Mexican border region already shocked by random street battles, bodies dangling from bridges and highway checkpoints mounted by heavily armed criminals. Look at the types of weapons and the no-prisoner mentality of the drug cartels.
The attack, seemingly lifted from an al-Qaida playbook, demonstrated once again that the cartels are a step ahead of both an already guarded public and federal police, who have recently taken over command from the military of the battle against traffickers in Ciudad Juarez, a city across the border from El Paso, Texas. "It's a lot like Iraq," said Claudio Arjon, who owns a restaurant near the scene of the attack and was surveying the damage from behind police lines Saturday morning. "Now, things are very different. It's very different. It's very ugly."
People in Ciudad Juarez already live under siege. Like many restaurant owners, Arjon closes his business long before dark every day to avoid criminal gangs that threaten him and his clientele. Parents take separate cars to the same place so one can warn the other of dangers up ahead. Ambulance drivers and emergency room doctors come under fire from gang members trying to finish off wounded rivals.
A street gang tied to the Juarez cartel lured federal officers and paramedics to the site of the bomb by dressing a bound, wounded man in a police uniform and calling in a false report of an officer shot, said Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes. Among the three people killed was a private doctor who rushed to the scene to help treat the wounded man. Among the injured was a local TV cameraman who had been filming the paramedics treating the man. Even in a country where beheadings and drive-by shootings are routine, they could not imagine the cartels would choose that vulnerable moment to strike.
Federal police said the bombing attack was in retaliation for the arrest earlier in the day of a top leader of the La Linea gang, which works for the Juarez drug cartel. Investigators were still trying to determine what type of explosives the attackers used. Brig. Gen. Eduardo Zarate, the commander of the regional military zone, said as much as 22 pounds (10 kilograms) of explosives might have been used. He said it might have been detonated remotely, adding that burned batteries connecting to a mobile phone were found at the scene.
A senior U.S. law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the Mexican investigation is ongoing, said it is possible Mexican drug cartels were receiving bomb training from foreign groups — but it is just as likely they are learning on their own. "They could be looking at the Internet, and there are publications out there," he said. The cartels have an amazing intelligence capability and they are far ahead of law enforcement. DHS has captured unknown persons on the border from terrorist countries.
Last month, cartel gunmen killed 12 federal police in the western state of Michoacan. A jailed suspect later described the carefully planned ambush to police, making it clear the gang knew exactly where the police patrol was going to be and when. Also, a US embassy person was killed due to her issuing visas to drug runners.
And in another first, suspected cartel gunmen assassinated two candidates during campaigning last month for local and state elections, including the leading contender for governor of the northern border state of Tamaulipas. Never before had drug gangs killed such a high-ranking electoral candidate. Hand grenades and many other military type weapons are being used---which requires our US military to be an enforcer on our southern border.
Is our southern border really safe Mr. President and Madam Secretary?
-
0
July 17, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Obama and his Anti-American Holder Justice Department are not enforcing the immigration laws, but are targeting US citizens in Arizona. With Democrat controlled states or cities where "illegal immigrant" sanctuary is the policy, the Justice Department says that they are safe and will not be a target of the federal government.
Again, Obama is again playing politics and not enforcing the law. He is catering to the illegals who he hopes will vote for him and the Democrat Party through fraud (...but they do not care about our Constitution). A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state's immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that "actively interferes."
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws thinks the administration is misreading the statute and that sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law. Drawing a distinction between those localities and Arizona, he said, is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law, who fail to comply with the law is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws will not face lawsuits like Arizona, which has passed a law on illegal immigrants. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws will not face lawsuits like Arizona, which has passed a law on illegal immigrants.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other critics said that sanctuary cities--localities that refuse to check on someone's legal status or won't alert immigration authorities when they encounter illegal immigrants-- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork of laws, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Once again,The White House is just plain wrong on the law since the Arizona law mirrors federal law and Obama is just trying to gain more support with Hispanics.
Sanctuary policies encourage more criminal, human trafficking, and drug violence in our cities and nation. We must put our military on the border to control our borders and start targeting illegals so they do not get jobs or any government support from the tax payers.
Again, Obama is again playing politics and not enforcing the law. He is catering to the illegals who he hopes will vote for him and the Democrat Party through fraud (...but they do not care about our Constitution). A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state's immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that "actively interferes."
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws thinks the administration is misreading the statute and that sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law. Drawing a distinction between those localities and Arizona, he said, is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law, who fail to comply with the law is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws will not face lawsuits like Arizona, which has passed a law on illegal immigrants. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws will not face lawsuits like Arizona, which has passed a law on illegal immigrants.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other critics said that sanctuary cities--localities that refuse to check on someone's legal status or won't alert immigration authorities when they encounter illegal immigrants-- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork of laws, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Once again,The White House is just plain wrong on the law since the Arizona law mirrors federal law and Obama is just trying to gain more support with Hispanics.
Sanctuary policies encourage more criminal, human trafficking, and drug violence in our cities and nation. We must put our military on the border to control our borders and start targeting illegals so they do not get jobs or any government support from the tax payers.
-
0
July 14, 2010
Chuck Floyd
The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. General Petraeus is a talented military leader, but now he has to walk the fine line of winning a war and cow-towing to the liberal left Obama administration. The American people want the US to kill the Islamic terrorist, stablize the Afghan government, and come home as "winning the war".
John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group. However, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.
The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member. Currently, the Obama administration is telling the military that they have to call the Islamic terrorists----thugs. Yes, they are now thugs, just like thugs in American cities.
Mr. Brennan on May 26 told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
In a speech that also severed the Obama administration from President George W. Bush's "war on terror," Mr. Brennan also said: "The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."
Asked about the discrepancy between the White House policy and the military's counterinsurgency doctrine, Michael Hammer, Mr. Brennan's spokesman, said "We don't have anything to add to John's speech." Larry Korb, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress, said Mr. Brennan is correct to avoid linking Islam to terrorism. "Once you attach a religious thing, you're basically saying somehow or other this is caused by the religion," Mr. Korb said. "Most Muslims are not that way."
He added, "If you put that term [Islamic terrorist] on there, it causes you more problems in the long run. You don't want to see this as a war on quote unquote the Muslim world. If I took a look at all the people, for example, who killed abortion doctors and I said they're Christian terrorists, or something like that, and they are all who have done that. That is their interpretation of the Bible. But most people are not. Some of these people will quote the Bible and say I had to go after this doctor because he's killing innocents."
This administration is putting American lives at risk by this insane policy and bowing to the Islamic terrorists. Who's side is the administration on? Just like supporting the illegal immigrants and drug runners coming across our southern border, the administration is targeting the citizens of Arizona--not the criminals or terrorists who are coming across our border.
John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group. However, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.
The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member. Currently, the Obama administration is telling the military that they have to call the Islamic terrorists----thugs. Yes, they are now thugs, just like thugs in American cities.
Mr. Brennan on May 26 told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
In a speech that also severed the Obama administration from President George W. Bush's "war on terror," Mr. Brennan also said: "The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."
Asked about the discrepancy between the White House policy and the military's counterinsurgency doctrine, Michael Hammer, Mr. Brennan's spokesman, said "We don't have anything to add to John's speech." Larry Korb, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress, said Mr. Brennan is correct to avoid linking Islam to terrorism. "Once you attach a religious thing, you're basically saying somehow or other this is caused by the religion," Mr. Korb said. "Most Muslims are not that way."
He added, "If you put that term [Islamic terrorist] on there, it causes you more problems in the long run. You don't want to see this as a war on quote unquote the Muslim world. If I took a look at all the people, for example, who killed abortion doctors and I said they're Christian terrorists, or something like that, and they are all who have done that. That is their interpretation of the Bible. But most people are not. Some of these people will quote the Bible and say I had to go after this doctor because he's killing innocents."
This administration is putting American lives at risk by this insane policy and bowing to the Islamic terrorists. Who's side is the administration on? Just like supporting the illegal immigrants and drug runners coming across our southern border, the administration is targeting the citizens of Arizona--not the criminals or terrorists who are coming across our border.
-
0
July 11, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Governors across the nation must be in control of their budgets and not rely on the federal government to bail them out. Most of the states that are in financial trouble are run by Democrats who have a very liberal and social agenda. They spend money on very liberal union contracts, social programs, and support illegal immigrants. They need to focus on the mission of the state government and do those functions that contribute to public safety and local government functions.
Governors hamstrung by the sluggish economic rebound in their states and bound to balance their own budgets are pressing anew for Washington to step up with more help, some say even if it means adding to the nation's red ink. We do not want the federal government to borrow more money from China to bail out irresponsible states.
Republicans and Democrats alike wrestled with how to capitalize on a fledgling rebound as they talked dollars and sense at their summer meeting just days into a new state budget year and as the economy shapes dozens of gubernatorial races across the country.
"All states still are facing tough fiscal situations even though I do believe we're in recovery," said West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat who's taking over as chairman of the National Governors Association.
Added Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., the outgoing chairman: "Governors have done what is necessary to get through this" — repeatedly cutting budgets, restructuring government, laying off workers and draining rainy day funds.
But both men said states can't continue to climb out of the recession alone, and the NGA renewed its bipartisan appeal for Congress to pass stalled jobs legislation that includes billions of dollars in aid to states. The money the federal government has spent has not added jobs to the economy due to the administration's socialist policies.
Just days before the new budget year began in states July 1, the House and Senate failed to complete legislation that would have extended, through June 2011, important parts of the federal stimulus program enacted last year to provide unemployment insurance and help offset recession-driven cuts to education, health care and public safety.
The measure offered $35.5 billion for unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and $16 billion for Medicaid, the public health care program for the poor. It also would have added an estimated $33 billion to the deficit. This money is not needed.
Bank loans to small business and business-friendly polices are needed. Control of state and the federal budgets are now required.
Governors hamstrung by the sluggish economic rebound in their states and bound to balance their own budgets are pressing anew for Washington to step up with more help, some say even if it means adding to the nation's red ink. We do not want the federal government to borrow more money from China to bail out irresponsible states.
Republicans and Democrats alike wrestled with how to capitalize on a fledgling rebound as they talked dollars and sense at their summer meeting just days into a new state budget year and as the economy shapes dozens of gubernatorial races across the country.
"All states still are facing tough fiscal situations even though I do believe we're in recovery," said West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat who's taking over as chairman of the National Governors Association.
Added Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., the outgoing chairman: "Governors have done what is necessary to get through this" — repeatedly cutting budgets, restructuring government, laying off workers and draining rainy day funds.
But both men said states can't continue to climb out of the recession alone, and the NGA renewed its bipartisan appeal for Congress to pass stalled jobs legislation that includes billions of dollars in aid to states. The money the federal government has spent has not added jobs to the economy due to the administration's socialist policies.
Just days before the new budget year began in states July 1, the House and Senate failed to complete legislation that would have extended, through June 2011, important parts of the federal stimulus program enacted last year to provide unemployment insurance and help offset recession-driven cuts to education, health care and public safety.
The measure offered $35.5 billion for unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and $16 billion for Medicaid, the public health care program for the poor. It also would have added an estimated $33 billion to the deficit. This money is not needed.
Bank loans to small business and business-friendly polices are needed. Control of state and the federal budgets are now required.
-
0
July 10, 2010
Chuck Floyd
We wish Iraq well in the formation of their new government. Iraq is an example of what can be accomplished in the Middle East. Democracy and security are priority for the citizens of Iraq in order to get back to a normal life. People in Iraq want peace and a safe place to live with their families. All Muslims must fight the Islamic terrorists who threaten their countries and their citizens.
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Friday that the formation of an Iraqi government was near, four months after an inconclusive election threw the fledgling democracy into its latest political stalemate.
"We hope to form the government in August," said Mr. Allawi, whose secular and Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc narrowly won the most seats in the March 7 vote. "The negotiations between the political groups entered their last phase, and we wish to close this file as soon as possible."
Mr. Allawi made the comments in Beirut after meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
While several questions remain unresolved -- among them, who will be the next prime minister -- any governing coalition is expected to include Mr. Allawi's bloc; incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law alliance; the Iranian-aligned Iraqi National Alliance (INA); and the Kurdish alliance. Combined, the four parties won 293 out of the 325 seats in the Iraqi parliament.
After the election, Mr. al-Maliki's group merged with the third-place INA, giving the super-bloc 159 seats -- four shy of a majority. Since then, Mr. al-Maliki and Mr. Allawi have argued over who has the right to lead the next government.
Last weekend, Vice President Joe Biden urged Iraq's leaders to end the impasse on a visit to Baghdad. They are learning that Democracy is not easy---just like here in the United States.
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Friday that the formation of an Iraqi government was near, four months after an inconclusive election threw the fledgling democracy into its latest political stalemate.
"We hope to form the government in August," said Mr. Allawi, whose secular and Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc narrowly won the most seats in the March 7 vote. "The negotiations between the political groups entered their last phase, and we wish to close this file as soon as possible."
Mr. Allawi made the comments in Beirut after meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
While several questions remain unresolved -- among them, who will be the next prime minister -- any governing coalition is expected to include Mr. Allawi's bloc; incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law alliance; the Iranian-aligned Iraqi National Alliance (INA); and the Kurdish alliance. Combined, the four parties won 293 out of the 325 seats in the Iraqi parliament.
After the election, Mr. al-Maliki's group merged with the third-place INA, giving the super-bloc 159 seats -- four shy of a majority. Since then, Mr. al-Maliki and Mr. Allawi have argued over who has the right to lead the next government.
Last weekend, Vice President Joe Biden urged Iraq's leaders to end the impasse on a visit to Baghdad. They are learning that Democracy is not easy---just like here in the United States.
-
0
July 10, 2010
Chuck Floyd
'WHO AM I'*
I was born in one country, raised in another.
My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child.
He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.
My mother died at an early age from cancer.
Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me,
I later wrote a book idolizing my father not my mother.
Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy.
No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity,
as it was widely accepted in my new country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn't follow Christianity,
except in the public eye under scrutiny.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.
It was clear to those who read my memoirs,
that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics in my 30's then,
with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s.
They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history,
and no experience in leading a single organization.
Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me,
as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy...
I was very critical of my country in the last war,
and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
But what launched my rise to national prominence were my
views on the country's economy.
I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better, and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
It was the free market, banks and corporations.
I decided to start making citizens hate them and,
if they became envious of others who did well,
the plan was clinched tight.
I called mine "A People's Campaign".
That sounded good to all people.
I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside
the traditional path of politics and was able to gain
widespread popular support.
I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope',
together we could change our country and the world.
So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on
behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities".
My true views were not widely known and I kept them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.
I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
I'm glad they didn't.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world.
And the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
ADOLF HITLER, STALIN, FDR, GEORGE BUSH....
*If you were thinking*
*BARACK OBAMA*
**
*You Should Be Scared, Very Scared! *
How's that Hope and Change working for you???? Um, um, um....
I was born in one country, raised in another.
My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child.
He fathered several children with numerous women.
I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.
My mother died at an early age from cancer.
Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me,
I later wrote a book idolizing my father not my mother.
Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy.
No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity,
as it was widely accepted in my new country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn't follow Christianity,
except in the public eye under scrutiny.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.
It was clear to those who read my memoirs,
that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics in my 30's then,
with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s.
They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything.
I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history,
and no experience in leading a single organization.
Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me,
as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy...
I was very critical of my country in the last war,
and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
But what launched my rise to national prominence were my
views on the country's economy.
I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better, and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
It was the free market, banks and corporations.
I decided to start making citizens hate them and,
if they became envious of others who did well,
the plan was clinched tight.
I called mine "A People's Campaign".
That sounded good to all people.
I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside
the traditional path of politics and was able to gain
widespread popular support.
I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope',
together we could change our country and the world.
So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on
behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities".
My true views were not widely known and I kept them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.
I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
I'm glad they didn't.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world.
And the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
ADOLF HITLER, STALIN, FDR, GEORGE BUSH....
*If you were thinking*
*BARACK OBAMA*
**
*You Should Be Scared, Very Scared! *
How's that Hope and Change working for you???? Um, um, um....
-
0
July 06, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Obama and the DOJ have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to enforcing our borders and protecting legal American citizens. They are are the side of illegal aliens---not law abiding US citizens.
The federal government took a momentous step into the immigration debate Tuesday when it filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants, calling it a law that blatantly violates the Constitution. The Arizona law enforced federal law and Obama is paying back all of the illegals and Hispanics that voted for him--what an idoit for a President. Where is DHS in securing the border?
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states rights at a time when politicians across the country have indicated they want to follow Arizona's lead on the toughest-in-the-nation immigration law.
The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona's action, declaring that the law will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while altogether ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations.
Supporters of the law say the suit was an unnecessary action by the federal government after years of neglecting problems at the border. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the lawsuit "a terribly bad decision."
Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
Other states have said they want to take similar action — a scenario the government cited as a reason for bringing the lawsuit.
"The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the suit says.
The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a theory that says federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says there are comprehensive federal laws on the books that cover illegal immigration — and that those statutes take precedent.
"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."
The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law struck down.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents.
"It's outrageous and it's clear they don't want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said. "They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths" tied to border-related violence.
The lawsuit is sure to have legal and political ramifications beyond Arizona as the courts weigh in on balancing power between the states and the federal government and politicians invoke the immigration issue in this crucial election year.
Reflecting the political delicacy of the issue, three Democratic members of Congress in Arizona asked the Obama administration not to bring the suit in a year when they face tough re-election battles. On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain is locked into a tough primary fight as his right-leaning GOP challenger takes him to task for his earlier promotion of comprehensive immigration reform, which he has since abandoned in favor of a message to "Complete the danged fence."
The case focuses heavily on the legal argument called pre-emption — an issue that has been around since the Founding Fathers declared that the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the land."
The Obama administration's reliance on the pre-emption argument in the Arizona case marks the latest chapter in its use of this legal tool.
Within months of taking office, the Obama White House directed department heads to undertake pre-emption of state law only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states.
The 2009 directive was aimed at reversing Bush administration policy which had aggressively employed preemption in an effort to undermine a wide range of state health, safety and environmental laws.
"The case strikes me as incredibly important because of its implications for the immigration debate," said University of Michigan constitutional law professor Julian Davis Mortenson. "The courts are going to take a close look at whether the Arizona law conflicts with congressional objectives at the federal level."
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
Obama is playing Chicago style politics and is attacking the voters and US citizens who did not vote for him. Just like the Black Panther case, he is siding with the criminals. Mr. Obama---be a real President and enforce the laws for US citizens.
The federal government took a momentous step into the immigration debate Tuesday when it filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants, calling it a law that blatantly violates the Constitution. The Arizona law enforced federal law and Obama is paying back all of the illegals and Hispanics that voted for him--what an idoit for a President. Where is DHS in securing the border?
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states rights at a time when politicians across the country have indicated they want to follow Arizona's lead on the toughest-in-the-nation immigration law.
The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona's action, declaring that the law will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while altogether ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations.
Supporters of the law say the suit was an unnecessary action by the federal government after years of neglecting problems at the border. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the lawsuit "a terribly bad decision."
Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
Other states have said they want to take similar action — a scenario the government cited as a reason for bringing the lawsuit.
"The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the suit says.
The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a theory that says federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says there are comprehensive federal laws on the books that cover illegal immigration — and that those statutes take precedent.
"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."
The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law struck down.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents.
"It's outrageous and it's clear they don't want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said. "They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths" tied to border-related violence.
The lawsuit is sure to have legal and political ramifications beyond Arizona as the courts weigh in on balancing power between the states and the federal government and politicians invoke the immigration issue in this crucial election year.
Reflecting the political delicacy of the issue, three Democratic members of Congress in Arizona asked the Obama administration not to bring the suit in a year when they face tough re-election battles. On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain is locked into a tough primary fight as his right-leaning GOP challenger takes him to task for his earlier promotion of comprehensive immigration reform, which he has since abandoned in favor of a message to "Complete the danged fence."
The case focuses heavily on the legal argument called pre-emption — an issue that has been around since the Founding Fathers declared that the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the land."
The Obama administration's reliance on the pre-emption argument in the Arizona case marks the latest chapter in its use of this legal tool.
Within months of taking office, the Obama White House directed department heads to undertake pre-emption of state law only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states.
The 2009 directive was aimed at reversing Bush administration policy which had aggressively employed preemption in an effort to undermine a wide range of state health, safety and environmental laws.
"The case strikes me as incredibly important because of its implications for the immigration debate," said University of Michigan constitutional law professor Julian Davis Mortenson. "The courts are going to take a close look at whether the Arizona law conflicts with congressional objectives at the federal level."
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
Obama is playing Chicago style politics and is attacking the voters and US citizens who did not vote for him. Just like the Black Panther case, he is siding with the criminals. Mr. Obama---be a real President and enforce the laws for US citizens.
-
0
June 19, 2010
Chuck Floyd
I'm an older American adult. I've worked since I was 9 on our farm and general country store. I am retired from the US Army and have owned businesses. I believe our country is heading for socialism under the current administration and I am tired of the actions of the US Congress and Obama.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic and do not want to work and be responsible for themselves.
I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it. The Bush tax cuts will stop and new Obama taxes will be implemented.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years,if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico,the tolerance for Christian people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela.
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and not a bigger socialist type of government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News?
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. We want people to enter the US legally and who can speak English, don't have a criminal record and who are self-supporting without yjeir family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet. I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing. I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Finally, I am tired of politicians who are self-serving and make a career out of political office. The ones who are spending money we do not have and borrow it from China, who cannot make decisions for the benefit of the nation, and the ones who do not enforce the law.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic and do not want to work and be responsible for themselves.
I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it. The Bush tax cuts will stop and new Obama taxes will be implemented.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years,if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico,the tolerance for Christian people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela.
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and not a bigger socialist type of government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News?
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. We want people to enter the US legally and who can speak English, don't have a criminal record and who are self-supporting without yjeir family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet. I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing. I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Finally, I am tired of politicians who are self-serving and make a career out of political office. The ones who are spending money we do not have and borrow it from China, who cannot make decisions for the benefit of the nation, and the ones who do not enforce the law.
-
0
June 16, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Both BP and the Obama administration are lying to the American people about the Gulf Oil spill. They have covered up the amount of oil being released into the Gulf, the clean-up efforts, time to fix the leak, and what substances are really coming out of the hole. Crude oil is black, yet this substances coming from the pipe are brown, yellow, and different colors. From the very start of this crisis, we have not been told the truth.
President Obama on Tuesday blamed BP's "recklessness" for the oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, vowed to make the company pay for the damage, and said the worst environmental crisis in U.S. history must force the country to move to energy independence. Why not also blame the federal government for forcing oil companies to drill in depths that a human cannot get to in order to fix a problem? Why is the pressure from this oil well so great--did they hit something besides an oil well?
Mr. Obama tried to assure Americans that he is on top of the cleanup effort, though he acknowledged the spill has "tested the limits of human technology." But he stopped short of setting a deadline or offering details of what he wants to see in energy legislation, leaving Congress to take the lead on yet another major part of his agenda. He offered no solutions for stopping the oil leak, except for months away by drilling relief wells.
He called for an escrow fund, paid for by BP, that will compensate those who live along the coast and whose livelihoods have been affected by the spill, and he promised to carry out a long-term restoration plan to repair an entire region that he said is still recovering from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Mr. Obama said Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former Mississippi governor, will head the reconstruction effort, consulting broadly with governments, communities and businesses in the affected regions. Again, Obama does not have solutions, but is trying to take over more businesses and wanting more regulations.
Currently, BP is capped for damages it must pay so who will really pay the cost of this oil spill over the next 20 years? And despite the huge projected environmental and economic costs related to the spill, Mr. Obama added, "We will make BP pay."
Government scientists said Tuesday that they estimate far more oil could be leaking into the Gulf than originally thought. The new estimate is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels of oil per day, much higher than the previous guess of between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels. The administration says 15,000 to 17,000 barrels of leaked oil are being contained daily.
Obama is supposed to meet the CEO of BP, but this will not solve this crisis. The entire Gulf region from Texas to Florida and even the Eastern Seaboard will be affected by this oil spill. It will take 20 years to recover if we ever do. Tell the American people the truth.
President Obama on Tuesday blamed BP's "recklessness" for the oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, vowed to make the company pay for the damage, and said the worst environmental crisis in U.S. history must force the country to move to energy independence. Why not also blame the federal government for forcing oil companies to drill in depths that a human cannot get to in order to fix a problem? Why is the pressure from this oil well so great--did they hit something besides an oil well?
Mr. Obama tried to assure Americans that he is on top of the cleanup effort, though he acknowledged the spill has "tested the limits of human technology." But he stopped short of setting a deadline or offering details of what he wants to see in energy legislation, leaving Congress to take the lead on yet another major part of his agenda. He offered no solutions for stopping the oil leak, except for months away by drilling relief wells.
He called for an escrow fund, paid for by BP, that will compensate those who live along the coast and whose livelihoods have been affected by the spill, and he promised to carry out a long-term restoration plan to repair an entire region that he said is still recovering from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Mr. Obama said Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former Mississippi governor, will head the reconstruction effort, consulting broadly with governments, communities and businesses in the affected regions. Again, Obama does not have solutions, but is trying to take over more businesses and wanting more regulations.
Currently, BP is capped for damages it must pay so who will really pay the cost of this oil spill over the next 20 years? And despite the huge projected environmental and economic costs related to the spill, Mr. Obama added, "We will make BP pay."
Government scientists said Tuesday that they estimate far more oil could be leaking into the Gulf than originally thought. The new estimate is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels of oil per day, much higher than the previous guess of between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels. The administration says 15,000 to 17,000 barrels of leaked oil are being contained daily.
Obama is supposed to meet the CEO of BP, but this will not solve this crisis. The entire Gulf region from Texas to Florida and even the Eastern Seaboard will be affected by this oil spill. It will take 20 years to recover if we ever do. Tell the American people the truth.
-
0
June 10, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Why is Obama promising more aid in the amount of $400 M to Gaza? The people in Gaza hate the US and Hamas is targeting our security partner-Israel. What is wrong with our foreign policy and our fiscal policies. Why do we as US tax payers fund these types of worldwide pet projects? Why are we spending billions of dollars on AIDS in Africa? Where are the funds from other countries?
Why do we as tax payers borrow trillions of dollars to give to people around the world that hate the US and plan for our destruction? The federal government is out of control with spending our hard earned money. Hamas and Hezbollah are tied to Iran and are on the US DOS's terrorist list. Any we help fund them while not supporting our frieds in Israel?
We need a total review of how the federal government spends and wastes our money overseas. We must reduce the funds we give away to governments where our tax money is pocketed by foreign officials. Our federal government is not accountable and the spending is out of control.
Let's spend our money on protecting our borders, helping the American citizens along the Gulf due to the oil spill, and reduce our taxes. We do not need to support and fund our enemies.
Why do we as tax payers borrow trillions of dollars to give to people around the world that hate the US and plan for our destruction? The federal government is out of control with spending our hard earned money. Hamas and Hezbollah are tied to Iran and are on the US DOS's terrorist list. Any we help fund them while not supporting our frieds in Israel?
We need a total review of how the federal government spends and wastes our money overseas. We must reduce the funds we give away to governments where our tax money is pocketed by foreign officials. Our federal government is not accountable and the spending is out of control.
Let's spend our money on protecting our borders, helping the American citizens along the Gulf due to the oil spill, and reduce our taxes. We do not need to support and fund our enemies.
-
0
June 08, 2010
Chuck Floyd
The US Congress and the President is spending money like a drunken sailor with no responsibility to the American tax payer. Look at what has happened in Greece and now in the UK. We have elected officials who are not responsible on fiscal issues and they are funding pet social and party projects. We now have a $13 Trillion debt and are borrowing money from a communist country to pay for our uncontrolled spending. This is a real critical issue that we must address now or it will create a depression. Do not take more of our hard earned money for taxes--control spending.
Europe's economic picture darkened further Monday as Britain's prime minister declared the nation's finances to be worse than feared -- requiring sacrifices that will affect "our very way of life" -- and the euro slid further toward parity with the dollar. From small EU nations such as Hungary and Greece to big ones such as Germany, which on Monday announced its own harsh austerity measures, the Continent's economic and fiscal crisis is showing no sign of letting up.
Germany, Europe's economic powerhouse, promised a raft of spending cuts, vowing to "set an example" for heavily indebted Greece, Spain and Portugal, which are buckling under their debt loads and threaten to drag Europe's currency union down with them. With even an unprecedented multibillion-dollar rescue package failing to fully persuade investors, European nations are scrambling to regain credibility and shore up market confidence by proving they can get their houses in order.
There is no doubt the cuts will be painful, and government leaders are preparing their citizens for the blow. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany needs to save 80 billion euros ($96 billion) through 2014 by reducing handouts to parents, cutting 15,000 government jobs and delaying projects such as construction of a replica of a Prussian palace in Berlin.
British Prime Minister David Cameron warned in a speech of painful cutbacks that may shape the nation for an entire generation and are necessary because "the overall scale of the problem is even worse than we thought." "How we deal with these things will affect our economy, our society -- indeed our whole way of life," he said. "The decisions we make will affect every single person in our country. And the effects of those decisions will stay with us for years, perhaps decades to come."
Mr. Cameron's government will announce cuts in a June 22 emergency budget, less than two months after coming to power at the head of Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. On Monday, he remained vague on details of how his government plans to close its record deficit, which reached 152.8 billion pounds sterling ($221.5 billion), or 10.9 percent of economic output in the last fiscal year.
German and British efforts to close their budget deficits -- or the yearly gap in government spending and revenue -- come after Spain and Portugal were ordered to toughen austerity programs to keep them from needing a bailout like Greece.
It is time that the American tax payer vote for individuals who will cut spending and control the federal, state, and local budgets. The Boston Tea Party happened for a reason--now the Tea Party must reshape the political landscape. Fire the President and members of Congress who do not want to control spending and put policies in place that will promote growth. We as a nation do not need elected officials who want to take more of our money---we need politicians who will be fiscally responsible.
Europe's economic picture darkened further Monday as Britain's prime minister declared the nation's finances to be worse than feared -- requiring sacrifices that will affect "our very way of life" -- and the euro slid further toward parity with the dollar. From small EU nations such as Hungary and Greece to big ones such as Germany, which on Monday announced its own harsh austerity measures, the Continent's economic and fiscal crisis is showing no sign of letting up.
Germany, Europe's economic powerhouse, promised a raft of spending cuts, vowing to "set an example" for heavily indebted Greece, Spain and Portugal, which are buckling under their debt loads and threaten to drag Europe's currency union down with them. With even an unprecedented multibillion-dollar rescue package failing to fully persuade investors, European nations are scrambling to regain credibility and shore up market confidence by proving they can get their houses in order.
There is no doubt the cuts will be painful, and government leaders are preparing their citizens for the blow. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany needs to save 80 billion euros ($96 billion) through 2014 by reducing handouts to parents, cutting 15,000 government jobs and delaying projects such as construction of a replica of a Prussian palace in Berlin.
British Prime Minister David Cameron warned in a speech of painful cutbacks that may shape the nation for an entire generation and are necessary because "the overall scale of the problem is even worse than we thought." "How we deal with these things will affect our economy, our society -- indeed our whole way of life," he said. "The decisions we make will affect every single person in our country. And the effects of those decisions will stay with us for years, perhaps decades to come."
Mr. Cameron's government will announce cuts in a June 22 emergency budget, less than two months after coming to power at the head of Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. On Monday, he remained vague on details of how his government plans to close its record deficit, which reached 152.8 billion pounds sterling ($221.5 billion), or 10.9 percent of economic output in the last fiscal year.
German and British efforts to close their budget deficits -- or the yearly gap in government spending and revenue -- come after Spain and Portugal were ordered to toughen austerity programs to keep them from needing a bailout like Greece.
It is time that the American tax payer vote for individuals who will cut spending and control the federal, state, and local budgets. The Boston Tea Party happened for a reason--now the Tea Party must reshape the political landscape. Fire the President and members of Congress who do not want to control spending and put policies in place that will promote growth. We as a nation do not need elected officials who want to take more of our money---we need politicians who will be fiscally responsible.
-
0
June 04, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Obama had his "rent-a-mob" out in full force at the White House protesting the enforcement of law on our borders and the new Arizona law. Also, the Governor of Arizona was subjected to bus loads of protesters at her home, just like we experienced in Chevy Chase. Again, this is Chicago style Obama politics--target your enemy and bus in the community organizers. Fear works....
Why is the Montgomery County tax payer funded CASA downtown as the lead for protesting the Arizona law and not wanting to enforce the law? Why does Leggett and the Montgomery County Council continue to fund CASA when it is in full support of illegals and is breaking the law? It is time to throw the bums out and stop funding CASA? If the county budget is so bad, why fund illegals?
Will Obama help Arizona with its illegal immigration problems? Will he enforce our laws on our borders? Will the Congress do their job in protecting our nation from millions of illegals and criminals? I do not think so.
The meeting with Governor Brewer and Obama will not solve the border issue since Obama and his liberal Democrats want these illegals as voters. The hell with border security and the protection of US citizens. Inside the Oval Office on Thursday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer went head-to-head with President Obama as she demanded he take more steps to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, and they failed to make headway on the state's tough new immigration law.
Several hundred yards away, outside the White House gates, dozens of immigration rights protesters denounced Arizona's new immigration law and chanted, "Jan Brewer, shame on you." This protest was lead by CASA.
In signing her state's law cracking down on illegal immigrants in April, Mrs. Brewer instantly brightened her political fortunes in Arizona, angered Hispanic voters nationwide and became the focal point for the resurgent bitter immigration debate. "I feel very confident about what we have done in the past. It was the right thing to do," Mrs. Brewer told reporters after her meeting at the White House. "I believe that we are protecting the people of Arizona, and beyond that, I believe we're protecting the people of America."
The Oval Office meeting gave Mrs. Brewer her biggest stage yet as she argues that the federal government has failed in its job of policing the borders. The President's number one job is to protect American citizens and protect our borders.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Brewer agreed to try to deepen cooperation on the president's plan to deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, but found little other common ground. We send troops to enforce the borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not our own?
Mrs. Brewer said she requested construction on more fencing, and the White House said Mr. Obama asked her to try to persuade Republicans to support the president's push to pass a legalization bill for illegal immigrants. Why do we need to support illegals--just build the fence and enforce the law. Will Obama do away with the fence around the White House?
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Brewer were careful about discussing Arizona's crackdown that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they encounter in the course of a stop or check who they suspect might be in the country illegally. Mr. Obama has ordered his administration to consider challenging the law as a violation of civil rights. Mrs. Brewer said the president told her he wouldn't get into the details of his objections but would let the Justice Department conduct the review and make the final decisions on legal action.
"She's got a point of view that you have to do border security first. The president has a view that we have to have comprehensive immigration reform," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters when asked whether any progress had been made.
Obama's view of illegal immigration and enforcing our borders is the same as not wanting Israel to be able to protect its borders. He is wrong on both accounts.
Why is the Montgomery County tax payer funded CASA downtown as the lead for protesting the Arizona law and not wanting to enforce the law? Why does Leggett and the Montgomery County Council continue to fund CASA when it is in full support of illegals and is breaking the law? It is time to throw the bums out and stop funding CASA? If the county budget is so bad, why fund illegals?
Will Obama help Arizona with its illegal immigration problems? Will he enforce our laws on our borders? Will the Congress do their job in protecting our nation from millions of illegals and criminals? I do not think so.
The meeting with Governor Brewer and Obama will not solve the border issue since Obama and his liberal Democrats want these illegals as voters. The hell with border security and the protection of US citizens. Inside the Oval Office on Thursday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer went head-to-head with President Obama as she demanded he take more steps to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, and they failed to make headway on the state's tough new immigration law.
Several hundred yards away, outside the White House gates, dozens of immigration rights protesters denounced Arizona's new immigration law and chanted, "Jan Brewer, shame on you." This protest was lead by CASA.
In signing her state's law cracking down on illegal immigrants in April, Mrs. Brewer instantly brightened her political fortunes in Arizona, angered Hispanic voters nationwide and became the focal point for the resurgent bitter immigration debate. "I feel very confident about what we have done in the past. It was the right thing to do," Mrs. Brewer told reporters after her meeting at the White House. "I believe that we are protecting the people of Arizona, and beyond that, I believe we're protecting the people of America."
The Oval Office meeting gave Mrs. Brewer her biggest stage yet as she argues that the federal government has failed in its job of policing the borders. The President's number one job is to protect American citizens and protect our borders.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Brewer agreed to try to deepen cooperation on the president's plan to deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, but found little other common ground. We send troops to enforce the borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not our own?
Mrs. Brewer said she requested construction on more fencing, and the White House said Mr. Obama asked her to try to persuade Republicans to support the president's push to pass a legalization bill for illegal immigrants. Why do we need to support illegals--just build the fence and enforce the law. Will Obama do away with the fence around the White House?
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Brewer were careful about discussing Arizona's crackdown that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they encounter in the course of a stop or check who they suspect might be in the country illegally. Mr. Obama has ordered his administration to consider challenging the law as a violation of civil rights. Mrs. Brewer said the president told her he wouldn't get into the details of his objections but would let the Justice Department conduct the review and make the final decisions on legal action.
"She's got a point of view that you have to do border security first. The president has a view that we have to have comprehensive immigration reform," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters when asked whether any progress had been made.
Obama's view of illegal immigration and enforcing our borders is the same as not wanting Israel to be able to protect its borders. He is wrong on both accounts.
-
0
June 03, 2010
Chuck Floyd
knees There Obama take responsibility for his actions and his in-actions? He likes to blame everyone, but himself for every issue that arises in the US or world. Let's take a look at his record.
1. He blames Bush and BP for the oil spill in the Gulf, even though he has been on it from Day 1 with slow federal response
2. He blames Arizona's Governor for the illegal alien problem and tells her that she is wrong, when he has not read the bill
3. He blames Bush for the national debt of $13 Trillion, even when $2 Trillion has been added since he was elected
4. He blames Israel for defending its borders to ensure that weapons are not transported to Gaza
5. He blames Bush for Iran proceeding with its nuclear weapons
6. He blames the public for not wanting new health care reform when we know that it will add trillions to our national deficit
7. He blames South Korea for the sinking of their ship from a North Korean bomb
8. He blames Wall Street for our economic condition while driving policies that target businesses and limits growth
9. He blames Bill Clinton for offering federal positions to individuals who they do not want to run for political office
10. He allows Eric Holder to run the Justice Department as a "Cowboy Socialist"
11. He blames Bush for not funding border security and building the fence
12. He bows to other world leaders and blames his height for his bending at the knees
There are many other examples of Obama not being a real President and leader. His community organizer training has not prepared him for this job and he is now worst than Jimmy Carter. There is corruption and many examples of Chicago politics while there is no transparency or accountability. When will the media do their job and go after Obama like they did Bush? Right....
Can the nation survive Obama for 2 and 1/2 more years? Weprayy to God that he is stopped along with his Democrat Congress. We must get voters out to change the direction of this socialist. We need real hope for America, not what Obama has brought us.
1. He blames Bush and BP for the oil spill in the Gulf, even though he has been on it from Day 1 with slow federal response
2. He blames Arizona's Governor for the illegal alien problem and tells her that she is wrong, when he has not read the bill
3. He blames Bush for the national debt of $13 Trillion, even when $2 Trillion has been added since he was elected
4. He blames Israel for defending its borders to ensure that weapons are not transported to Gaza
5. He blames Bush for Iran proceeding with its nuclear weapons
6. He blames the public for not wanting new health care reform when we know that it will add trillions to our national deficit
7. He blames South Korea for the sinking of their ship from a North Korean bomb
8. He blames Wall Street for our economic condition while driving policies that target businesses and limits growth
9. He blames Bill Clinton for offering federal positions to individuals who they do not want to run for political office
10. He allows Eric Holder to run the Justice Department as a "Cowboy Socialist"
11. He blames Bush for not funding border security and building the fence
12. He bows to other world leaders and blames his height for his bending at the knees
There are many other examples of Obama not being a real President and leader. His community organizer training has not prepared him for this job and he is now worst than Jimmy Carter. There is corruption and many examples of Chicago politics while there is no transparency or accountability. When will the media do their job and go after Obama like they did Bush? Right....
Can the nation survive Obama for 2 and 1/2 more years? Weprayy to God that he is stopped along with his Democrat Congress. We must get voters out to change the direction of this socialist. We need real hope for America, not what Obama has brought us.
-
0
May 23, 2010
Chuck Floyd
Due to the "socialist" approach to governing under Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress, we need more states taking the lead in restricting the federal government's role in our lives. Due to the massive take-over of health care, excess debt, high unemployment, unfunded mandates, and the over-taxing of American pay checks, each state should tell the federal government to "take a hike".
We see states trying to get control of what they can from Arizona trying to curb illegal immigration and the crime that it brings to Texas trying to put real history back into the education system. People are tired of liberal progressive (or repressive) elected officials pushing their liberal agendas that go against our Constitution and our values.
We want our federal government to do its job of national security and stay out of the way of our free market system. The Obama socialist agenda is not what we want--we want a smaller federal government with states controlling more of the issues that affect their citizens.
Vote the progressive liberals out of office....
We see states trying to get control of what they can from Arizona trying to curb illegal immigration and the crime that it brings to Texas trying to put real history back into the education system. People are tired of liberal progressive (or repressive) elected officials pushing their liberal agendas that go against our Constitution and our values.
We want our federal government to do its job of national security and stay out of the way of our free market system. The Obama socialist agenda is not what we want--we want a smaller federal government with states controlling more of the issues that affect their citizens.
Vote the progressive liberals out of office....
-
0