How Did Janet Napolitano Get Her Job?
Apr 23, 2009 Immigration, Political
It is unfortunate that many government jobs are given by appointment because Janet Napolitano, Director of Homeland Security, is unqualified to hold the position to which she was appointed. In the last two weeks she has done some amazingly stupid things.
About two weeks ago, and just before the TEA Parties, the DHS released its report on radical rightwing extremist groups which basically described all conservatives but threw in baseless accusations such as we are angry at a black man being elected president. The report targets returning veterans as potential extremists. This is a fine way to classify those who have the testicular fortitude to fight for this country.
Then, Napolitano made the statement that the 9/11 terrorists entered this country by crossing the Canadian border. This is absolutely incorrect. They flew into this country on documents issued by the State Department (and a few had MARYLAND driver’s licenses because Maryland gives them to everyone). Though she claims to have been misunderstood, it was quite clear what she said. She also tried to claim she was referring to a long debunked urban legend. She is full of bovine excrement.
The furor began when Napolitano was asked to clarify statements she had made about equal treatment for the Mexican and Canadian borders, despite the fact that a flood of illegal immigrants and a massive drug war are two serious issues on the southern border.
“Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn’t have a drug war going on, it didn’t have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year,” she said.
“Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it’s been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there.”
When asked if she was referring to the 9-11 terrorists, Napolitano added: “Not just those but others as well.” [emphasis mine] CTV.ca
One would think the Director of the DHS might know the truth about the 9/11 terrorists. One might also think that she would know there is a big difference between the northern and southern borders. In the south, people sneak across illegally and stay here. They smuggle in drugs and they kill Americans. In the north, they come across, do business, and go home. They enter legally. Yes, some people have entered illegally via the northern border but nowhere near the scale that they do in the south.
The issue of the border brings us to ILLEGAL immigration. Napolitano is a little fuzzy when it comes to this topic as well. She seems to think that crossing the border illegally is not a crime. During an interview with CNN’s John King, Napolitano was discussing Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his quest to enforce the immigration laws. After she dismissed his efforts she said:
“What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.
“And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.” [emphasis mine]NewsMax
As the cited article points out, crossing the border is a crime punishable with a fine, jail time, or both. I am no lawyer but I believe that once an illegal is here and is caught it is a civil issue. Crossing the border is the felony. This is the dilemma. We know they committed a felony to get here but if we do not catch them actually crossing the border, it is a civil issue.
I have equated it to a man robbing a bank. If he robs the bank and gets away and a day later the cops find him spending the money, he has dye on his hands and his admits to the robbery, he is still guilty of a felony. Imagine if it were only a felony if they caught him robbing the bank but it was a civil issue if they caught him later. This is the insanity involved in our immigration laws.
Napolitano is one of the people who is supposed to protect the country but she is more interested in going after a law enforcement officer who is trying to uphold the law than the criminals who are breaking it (regardless of her “tough” rhetoric).
She thinks people who have conservative beliefs are rightwing extremists, that the 9/11 terrorists entered through Canada, and that crossing our border illegally is not a crime.
Like I said, it is unfortunate that these positions are political appointments because she has demonstrated that she is incompetent.
She should be relieved of her duties and replaced with someone who knows what he is doing.
Then again, she is what Obama wants. Someone who will be an advocate for the illegals.
Obama wants them as Democratic voters.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 9/11, canada, crimes, illegals, incompetent, napolitano
Chains You Can Believe In
Apr 5, 2009 Political
There is no doubt among those of us with brains that Barack Obama is moving us toward Socialism. As part of that effort he is working toward government having a hand in business so that government can tell business what to do, how much to pay, and who needs to be fired. We have seen ALL of this already.
I have made it clear that government has no business getting involved in business but there is a little problem and that is the bailout money. Obama and the Congress are setting conditions that were not in place when bailout funds were distributed. They failed to have restrictions or conditions when the money went out so they added them later. This is a violation of the Constitution and needs to be stopped.
One other problem is that some financial institutions took bailout money because they were forced to by the government. There were plenty that wanted nothing to do with it but they were FORCED by the US government. Now they are stuck with the same rules that those who wanted the money must endure.
Well why don’t they just pay the money back?
That is the problem. Stuart Varney is reporting that the Obama administration is refusing to take back TARP money and Varney asks and answers this question; “So why no cheering as the cash comes back?”
Varney reports that financial institutions that want to pay back the TARP money are not being allowed to do so. That’s right folks, those who took the money (many who were forced) are not being allowed to pay it back. Why would the government not want the money to come back in? The answer is very simple and Varney nails it:
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ’em what to do. Control. Direct. Command. Wall Street Journal
The government wants control. It is that simple and it is a necessary element in order to have Socialism. The government wants control. Say it over and over until you understand it. The government wants control.
The government is using the manufactured crisis in order to gain control over larger parts of our society and it is giving up our sovereignty to the rest of the world. Obama bows to Kings and Obama has allowed foreign countries to decide executive pay of US companies to oversee “Corporate Social Responsibility.” According to Dick Morris our Declaration of Independence was repealed on 2 April 2009 by Barack Obama at the G-20.
Corporations have no social responsibility. They have a responsibility to their stockholders. It is not up to companies to ensure people can afford products or that they are available to everyone. Companies are in business to MAKE MONEY, not run welfare clinics. Companies who took TARP money (or had it forced upon them) have obligations so long as they hold the money. The US is refusing to take it back so that it can continue to exercise control over those companies.
It is time for the companies to contact the government and tell Obama that the money is ready to be repaid and if it is not accepted by the government the debt will be considered forgiven and the company no longer accountable for it. Then the companies should do what they want and tell the federal government to piss off.
The idea that there is some social responsibility is what drives Obama and his Socialist buddies. They believe that the producers are responsible for providing to the looters. There is no doubt that this mentality was ingrained long ago when he was a dope smoking teen in whatever nation his parents decided he belonged. Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action, of handouts, of his hatred of whites and the exploitation by them (read his book). It is only natural that he would think that he is the one to make the achievers give to the looters. Who is John Galt?
Obama wants everyone under the thumb of oppression. He wants everyone to be sunject to the whims of the federal government at all times. He wants people unable to do anything without the government mandating it and he wants those who achieve to pay for it.
What will happen if all the companies just stop? The ILLEGALS get together once a year and riot, uh, protest their conditions and they do it on May Day, which is a Communist holiday. They think they can shut down the country by not working for a day.
The true achievers could. If we all decided not to work or shop for one day the revenues would stop. If businesses decide to stop dealing in the US then it will get worse. At some point we will have more looters than providers. As Margaret Thatcher once said; “Socialism is great until the other guy’s money runs out.”
Then what happens?
In any event, Obama and the US government are not taking back the TARP funds because they want to keep their hooks in the financial institutions. They want to make more rules that are burdensome and require some sort of social responsibility, the same kind that started this mess (regardless what the lefties say).
Rahm Emanuel said not to let a crisis go to waste (even a manufactured one). It would appear that this is the case in their financial dealings as well. It is well known that Democrats got rich driving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground. It is well known that Democrats benefit from Wall Street political donations and it is well known that some of those hedge funds were run by Democrats (Chelsea Clinton got a job at one as a favor). They all became rich driving companies into the ground.
Now there is word that some of the Obama minions have become wealthy as a result of dealings with TARP recipients. Never let a good crisis go to waste especially when you manufactured it or caused it, take you pick.
The Democrats, with King Hussein at the helm, are looking to take over and rule the country under Socialism. They are following Alinsky’s rules to take over and people are sitting back and letting them. Pretty soon we will all be completely under the thumb of oppression.
Chains you can believe in. (Thanks Angel for that title)
Certainly chains that will be hard to unshackle.
Related:
Axelrod makes millions
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bailout, crimes, Obama, oppression, socialist, stuart varney, take over, TARP
Intolerant Homos Resort To Violence
Nov 16, 2008 Political
The homosexual community is in a snit because Proposition 8 passed in California. Prop 8 changed the California Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. The proposition might have failed if it were not for the huge turn out in black voters who showed up to vote for Obama.
For years gays have told the rest of us that we had to accept their agenda and that we needed to be tolerant. They scoff at any attempt to define marriage as anything that excludes the union of same sex couples and they continually force their agenda on school systems so that our children are taught that Johnny can have two dads or two moms.
Well, it looks like those who expect tolerance are not willing to give tolerance as the gay community has resorted to violence because they did not like the outcome of the vote on Prop 8. The gays have blamed the black community and started calling them “niggers” and they blamed the Mormons who received white powder in the mail and had the Book of Mormon burned on the steps of one of their churches. All these acts were done by gay activists. Additionally, an 80 year old woman was assaulted by a bunch of tolerant gays because she held a Cross up at a rally.
Why is it that when a vote goes the way they want these people say that the will of the people has been shown and that we should respect the decision. There were no riots from non gays and there were no assaults on gays after a judge overturned the last vote which demonstrated the will of the people. The opponents went to work crafting a proposition that would change the California Constitution and keep activist judges from legislating from the bench.
Early on it looked as if Prop 8 would be defeated but a lot of supporters pumped money in to defeat it. The gay community, aided by California Governor Schwarzenegger, is trying to challenge the results in court. The Governor and the gay community are hoping that a judge will once again overrule the will of the people. Why do we have votes if judges can interfere in the process? The people of California have spoken and that is the end of the issue. The law says that a proposition that changes the California Constitution takes effect the day after the election (or in this case after the absentee ballots were counted and the results confirmed) so one man and one woman is now the definition of marriage in that state.
Suppose the millions of Americans who did not like the Obama victory decided to start sending suspicious substances in the mail or assaulted people who voted for Obama and then worked to have a judge overturn the election. Of course, there are lawsuits challenging Obama’s qualification but that is a Constitutional issue. In any event, it is unlikely that any judge has the testicular fortitude to require Obama show a vault copy of his birth certificate. Judges don’t seem to be too keen on the Constitution these days.
As for gay community, they are not playing this very intelligently. They are attacking people to try to get their way which seems a bit queer to me. Do they really think more people will become sympathetic to their cause after watching them act like animals? Interestingly, gays across the country staged rallies in opposition to the results of Prop 8 and one held a sign that read “Don’t spread H8.” Maybe they should start at home and work outward. No one beat that guy up but I bet there would have been violence if there was a sign that read “Don’t spread AIDS” held up by an opponent…
Be wary of the gay community. They have come out of the closet and now instead of preaching tolerance they are committing crimes and trying to browbeat people into giving them their way.
If attacked, shoot first and ask questions later.
Related:
Yahoo News
Breitbart
GatorGOP
American and Proud
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: assault, crimes, gay marriage, prop 8, violence
Obama’s Global Welfare
Jul 2, 2008 Political
As if it were not bad enough that Barack Obama wants to tax the hell out of Americans so that he can pay for billions in new social welfare spending in our country he is now advocating that the US set up welfare for the entire world. Senator Obama sponsored Senate Bill 2433 which would, in essence, take money from Americans through increased taxes and send that money to the United Nations so that the UN can redistribute it all over the world to end global poverty. Obama believes that we can make nations be more friendly to us by giving them money. In his world that is how things work and considering all the friends he has because they paid him for something, it is easy to see why he would feel that way.
I am opposed to welfare (government provided) in general but I am vehemently opposed to global welfare paid for by American taxpayers. The left in America keeps telling us that we are not the world’s police but they seem to think we are the world’s nanny. It is not up to America to solve the problem of poverty in other nations. It is up to the often corrupt governments of those nations to solve their problems. Americans have their pockets picked every day by government and this bill would allow them to stuff their hands even deeper in order to extract more of our money. It is time for our government to stop wasting our money, not just on stupidity like this, but on all kinds of wasteful projects. It is OUR money and we need to demand that they be more fiscally responsible with it.
To top this off, Obama’s Bill would have the UN handling the money. The UN is second to none in corruption and mismanagement (though the US government might be a close second) and giving them all that money is an open invitation for more illegal activity. The oil for food scandal should cement this in everyone’s minds. The UN is comprised of people from all over the world, many of whom are corrupt and care only about achieving wealth by picking American’s pockets. Obama’s Bill would allow the UN to send our money to places like Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and any other place where human rights are non existent and people are led by brutal people hell bent on maintaining rule by aggression.
This Bill is one more example of Obama’s overt Socialistic beliefs and should be a reminder to all Americans, regardless of party, that Obama will implement Socialistic policies that will ruin our country.
People achieve through hard work and that work provides satisfaction that cannot be replaced by a government program. America has been around for a much shorter time than many nations but has achieved more than they ever have because of hard work and self reliance. Those traits will disappear under a Socialist leader and soon everyone will be at the trough of government. Only the elite, ruling class will have wealth while the rest of us wallow in mediocrity. If other nations are not able to achieve then they need to try what worked for us and made us great.
One things is for certain, they should not be living on our hand outs any more than should our own citizens.
Politicians from both parties support this Obamination. Contact your Senators (and Representatives for H. R. 1302 which passed on a voice vote) and tell them not to support this gross misuse of American taxpayer money.
Related:
American Thinker
Tags: crimes, global welfare, Obama, oil for food, redistribute wealth, socialism, united nations
MD Judge: OK to Violate Constitution
Jan 10, 2008 Political
Last November, Maryland’s Governor called a special session of the legislature in order to tackle a budget deficit that the same legislature was responsible for giving us. Governor O’Malley asked them to raise every tax imaginable and they obliged him by raising even more than he could have imagined. The Governor claimed that the increases would not affect nearly 90% of the residents but in the end each and every person will pay more money. The increase in the sales tax will particularly hurt the poor and middle income residents.
During that session the Maryland Legislature took an action that violated the State Constitution. The Maryland Constitution states that one chamber needs the permission of the other before taking a recess of greater than three days. The Senate took off longer than three days without permission which is a violation. To make matters worse, a clerk falsified documents to make it appear as if everything had been done appropriately. I am absolutely certain that the clerk did not take it upon herself to do this and was given instructions to do so by one of the Democratic leaders. However, since the State’s Attorney General refuses to have it investigated, we may never know for sure. All actions give the impression of impropriety and perception is often the truth for people who, according to the talk shows, believe something fishy took place.
The Republican Party of Maryland filed suit to have the tax increases, the largest in state history, nullified. The contention is that if they were done in violation of the Constitution then they are not valid. Unfortunately, a judge decided that while the Democratic leadership “erred” nullifying the tax increases would be “too drastic” a remedy. What Judge Thomas Stansfield is saying is that even though the law makers broke the law it is OK and what they accomplished by breaking the law is satisfactory. Making them pay for their abuse would be “too drastic.”
How many times has a murderer been released because his Constitutional rights were violated? Has any judge ever stated that releasing a guy who was not read his rights or was denied a lawyer would be too drastic? We have a Constitution for a reason and if we are not going to follow it then we should just flush the damned thing down the toilet. Lawmakers, many of whom are lawyers, should be held accountable for breaking the law. I am quite sure if I were before this chowder headed judge for drinking and driving he would not say that while I “erred” fining me or putting me in jail would be “too drastic.” He would say that I violated the law and that I had to pay for that violation.
Why is it the people who are supposed to uphold our laws, the ones we give power to make those laws, are not held to that exact standard?
We need to get rid of this judge and we need to get to the bottom of the crime involving falsifying the records. Perhaps if the Republican lawmakers threaten the clerk with a few years in jail she might be able to shed some light on the matter.
Is it any wonder that Martin O’Malley, the dim witted, jackass Governor of Maryland has a lower approval rating than President Bush? Considering that Maryland is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, that is saying something.
The next election is three years from now and those idiots think people will forget but there are many of us who will keep reminding the public. We need to vote all these jackasses out of office and replace them with people of honor. Additionally, Thomas Stansfield is a Republican Judge who will need to run for reelection. The people need to boot him to the street.
Your (dis) honor, if it is against the Constitution it is illegal. Anything that results from the illegality should be nullified. I know I never went to law school but if I did I would have at least paid attention.
Tags: crimes, Democrats, Maryland, taxes, unconstitutional