maddogs hideaway

Welcome to Maddogs hideaway, The poormans predictor. Somedays I just feel like ridin...!

Name: MADDOG10
Location: Beautiful Florida
Country: United States
Interests: restoring old cars, winning the lottery, avid football fan, and riding my motorcycles... Both (Harleys)...!!

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

PinocchiObama and his ongoing dissembling

PinocchiObama and his ongoing dissembling

David Limbaugh: BHO panicked because sequestration isn't  causing chaos he guaranteed

Published: 14 hours ago

author-imageDavid  Limbaugh About | Email | Archive 
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and  attorney. His latest book is "The  Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic." His website is www.DavidLimbaugh.com.
                                      rss feed Subscribe to feed       
 

PinocchiObama is at it again, using his weekly address to the nation to spin  tall tales, demonize and scapegoat Republicans, misidentify the nation’s  problems and propose the exact wrong solutions.

He opened up this week’s fiction with the umpteenth repetition of his empty  claim that the nation’s top priority “must be growing the economy, creating good  jobs and rebuilding opportunity for the middle class.”

How many times has Obama promised to “pivot” toward a “laser-like focus” on  jobs? How interesting that he chose to repeat this very same claim just as the  Government Accountability Institute released a report concluding that Obama has  spent twice as much time on vacation and golf as he has in economic meetings  throughout his entire term in office.

What prompted Obama’s claim this time was the brouhaha over the sequester  cuts, the irresponsible allocation of which has caused problems in the aviation  industry. Congress passed a bill to allow the Federal Aviation Administration to  reallocate these cuts to alleviate flight delays.

Obama agreed to sign the bill into law, but he did so grudgingly. He used his  address to rail against the sequestration and against Republicans and Congress  for allowing the cuts to be imposed. In fact, Obama used the word “reckless” in  his remarks to describe not the federal government’s unconscionably wasteful  spending under his direction but the sequester cuts.

Obama also used the term “Band-Aid,” but not to describe his phony proposed  solutions to our spending and entitlement problems, which would have been a  perfectly accurate description; he was describing Congress’ “temporary fix” of  the FAA problem. He spent three-fourths of his words to tell us how essential it  is that we keep government spending at its current irresponsible levels because  of the “vital services” government provides to people – who just cannot get  along without Big Brother.

Over and over again, Obama tells us what he thinks of the American free  enterprise system. Over and over, he betrays his ideological allegiance to the  wrongheaded notion that only government can cause economic growth.

Despite history – particularly the past four-plus years, which has told us  just the opposite – Obama will not come off his destructive commitment to his  continuing to grow the government at all costs.

He has no confidence in the private sector or in Americans to create their  own jobs. He never talks about getting the government out of the way so the  private sector can breathe real oxygen and begin to grow again. His tardily  filed budget was filled with proposals for more punitive taxes on the “rich” and  more spending, including on his demonstrably failed, wasteful and corrupt green  energy experiments. His budget would add another $5.3 trillion to the national  debt over the next decade, and that is using absurdly conservative projections,  especially concerning Obamacare. And he has the audacity to talk to us about  Band-Aids?

Once again, Obama misrepresented the sequestration as the Republicans’ idea,  even after he had been caught red-handed lying about this before. His doomsday  predictions about the effects of the sequestration have also been exposed, yet  he just keeps repeating them.

The truth is that the sequester “cuts” weren’t really cuts at all; they were  mostly reductions in rates of spending increase. To the extent there were actual  cuts, they were marginal and only significant and dangerous in the area of our  national defense.

As has been his practice, Obama has exploited the sequestration for political  purposes, with exhibit A being his termination of White House tours. He wants  the public to feel his version of pain while he protects his corrupt allocations  to more Solyndras and refuses to curb real government waste. Indeed, House  Speaker John Boehner said, “The disruption to America’s air traffic system over  the past week was a consequence of the administration’s choice to implement the  president’s sequestration cuts in the most painful manner possible.”

Obama’s just panicking because the sequestration isn’t causing the chaos he  guaranteed, which undermines his credibility in promising otherwise and also  undermines his ludicrously disingenuous assertion that every single government  program he supports is urgent.

With Obama out there on the stump misleading the American people about the  sequestration and the indispensability of government, now is the time for  Republicans to step up to the plate and begin talking about economic growth  again and the power and wonders of the free market. They need to quit always  accepting the debate on Obama’s terms and start proactively making the case for  entrepreneurship – for the growth of the private sector and the reduction of  government. No one seems to talk about private-sector growth anymore. That must  stop.

The Republicans mustn’t let this opportunity pass.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/pinocchiobama-and-his-ongoing-dissembling/#sW4M8rjtpKApjIzf.99

Saturday, April 27, 2013

A house divided, or Reality?

A tale of 2 nations: Patriots and Patricians

Exclusive: Patrice Lewis asks, what if 225 million Americans  simply said 'NO'?

author-imagePatrice  Lewis About | Email | Archive 

Patrice Lewis is a freelance writer whose  latest book is "The  Simplicity Primer: 365 Ideas for Making Life more Livable." She is  co-founder (with her husband) of a home woodcraft business. The Lewises live on  20 acres in north Idaho with their two homeschooled children, assorted  livestock, and a shop that overflows into the house with depressing regularity.   Visit her blog at www.rural-revolution.com.
       

Once upon a time, we were One Nation Under God.  Sure, America had its  faults, but overall things were fairly good and we worked to make improvements.  The government understood that its purpose was to safeguard the Rights (note the  capital “R”) with which we were endowed by our Creator; and most other  legislative matters were left to the states per the 10th Amendment.  America had  public servants, but these people were just that – servants.  They were there to  uphold the Constitution.

That was then.  This is now.

Today we have two nations, peopled separately by what I’ll call the Patriots  and the Patricians.

Patriots (We the People) work hard, raise our kids, build businesses, don’t  take government handouts and otherwise engage in mature, responsible lives.   Patriots don’t look to the government to bail us out of our mortgages, pay for  our health care, or otherwise nanny us.  Historically, we are the folks who made  America thrive.

Then there are Patricians, leaders of a separate America, the core of which  consists of less than 600 people in the three branches of government.   Patricians now occupy the Patriots’ America, utilizing millions of useful idiots  who support everything the Patricians do, no matter how intrusive and  anti-constitutional it may be.

Patricians don’t allow their subjugated Patriots to do anything without begging permission.  If someone wants to start a business, build a  house, partake of a medical procedure, sell a food item, or purchase a rifle …  he can only do so after wading through massive bureaucratic red tape designed to  make people “safe.”  Additionally, Patricians force Patriots to pay for the  useful idiots’ illegitimate babies, college educations, mortgages, health care,  food and anything else their greedy and fertile minds can imagine.  They believe  Patriot pockets are bottomless and abundant, and Patriots should empty those  pockets without question or complaint.

The least infraction (such as a kid wearing an NRA T-shirt) will trigger a  resounding punishment calculated to instill maximum fear.  Patricians feel  entitled to intrude into every facet of Patriots’ lives.  And if Patriots  object, Patrician stormtroopers kick in their doors.  Where does safety end and  tyranny begin?

Additionally, in a classic Cloward-Piven strategy, Patricians create chaos,  incite restlessness, overwhelm the system and create so much pain that Patriots  will accept anything to make it stop.  H. L. Mencken said, “The aim of practical  politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to  safety – menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them  imaginary.”

As the recent lock-down in Boston illustrated, martial law has become  frighteningly easy to impose.  Innocent people can be ripped out of their homes  at gunpoint in the name of “safety.”  There need be no warrants and no probable  cause – only fear.  Supported by the media, Patriots are being  conditioned to accept governmental lawlessness.  Boston was merely a  beta-test.

Now we have Patrician Mayor Michael Bloomberg stating that the country’s  interpretation of the Constitution (which Patricians loathe anyway) will  “have to change” to allow for greater security in order to stave off future  terrorist attacks.  Who determines the “change”?  And remember, “change” will  only affect law-abiding citizens.  For criminals and terrorists, it’s business  as usual.

“Sometimes it seems the war on terrorism is really a war on the people of the  United States,” noted Joseph  Farah, “and, particularly, on their liberty, as DHS and other agencies  target entire classifications of law-abiding Americans rather than those  who pose the gravest threat.” [Emphasis added.]

If there is one flaw common to Patriots – a flaw the Patricians exploit with  enthusiasm – it’s a failure to understand how evil, calculating and far-seeing  Patricians really are.  Part of that failure happens when Patriots give over  their children’s education to Patrician schools. As Thomas Jefferson said, “An  enlightened people cannot be enslaved.”  Patricians strive (successfully) to  keep Patriot children unenlightened, the better to enslave them.

The Patricians delight in enacting tyrannical laws all Patriots must follow,  while making themselves exempt (see examples here, here, here and here).  Their oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign  and domestic mean NOTHING to them. Why should it?  Patricians do not  support individual liberty and freedom. They are the domestic  enemies.  They believe only in power.  Their power.

Patriots, ever hopeful, believe they can persuade the Patricians to see the  error of their ways through letters, emails, phone calls and votes.  But  Patricians don’t listen.  During recent gun-control  debates in Colorado, “… the vast majority of citizens testifying before the  legislature were opposed to any new gun control laws. However, frequently their  testimony was dismissed and treated with disdain by Democratic lawmakers who  seemed to have already made up their minds about passing the laws.”

In short, the only voices the Patricians listen to are the voices of other  Patricians.  When occasionally their drive for power is thwarted legislatively  (such as massive gun control), then the Patricians simply bypass the legislative  roadblock with an Executive  Order to force the legislation through against the will of the Patriots.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,” said Thomas  Jefferson, “so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so  the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”  No wonder  Patricians loathe Thomas Jefferson.  He and the other founders knew them for the  criminals they are.

To see the Patrician future of America, we need look no further than  California, a state that is bankrupt, tyrannical, restrictive and expensive; a  place where people are defenseless by government edict and crime runs rampant; a  place where the slightest desire to do something independent and self-sufficient  (raise some chickens? start a small business? build a shed? plant a garden?  homeschool your kids?) requires so much Patrician boot-licking that people often  give up in despair.  In a collectivist society (a Patrician utopia), there  simply isn’t room for people who want liberty.  Too many Patriots finally just  surrender.  It’s easier.

I fear we will soon become One Nation once again, a nation where Patriots are  forcibly subdued and Patricians (and their useful idiots) will have dominion.   But it sure as heck won’t be a nation under God.

The solution, of course, is revolution, just as it was in 1776.  But need it  be violent?  Could it be a “Ghandi” revolution?  What if 225 million Patriots  simply said “NO”?  NO to Patrician threats. NO to government usurpation of  God-given Rights.  NO to the chains of tyranny. No NoNO!

If Patricians have one flaw, it is arrogance and overconfidence, and the  resulting underestimation of the resolve of Patriots.  For too long Patriots  have been quiet.  For too long we’ve been cowed.  For too long we’ve been naïve.  But that time is done. And Patriots everywhere, with a firm reliance on the  protection of divine Providence, are once again pledging to each other our  Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Thomas Jefferson said, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers  are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of  resistance?”

Patricians, pay heed. Your time is nearly done.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/a-tale-of-2-nations-patriots-and-patricians/#Zb4dWQ3ee0emxcDf.99

Friday, April 26, 2013

True, True words

JFK

 

But this class of Democrats , JUST don't get it...!

Thursday, April 25, 2013

And they said " Dreams Come True".

the way out.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Welcome...!

welcome

 

Adios slime ball...

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

I'm glad also...!

truth...

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Truth...!

Truth...

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Haven't we had enough..

muslim

Monday, April 22, 2013

For those who can't afford healthcare.

Willie E.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Your Choice...

What did Obama do for Chicago? Click here for more ---> http://forgottenamericanvalues.com/?p=360

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Sorry, just ran out of tissues.

crys like baby

Saturday, April 20, 2013

"Then there was a moment of silence"

Photo

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Just about right..!

diversion.

Friday, April 19, 2013

'Dr.' Gosnell and Obama's heart of stone

'Dr.' Gosnell and Obama's heart of stone

Exclusive: Alan Keyes notes prez's 'obdurate insistence upon  the death penalty for infants'

Published:  14 hours ago

author-imageAlan  Keyes About | Email | Archive 
Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan  Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement. He is well-known as a  staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the constitutional  republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government.  He has worked to promote an approach to politics based on the initiative of  citizens of goodwill consonant with the with the principles of God-endowed  natural right.
       

“It will have blood, they say. Blood will have blood. Stones have been  known to move, and trees to speak. Augurs and understood relations have by  maggot pies and choughs and rooks brought forth the secret’st man of  blood.” (Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” Act 3, Scene 4)

When he was a state senator in the Illinois Legislature, Barack Obama opposed  a bill intended to assure that nascent children who managed to survive an  abortionist’s effort to murder them would be given the same care as other  children born alive into this world. As a result of his statements and actions  at that time, I and others have accurately noted that he countenanced  infanticide rather than concede one jot or tittle of his fanatical support for  so-called “abortion rights.” As  reported by factcheck.org (a site not notorious for its willingness to  clarify facts detrimental to Obama), “His stated reasons for opposing  ‘born-alive’ bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is  known to support and has never hidden.”

 
However, as  the bill approached a vote in the legislature in 2002, Obama slyly avoided  explaining his position in such stark ideological terms. He posed as an advocate  for the concerns of the medical community, suggesting that the bill cast doubt  on the professionalism of the “doctor” carrying out the death sentence the  mother had imposed upon her offspring. Obama said:

“Essentially, I think … the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this  legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending  physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that,  let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health … labor is being induced, that  that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment, and b) if the physician  discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error,  or she made an error, and, in fact that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in  fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord,  would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would  be involved in saving that child. Now … if you think that there are  possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense.  … I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to  make sure that they’re looked after.”

Obama voiced this confidence despite the fact that he was among the  legislators who, in March of the previous year, heard first hand testimony from  Jill Stanek, a delivery ward RN in an Illinois hospital. Stanek’s description of  infants “allowed  to die without any attempt to provide medical treatment” even moved most of  Obama’s pro-abortion Democrat colleagues in the Illinois Legislature to support  legislation to protect the lives of every infant born alive in Illinois  hospitals. Unlike them, his commitment to the specious right to murder one’s  posterity is so fanatical that he would rather risk fully exposing the murderous  intent and nature of so-called “abortion rights” than to limit their scope in  any way.

More amazing, however, than Obama’s obdurate insistence upon the death  penalty for infants who survive the “medical care” of the doctor appointed to  assassinate them is his indifference to the gruesome realities being exposed, in  chilling detail, at the trial of abortionist “Dr.” Kermit Gosnell. The accounts  of casual child murders at Gosnell’s death house for nascent babies, complete  with nauseating humor, ought certainly to do what Jill Stanek’s moving testimony  could not, those many years ago. They ought to break Obama’s heart of stone.

Instead, his official spokesman persists in dismissing as “hypothetical” the  now evident fact that the practice of so-called “abortion rights” simply  means licensing physicians to murder helpless, innocent babies. This  practice contradicts and ultimately displaces the heart for healing that, once  upon a time, lived by the sacred maxim, Primum non nocere, “First, do  no harm.” True physicians were not permitted to be the instrument of  action that has no intent but willful, death dealing harm. Gosnell represents  what has become of medical professionals since that primordial discipline was  cast to the wind. This exposes Obama for what he is, (and along with him, all  those who promote the suppression of the unalienable right to life), a “most  secret man of blood.”

Thanks to Kermit Gosnell, the secret is out. In recent weeks, others have  written extensively about the elitist faction media’s conspiracy of silence  regarding the Gosnell trial. Nothing more emphatically proves the consciousness  of guilt that haunts and oppresses those who have conspired to impose the  culture of murderous death, so contrary to the founding premises of our society,  which include, first of all, respect for the unalienable, God-endowed right to  life. If they thought the homicidal atmosphere at Gosnell’s death house was  exceptional, the elitist media commissars would not feel compelled to shield the  facts from general public scrutiny. They apparently feel certain that the  facts of the Gosnell case are like roaches caught in the light, each one  representing so many more still hidden in places of darkness.

They know, and are part of, the noisome fog of murderous intent that pervades  the whole abortion industry. And tragically, through the fissure opened up by  the wicked notion that wholesale child murder is a rightful aspect of “medical  care,” this deadly fog of evil begins to pervade the entire medical profession.  At the beginning and the end of life, those who should only be healers are being  perverted into skilled assassins. Having licensed individuals to  procure the murder of their offspring, the elitists who now control government  power are fashioning “health care” institutions to give themselves license to  cull the human herd, without regard for any will or judgment but their own.

The facts being revealed at Gosnell’s trial are like the auguries, mentioned  in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth.” They cry out for judgment against the spilling of  innocent blood. You see, Shakespeare’s Macbeth was right. God’s first law of  human natural justice (Genesis, 9:6) means that blood will have blood. We  Americans may not wish to admit it, but somewhere in the midst of our grief and  dismay in the aftermath of an attack like the one that just now marred the  Boston Marathon, the still, small voice of conscience whispers: “The evil that  we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.” Such shadow-boxing is part  of the choreography of God’s due process. It is a self-defeating martial art, at  which Obama is presently the sensei-in-chief. He represents an elitist faction  skilled at producing blows they then purport to parry. As long as the American  people continue to suffer, in positions of power, such minions of elitist  factional ambition, we will fight in vain against the ruthless forces that are  gradually consuming our nation’s life in decent liberty.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/dr-gosnell-and-obamas-heart-of-stone/#fC2HxkhPstihQoGS.99

Thursday, April 18, 2013

America's enemies are colorblind

America's enemies are colorblind

Larry Elder: Those who hate us don't care about Obama's  supposed foreign successes

Published:  12 hours ago

author-imageLarry  Elder About | Email | Archive 
Larry Elder is a best-selling author and  radio talk-show host. His latest book is "Dear  Father, Dear Son: Two Lives … Eight Hours." To find out more about Larry  Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com.
author alerts Receive author alerts                   
       

Investigators cannot yet tell whether the bombings at the Boston Marathon,  which so far have killed three and wounded more than 170, are the product of  domestic or foreign terrorist(s).

But whether foreign or domestic, America’s enemies are colorblind.

 
In supporting President Barack Obama’s re-election, the New York Times  editorialized about how his smarter, more respectful foreign policy helped to  re-brand America in the eyes of the world: “(Obama) introduced a measure of  military restraint after the Bush years and helped repair America’s badly  damaged reputation in many countries from the low levels to which it had sunk by  2008.”

Our enemies don’t care.

They don’t care that then-Sen. Barack Obama called the Iraq War a “dumb  war.”

They don’t care that the new Obama administration refused to use the term  “war on terror.”

They don’t care that former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright  said most of the international community thought the U.S. had “lost our minds”  because of Bush’s supposedly reckless foreign policy. Or that Albright asserted  that George W. Bush had made “a big mistake” for labeling Iran, Iraq and North  Korea the “axis of evil.”

They don’t care that Obama’s first interview as President was with Al  Arabiya, a pan-Arab channel, and that the new president promised “an extended  hand” to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, if only his country would  “unclench their fist.”

They don’t care that Obama doubled-crossed our allies Poland and the Czech  Republic by abandoning his predecessor’s promise to install a missile defense  shield as protection against attacks by Iran and North Korea. The motive? To  enlist Russia, which adamantly opposed the defense installations, to help us  deter Iran from acquiring the ability to build a nuclear bomb.

They don’t care that presidential candidate Obama said, “Nobody is suffering  more than the Palestinian people.” Or that the new president angered Israel by  publicly opposing the building of so-called settlements: “I think that  additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security. I think  it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it  embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.” Or  that Obama insulted the “intransigent” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  by leaving him standing in the West Wing for more than an hour when he abruptly  exited their meeting to have dinner with the first lady and his girls.

They don’t care that Obama calls waterboarding “torture” and promised to end  the practice (after Bush already promised to do so). Or that one of presidential  candidate Obama’s many “I’m-not-Bush” promises included a commitment to swiftly  close Guantanamo Bay.

They don’t care that Obama embarked on what some called an “apology tour,”  during which he said: “There have been times where America has shown arrogance  and been dismissive, even derisive,” or that in some cases “fear and anger”  after 9/11 “led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.”

They don’t care that then Massachusetts Sen. and current Secretary of State  John Kerry charged that President Bush “intentionally misled the country into  war,” or that Kerry said he regretted his vote for the Iraq War resolution  because he failed to realize how badly Bush would “f—” it up.

They don’t care that Obama literally bowed in greeting foreign leaders in an  attempt to show the world that America has a new, more humble foreign policy,  where, as Obama put it, in the past we too often “dictated” to other  nations.

Our enemies don’t care that President-elect Obama blamed Bush for failing to  improve our relationship with North Korea. On his president-elect transition  website, Obama said: “And if America is willing to come to the table, the world  will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges  like confronting terrorism and Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs.”

They don’t care that the American left hated Bush. Just before Obama’s  election in 2008, The New York Times editorialized: “The United States is  battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership.  He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a  government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its  citizens.”

They don’t care whether our commander in chief is a swaggering, ignorant  cowboy incapable of pronouncing the word “nuclear” – or whether he or she is an  articulate, urbane Ivy League-educated lawyer.

Obama’s former pastor and self-described “spiritual adviser” knows how our  enemies feel. The Sunday after 9/11, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said from the  pulpit: “We are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought  right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to  roost.” Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh couldn’t have put it better.

Today, in parts of the Muslim and Arab world, America’s favorability numbers  are even lower than under the “divisive” Bush. Iran still insists on pursuing  its nuclear program, with tension between the U.S. and North Korea worse than at  any time since the Korean War.

Americans may argue and scrap over issues like minority “underrepresentation”  and whether this justifies race-based preferences. But Boston reminds us:  America’s enemies are colorblind.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/americas-enemies-are-colorblind/#GpsFypSdQPby8VKZ.99

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Jack Cashill exposes fact 'good kid' Martin should have been arrested twice

Police buried Trayvon's criminal history

Exclusive: Jack Cashill exposes fact 'good kid' Martin should  have been arrested twice

Published:  1 day ago

author-imageJack  Cashill About | Email | Archive 
Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning  independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.  His latest book is the blockbuster "Deconstructing  Obama."
author alerts Receive author alerts                   
 
                         
                                               
                               
 
       

Some deaths are more politically useful than others.

Twenty years ago this week, the Clinton administration ordered a tank assault  on the Mount Carmel community, killing 39 racial minorities, 26 of them black.  The Clintons and the media suppressed the racial data so rigorously that I doubt  even Al Sharpton knows about the black dead at Waco.

 A year ago Feb. 26, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman shot and  killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., and within a month every  sentient person on the planet knew “Trayvon” by name.

What they did not know was Martin’s background. Sanford Police Department  (SPD) investigator Chris Serino, for instance, said publicly of Martin, “This  child has no criminal record whatsoever.” He called Martin “a good kid, a  mild-mannered kid.” The media almost universally sustained this tragically false  narrative.

Martin had the seeming good fortune of attending school in the Miami-Dade  School District, the fourth-largest district in the country and one of the few  with its own police department.

For a variety of reasons, none of them good, elements within the SPD and the  Miami-Dade School District Police Department, or M-DSPD, conspired to keep  Martin’s criminal history buried.

See Jack Cashill’s  stunning work, in “Deconstructing Obama,” “First Strike,” “Hoodwinked,”  “Officer’s Oath” and more.

As part of its mission the M-DSPD was allegedly trying to divert offending  students, especially black males, from the criminal justice system. As the  Martin death would prove, the M-DSPD diverted offending students to nothing  beyond its own statistical glory.

The exposure of M-DSPD practices began inadvertently on March 26, 2012, when  the Miami Herald, the one mainstream outlet to do real reporting on the case,  ran a story on Martin’s background.

The Herald’s headline, “Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of  Trayvon Martin,” should have caused the other media to seek the truth about the  very nearly sanctified Martin.

It did not. What it did do was to cause M-DSPD Police Chief Charles Hurley to  launch a major Internal Affairs (IA) investigation into the possible leak of  this information to the Herald.

At the end of the day, Hurley rather wished he had not. The detectives  questioned told the truth about Martin and about the policies that kept him out  of the justice system. Hurley would be demoted and forced out of the department  within a year.

We now know what the detectives revealed thanks to a recently fulfilled  Freedom of Information Act request filed by the dogged researchers at a blogging  collective known as The Conservative  Treehouse. The “Treepers” have literally done more good work on the Martin  case than all the newsrooms in America combined.

On Feb. 15, 2012, 11 days before Martin’s death, the Miami-Dade County Public  Schools put out a press release boasting of a 60 percent decline in school-based  arrests, the largest decline by far in the state.

“While our work is not completed, we are making tremendous progress in moving  toward a pure prevention model,” Hurley told the Tampa Bay Times, “with  enforcement as a last resort and an emphasis on education.”

Hurley’s detectives, all of them veterans with excellent records, told a  different story under oath when questioned by Internal Affairs. They knew the  shell game was about to be exposed upon first learning that Martin was one of  their students and outside agencies would be requesting his records.

“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking  at Martin’s data. He realized that Martin had been suspended twice already that  school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting  caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time  for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.

In each case, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less  serious than it was. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out  of Martin’s school, Michael Krop Senior, had been “quite high,” and the  detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive  allegedly came from Hurley.

“Chief Hurley, for the past year, has been telling his command staff to lower  the arrest rates,” confirmed another high-ranking detective.

When asked by IA whether the M-DSPD was avoiding making arrests, that  detective replied, “What Chief Hurley said on the record is that he commends the  officer for using his discretion. What Chief Hurley really meant is that he’s  commended the officer for falsifying a police report.”

The IA interrogators seemed stunned by what they were hearing. They asked one  female detective incredulously if she were actually ordered to “falsify  reports.” She answered, “Pretty much, yes.”

Once the top brass understood that the Martin case had the potential to  expose the reason for the department’s stunning drop in crime, they told the  detectives “to make sure they start writing reports as is; don’t omit  anything.”

“Oh, now, the chief wants us to write reports as is,” said a Hispanic  detective sarcastically, “and not omit anything, as we have been advised in the  past?”

The IA investigation delved into the paranoid concern that the M-DSPD was  sharing information about Martin with other relevant police departments as it  routinely did in other multi-jurisdictional cases.

The one detective who sent information to the Sanford PD came under heavy  fire. He was appalled. “Currently, our department is functioning and operating  out of fear,” he told the IA. “It is tragic to see that I’ve been disciplined at  the direction of Chief Hurley.”

As it turned out, Hurley need not have worried about the SPD. As the  Conservative Treehouse reports, the information sent by the M-DSPD “disappeared  down the rabbit hole and was not included in the final victimology report filed  by Sanford Detective Serino.”

Serino was the Martin-friendly detective who had insisted that Martin “has no  criminal record whatsoever,” calling him, “a good kid, a mild-mannered kid.”

In Hurley’s defense, school districts across the country had been feeling  pressure from the nation’s race hustlers to think twice before disciplining  black students. Last year, the White House formalized the pressure with an  executive order warning school districts to avoid “methods that result in  disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

Jesse Jackson brought this nonsense home to Sanford during a large April 1,  2012, rally. He implied that Martin had been profiled by his high school for  being a black male and suspended for the same reason. “We must stop suspending  our children,” Jackson told the crowd.

In a way, Jackson was right. Martin should not have been suspended. He should  have been arrested on both occasions. Had he been, his parents and his teachers  would have known how desperately far he had gone astray.

Instead, Martin was “diverted” into nothing useful. Just days after his  non-arrest, he was allowed to wander the streets of Sanford high and alone  looking, in Zimmerman’s immortal words, “like he’s up to no good or he’s on  drugs or something.”

At the end of the day, Martin had avoided becoming an arrest statistic, only  to become a statistic of a much graver kind.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-buried-trayvons-criminal-history/#cbEb8xtLjxlv72eU.99

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Why the left attacks Ben Carson

Why the left attacks Ben Carson

Star Parker: 'Liberals never take on what black conservatives  actually say, because they can't'

Published: 14 hours ago

author-imageStar  Parker About | Email | Archive 
                                      rss feed Subscribe to feed       
 
       

Dr. Ben Carson stepped into the national spotlight recently when, as a  speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast, to an audience that included President  Obama, he was openly critical of the president’s approach to health care and his  overall management of the nation’s economy.

Carson, who is director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital,  is a hero to many.  His life story, rising from a Detroit ghetto to a life of  accomplishment and distinction, is a story of American ideals on steroids.

 
Those ideals say that America is about merit not circumstance.  Your life,  your achievements are the result of what you do and how you live, not where you  came from.

The hard history of blacks in America has always made it a challenge for them  to accept this credo.  Many still carry a sense that those ideals may be true  for whites, but they never were true, and still aren’t true, for blacks.

So in this context, Ben Carson’s story is particularly important.  It’s  making liberals nervous, and the attacks on him are starting.

He’s now pulled out, under pressure, from giving the commencement address at  Johns Hopkins University because some are unhappy with how, in an interview on  Fox, he expressed his views regarding the importance of maintaining the  integrity of traditional marriage.

See all of Dr.  Carson’s books and find out why this man has captured a nation’s  attention.

Blacks have known about Carson for years.  I gave his book “Gifted  Hands” to my daughters to read when they were little girls.  A highly  acclaimed made-for-TV movie about his life aired in 2009, with Dr. Carson played  by Oscar-winning actor Cuba Gooding Jr.

But this story of personal responsibility, hard work and traditional values  is becoming a political story.   It is becoming political because Ben Carson’s  American dream story, according to the liberal script, is not supposed to work  for blacks.

Ben Carson is the biggest threat to liberals since Bill Cosby got out of line  at an NAACP banquet in Washington, D.C., in 2004. 

Cosby had the temerity to deliver tough, critical talk about what too many  blacks are doing with the freedom civil rights activists of the 1960s fought to  achieve. He contrasted the ’60s generation with the new generation of black  youth sitting in jail.  “… [T]hese are not political criminals.  These are  people going around stealing Coca Cola.  People getting shot in the back of the  head over a piece of pound cake.”

Cosby attributed the chaos to breakdown in values, family and personal  responsibility.  It’s the last thing the NAACP crowd wanted to hear that night,  and he paid a price.  Cosby was vilified and marginalized until he backed  off.

Liberals never take on what black conservatives actually say, because they  can’t.  So the attacks become personal.

Trillions of taxpayers’ dollars have been poured into black communities over  the last half-century, producing virtually no change in the incidence of black  poverty.

Yet, Ben Carson, through diligence and traditional values, achieved on his  own what those trillions of dollars of government programs were supposed to  deliver. 

Liberal black writer Ta-Nehisi Coates put the cards on the table in an  article about Cosby that appeared in 2008 in the The Atlantic magazine.  The  typical black conservative votes for Democrats, he notes, “not out of love for  abortion rights … but because he feels … that the modern-day GOP draws on  support of people who hate him.”

So stoking paranoia about racism has always been the strategy of liberals to  fend off the political threat of conservative values that so many churchgoing  blacks embrace.

Predictably, Coates has produced a New York Times column on Carson, reducing  this great man to the usual caricature of a black empty suit manipulated by  white conservatives.

Ben Carson is an accomplished and wealthy man.  Americans, certainly black  Americans, need him in public life more than he needs to be in public life.   Let’s hope the left wing and the haters of traditional morality don’t succeed in  making him conclude it’s not worth it.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/why-the-left-attacks-ben-carson/#5atVxFCZGdC2EjJT.99

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Impeach Eric Holder, repeat offender

Impeach Eric Holder, repeat offender

Exclusive: Bradlee Dean lays out counts against attorney  general

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of  opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly  repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and  creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

– Harry Truman, in a speech opposing communism

Attorney General Eric Holder has again shown his true colors – his disdain  for America and her laws. Recently, he took action against the German Romeike  family, which is seeking asylum in the United States after being forced to flee  the country or risk losing their five children to the German government. Germany  was attempting to force the Romeikes to put their children in public school  against their religious beliefs in a terrifying repeat of history.

Holder said that asylum should not be granted to homeschoolers because,  according to him (not the law), homeschooling is not protected under religious  freedom.

Regarding education, let me set the record straight: The federal government  does not have the right to break the law by implementing any type of educational  curriculum. Parents are responsible for training their children in the way they  should go (Proverbs 22:6), not the federal government (Tenth Amendment to the  U.S. Constitution).

The fallout of federal education is stupefying. More than 700,000 students  who graduate high school each year cannot even read their own diplomas. Bill  Bennett, the secretary of education under Reagan, said, “The longer you stay in  school in America, the dumber you get.”

Eric Holder, whose position is as a public servant, doesn’t have a right to  break the law; his job is to ensure the rights of the people, not to strip them  away.

Holder, who is appointed to magnify the law against crime, has instead  repeatedly magnified crime against the law.

Wall Street:

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Eric Holder testified before the Senate  Judiciary Committee, implying that Wall Street tycoons are above the law, in  essence giving them a license to plunder the American people. Holder’s head of  the criminal division did not prosecute a single Wall Street executive for the  fraud that destroyed the economy.

Defense of Marriage:

Eric Holder has directed the DOJ not to enforce the federal Defense of  Marriage Act. In doing so, Holder has violated his oath of office and clearly  shows his violation of the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

Fast and Furious:

As we all know, Eric Holder is guilty of putting thousands of assault rifles  into the hands of Mexican drug lords in an attempt to blame the American people  for the crimes administration officials are guilty of contriving and committing.  As a result, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, along with hundreds of  Mexican civilians, including teens at a birthday party and a Mexican beauty  queen.

Black Panther Voter Scandal:

Soon after being sworn in as Obama’s attorney general, Holder ordered the  voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers during the 2008 presidential  election to be dropped.

Marc Rich Pardon:

During his tenure as Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Holder was involved  in the controversial pardon of Marc Rich, a major Democratic contributor and  fugitive for tax fraud. Holder advised Rich’s lawyer to bypass the normal pardon  request procedures and take their plea directly to the White House. Holder also  failed to inform prosecutors that a pardon was in process for Rich, denying them  the opportunity to intervene.

Boricua Popular Army Clemency:

The Canada Free Press reported that against the express wishes of the Federal  Bureau of Investigation, the federal prosecutor and the victims of the Boricua  Popular Army, at Holder’s recommendation, Clinton granted clemency to the 16  convicted terrorist group members.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states the grounds for  impeachment: “… all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from  office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high  crimes and misdemeanors.”

Since 1797, the House of Representatives have impeached 16 federal  officials.

It is time to bind criminals such as Eric Holder down with the chains of the  Constitution. America is a government of the People, by the People,and for the  People. Therefore, it is OUR responsibility to uphold the laws of our republic  and hold our public servants to their oaths of office to uphold and defend the  Constitution of the United States.

If we fail to do so, our government will become “a source of terror to all  its citizens” and create “a country where everyone lives in fear.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/impeach-eric-holder-repeat-offender/#UVmJQDhG2s5eBGJL.99

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

The high-court case media failed to cover

The high-court case media failed to cover

Nat Hentoff highlights quest for justice by prisoner sexually  assaulted by guards

Published:  15 hours ago

author-imageNat  Hentoff About | Email | Archive 
Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned  authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of many  books, including "The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering  Resistance."
       

James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights into Congress, later said:  “The press has been the beneficent source to which the United States owes much  of the light which conducted us to the ranks of a free and independent nation”  (my book, “The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance,” Seven  Stories Press, 2004).

But now, with the continuous, instantly accessible flood of information on  the Web, in print, on blogs, in social media, et al., crucial developments  concerning our most basic personal rights and liberties are often covered  minutely, if at all.

 
For example, how many of you are aware of the unanimous March 27 Supreme  Court decision in Millbrook v. United States, written by Justice Clarence  Thomas? It got lost in the enormous, sustained media coverage of the same-sex  marriage arguments that were made before the court that week.

The court’s judgment in Millbrook could start to end the immunity of many law  enforcement officials who permit the violations of citizens’ constitutional  rights. These violations may include assault and other harsh treatment of people  in the custody of government enforcement agents, such as prison guards.

Herewith are the brutal facts of Kim Lee Millbrook’s case as retold by John  W. Whitehead, who directs the Charlottesville, Va.-based Rutherford Institute.  Whitehead submitted an amicus brief supporting Millbrook before the Supreme  Court. (If President Madison were still with us, Whitehead would be receiving  the Medal of Freedom.)

Whitehead notes that while Millbrook was “serving a 31-year sentence,  reportedly for drug and gun-related charges along with witness intimidation,” he  was “transferred to a high-security federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa.”  (“Millbrook v. U.S.: Holding the Government Accountable for Misconduct by Law  Enforcement Officials,” John W. Whitehead, rutherford.org, April 1)

A few days after his arrival to Lewisburg, Millbrook got into a fight with  his cellmate, and they were both put in “a shower area.

“Then, according to Millbrook, three prison guards escorted him to the  basement holding-cell area, where one guard choked him until he almost lost  consciousness and a second guard made Millbrook perform oral sex on him, while a  third guard stood watch by the door. Conveniently, no video cameras were  monitoring the basement at the time of the alleged assault.”

Whitehead continues: “A non-lawyer relatively well-versed in navigating the  legal system, Millbrook turned to the courts for relief in January 2011, suing  the federal government for $1.5 million in damages for negligence, assault and  battery and requesting a transfer out of the Lewisburg facility.”

When his case came to federal district court and the 3rd Circuit Court of  Appeals, it was decidedly not received sympathetically. The courts decided that  the prison guards could not – as Millbrook claimed – “be held liable under a  provision of the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA), which allows individuals to sue  federal law enforcement officials for misconduct.”

Here we come to the core of this case and why the Supreme Court’s unanimous  decision for Millbrook should have been at the top of the news media around the  country. Whitehead cites WNYC reporter Ailsa Chang, who explains why the Supreme  Court stood up for Millbrook as an American citizen:

“Under the law, the government allows itself to be sued when a government  representative commits a tort. A tort is an act done negligently or  intentionally that results in injury to someone.

“However, if the tort was intentional, the law does not allow the lawsuit to  proceed – except in cases where the defendant is a law enforcement  official.”

What?

“And even in those cases,” she goes on, “the federal government can be liable  only if the officer was acting ‘within the scope of his office or employment’”  (“High Court Rules U.S. Government Can Be Sued Over Actions of Prison Guards,”  Ailsa Chang, npr.org, March 27).

When a prison guard forces a prisoner to commit oral sex on him, is that  within the scope of his employment? If not, what else can the guard do without  punishment?

The federal district court and the 3rd Circuit, explains Whitehead, dismissed  Millbrook’s case on the grounds that “although an egregious wrong may have been  committed by a government employee, they cannot be held liable for money damages  for their behavior.

“Specifically, the courts reasoned that the FTCA only applies to ‘police  officers’ while they are in the process of making an arrest or seizure, or  executing a search.”

Because those three prison guards were doing none of those things, Millbrook  was told, in effect, he had no case. But he disagreed. Adding to the uniqueness  of this case, Millbrook, Whitehead reports, “filed a handwritten petition, in  pencil no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

And on March 27, the Supreme Court, remanding the case, made Millbrook a  citizen again, declaring that the law extends to “acts or omissions of law  enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless  of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement  activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence or making an arrest.”

It should be noted that Justice Thomas has a fair civil liberties record,  except when it comes to prisons; but he did a somersault in this case.

Whitehead summarizes: “Hopefully, the Supreme Court’s ruling … will send a  strong message to the government’s various law enforcement agencies that they  need to do a better job of policing their employees – whether they’re police  officers or prison guards” (“Victory: Unanimous Supreme Court Rules That  Citizens Can Hold Federal Government Liable for Abuse by Law Enforcement  Officers (Police, Prison Guards),” www.rutherford.org, March 28).

The media could help if they’d wake up and tell Americans what happened in  the case of citizen Millbrook.

Meanwhile, now that the Supreme Court has permitted Millbrook to resume his  case against the government for damages, I wish him well. Of course, it would  also help if former constitutional law professor Barack Obama spoke out about  this case.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/the-high-court-case-media-failed-to-cover/#7igK0IuM8b1FiHEw.99

Monday, April 8, 2013

I said: go do something useful

Lilpansie is still  3 french fries away from a happy meal.

 

 

Lilpeepee

Monday, April 8, 2013

I'll bet he picked these out for you

Did your boyfriend pick these out for you Lilpansie.

 

 

Lilpeepee's thong

Monday, April 8, 2013

His new contemporary suit.

Walking the runway now, we have Lilpansie sporting his/her latest Victory secret Bra.

Quite stunning for the partner in that Mountain Love story, wouldn't you say? 

 

 

Lilpansie at beach

Monday, April 8, 2013

Priceless

Lilpansie and drugs

 

Lilpansie trying to find himself after a close encounter from an earlier episode...

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Geez, that's straight forward...!

lilpansie coming out of closet...

 

Well all I can say, is that Harry Reid is really proud of you Lilpansie.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

It's what he left behind that matters..

lilpansie

 

This is Lilpansies leftover material after his last romp. Now how do you think he's going to explain this Sh*tty situation to her friends.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Is there a Dentist available?

lilpansie

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Ole Joe and his Butt Buddie..

joe and Lilpansie.m

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Followed by his creation.

opie

Thursday, April 4, 2013

An open letter to Jim Carrey

An open letter to Jim Carrey

Exclusive: Ted Nugent whacks actor for 'cheap, soulless and  cowardly shot' against hero

Published:  22 hours ago

author-imageTed  Nugent About | Email | Archive 
Ted Nugent is an American rock ‘n’ roll,  sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of “Ted,  White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God,  Guns & Rock ‘N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing).  For all things Nuge, visit  tednugent.com.
                                      rss feed Subscribe to feed       
  •        

Welcome to the party, Mr. Carrey.

You’ve got every right to lampoon whomever you want, including one of  mankind’s greatest and most courageous civil rights hero-warriors of all times,  the deceased Charlton Heston.

 
However, when you dip your toe into the raging whitewater rapids of the  culture war, be prepared for the consequences.

Irreverent humor provides me enormous quality of life, and as a big fan of  Lenny Bruce, Sam Kinison and Richard Pryor (especially when he was on fire), my  outrage comedy meter is red-lined on a daily basis for all the right reasons.  But poking fun at a deceased man who lived an honorable life in order to express  your pathetic anti-gun ignorance was a cheap, soulless and cowardly shot.

The facts, however interesting, appear to be lost on you, Michael Moore,  Piers Morgan and others gagged by the curse of denial when it comes to the  self-evident truth of the Second Amendment.

The misidentified “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines you despise  and want to ban are rarely used in crimes. More people choke on Cheerios.

According to the FBI, in 2011 there were roughly 12,600 murders in America.  All rifles, including so-called assault weapons, accounted for 360 murders. Four  times as many people were stabbed to death than were killed with rifles. Clearly  you and your ilk are not being honest about wanting to save lives.

You may have noticed by living in the Los Angeles area that the thugs who are  killing each other on L.A.’s streets do not use so-called assault weapons.

Banning certain firearms may make you feel good, but it will do nothing to  reduce the violence on America’s streets or save any lives.

There’s a huge chasm between feeling good and actually doing good, and it  never includes comedic schtick.

Reducing violence is a complex problem, but advocating limiting the freedoms  of law-abiding citizens is clearly the wrong first move.

Experience more of  Ted Nugent’s no-holds-barred passion and patriotism in his books and WND’s “Ted  Nugent for President!” bumpers sticker

I’m routinely asked why I need a so-called assault weapon. That’s easy: I  want a dozen or so and don’t believe I need to justify my pursuit of a  constitutionally guaranteed freedom to anyone.

These utilitarian weapons are incredibly fun to shoot, standard competition  arms, an excellent choice for self-defense and are superb big game hunting and  varmint control instruments.

While so-called assault weapons may look like military guns, they are not  military assault rifles. This rudimentary fact has been intentionally confused  or ignored by people who want to ban these weapons.

Millions of Americans like me own the very weapons and high-capacity  magazines you despise. Our guns and high-capacity magazines will never hurt  anyone.

That’s what makes gun owners and the NRA very suspicious of gun-grabbers like  you and the president’s team. We know your focus is wrong and punishes millions  of law-abiding Americans who have done nothing wrong. There’s nothing funny  about that.

To believe that somehow banning a type of gun will make Americans safer from  psychotics hell-bent on mass murder is bizzaro logic that does not pass the  common-sense test.

The warning signs couldn’t have been any bolder regarding the psychotic punk  who killed those attending the movie in Colorado, the psycho who killed those  kids and their teachers in Connecticut, or the bug-eyed psychotic who killed the  people at Congresswoman Giffords’ event in Arizona.

We willfully chose to ignore these blatant warning signs and do nothing about  them, except to ultimately blame the NRA.

Ignoring such glaring warning signs is analogous to seeing a coiled  rattlesnake and choosing to step on it in hopes that it won’t bite. And then  when it does strike, people such as yourself blame the boots you are  wearing.

If you want to make America safer from these obvious psychotics, we need to  get them off the streets and into secured facilities.

Additionally, we need to slam shut the revolving door of our so-called  criminal justice system that daily releases recidivistic violent thugs on  America’s streets.

Just a thought, but Mr. Obama and his Department of Justice might want to  consider once again prosecuting federal gun crimes, the rate of which are  substantially down in this administration.

These measures would actually accomplish something and wouldn’t punish  law-abiding citizens or make them victims.

The facts are in: Gun control in America, just like in Canada and  elsewhere,is an abject failure as a crime-control measure. We have over 20,000  local, state and national gun control laws in America. To think that passing  another couple of laws or restrictions is going to somehow prevent another  massacre and make America safe is pure folly.

The NRA, of which I’m a proud lifer and Board of Director member, stands for  freedom and will stand in the way of anti-freedom gun-grabbers who want to feel  good but won’t accomplish anything to make America safer.

As ugly and demeaning as it was, I wholeheartedly support your First  Amendment right to spew your anti-gun views and use the deceased Mr. Heston as  your prop.

I also support the Second Amendment freedoms that millions of Americans  enjoy. I have and will continue to vigorously support this constitutionally  guaranteed freedom.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/an-open-letter-to-jim-carrey/#4ybiKwp3mZbGvSIz.99

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Is this what you call " HOG-TIED ".

obpig

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

FORGERY-GATE / You be theJudge.

FORGERY-GATE

Biographer admits: There was no Obama family

Exclusive: Jack Cashill notes Maraniss book puts lie to O's  'improbable love' claim

 

author-imageby Jack  Cashill Email  | Archive
author alerts Receive author alerts                   
×
Receive Jack Cashill's commentaries in your email

   

In all the talk about David Maraniss’ new book, “Barack Obama: The Story,”  the chattering classes seem to have overlooked the most significant of Maraniss’  revelations, namely that the story on which Obama based his 2008 candidacy is  “received myth, not the truth.”

“My parents shared not only an improbable love,” said Obama famously in his  2004 Democratic Convention keynote, “they shared an abiding faith in the  possibilities of this nation.” This concept of multicultural romance shaped his  persona and his campaigns.

 
At the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, Obama leaped into the story in  the very first sentence. “Four years ago,” he began, “I stood before you and  told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a  young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief  that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.”

As Maraniss concedes, these two young people shared very close to nothing.  “In the college life of Barack Obama in 1961 and 1962,” writes Maraniss, “as  recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there  was no baby.”

Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the credible  ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.

One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama “very  well.” He had also met Ann through a different channel. “But he had no idea,”  writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant)  by him, married him, and had a son with him.”

Only Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie claims to have seen the pair together  during the presumed courtship stage, but he is not close to credible.

“Maybe I’m the only one in the country,” Abercrombie told the Los Angeles  Times in December 2010, “that could look you right in the eye right now and tell  you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.’” This was pure lie, no other word for  it.

A few days later, Abercrombie clarified to Mark Niesse of the Associated  Press that he didn’t exactly see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at the  hospital, but that he “remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at  social events.” Another lie.

Maraniss should have quoted Abercrombie with the stated qualifier that he has  proved unreliable on all things Obama, but he did not. Abercrombie was too  important. Without Abercrombie, there is no contemporary witness to any kind of  relationship. Maraniss, however, knew enough not to quote Abercrombie on his  claim to having seen the baby with his parents.

Despite his Herculean digging into the dung of Obama’s life, Maraniss’ shovel  comes up empty on the couple’s alleged February 1961 wedding. He footnotes his  comments thusly: “Marriage facts recorded in divorce records.”

There is no doubt that both Ann Dunham and Obama claimed a wedding. It suited  both their purposes, Obama to extend his visa and Dunham to legitimize her baby  with a black husband.

As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her  future husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the country. The INS believed her to be married  to Obama. Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to  clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro.

Like all other biographers of either Obama or his parents, Maraniss is  totally silent on Dunham’s whereabouts from the February marriage to the August  birth. He adds one detail, however, that deepens the mystery.

According to the birth certificate and the newspaper announcements, the young  family lived at 6085 Kalanianole Highway where Dunham’s parents lived. Obama Sr.  clarified to the INS that mother and baby lived there without him.

Maraniss definitively states that “[Dunham] and Obama and the infant never  lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].” There was no room. The senior Dunhams shared the  house with the Pratt family. The Pratt daughter “has no memory of the Dunhams’  daughter bringing an infant home.”

And yes, finally, an Obama biographer admits what the blogosphere has known  for the last four years: “Within a month of the day Barry came home from the  hospital, he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland.  …”

“This period, Washington State revisited,” Maraniss writes, “is missing from  the memoir the son would write decades later.” In fact, as recently as Father’s  Day 2012, Obama was claiming that his father left home when he was 2.

What Maraniss does not say is that he missed the Seattle hegira story himself in the 10,000-word Washington Post article he wrote on the eve of  the 2008 election.

He was hardly unique. No one in the mainstream media wanted to blow the  whistle on the fraudulent family fable that got Obama elected president.

The New Yorker’s David Remnick chose to overlook it in his 2010 Obama bio.  The New York Times’ Janny Scott overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s mother.  The Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s father,  and the Times’s Jodi Kantor overlooked it in her 2012 book on the whole extended  family.

Worse, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza chose not to report the fraud in  his disingenuous best-seller, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” As D’Souza explains,  Obama was “his father’s son.” Dunham served largely as the vehicle through which  the absent Obama exercised his will on the young Obama, she being “Obama Sr.’s  first convert” to anti-colonialism.

D’Souza should have known this was nonsense. Conservative writer Michael  Patrick Leahy had broken the Seattle story as early as 2008 in his book, “What  Does Barack Believe.” It was accepted knowledge in the conservative blogosphere  by 2009.

What Maraniss has laid bare, perhaps without meaning to, is a journalistic  scandal of historic proportions in which, alas, he himself has played a  part.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/biographer-admits-there-was-no-obama-family/#WBP01L4uEcwJ6iQb.99