There are ten planks in the Communist Manifesto and it will come as no surprise to anyone to discover that they are being implemented by the Obama administration in league with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
After Clinton appointed Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that—for all intents and purposes—Arizona does not have the right to protect itself or its citizens from invading drug cartels and the illegal foreign hordes that are bleeding it dry of its resources, it should have become apparent to even the dimmest that We-the-People no longer exist. We are now living under a tyranny developed, directed, implemented and enforced by the Marxists in power.
By Jim Camp
Those of us born in an earlier era recall the Cold War that lasted from shortly after the end of World War II until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. It was the era of Mutually Assured Destruction with massed nuclear missiles pointed at one another. It was an era when Americans were rightfully concerned about Soviet espionage inside the U.S. and Soviet expansionist ambitions throughout the world.
The expression is “You had to be there to understand it.” The Cold War turned hot when North Korea invaded the south and was fought to a stalemate that exists to this day. I was around when it turned hot again in Vietnam during the 1970s, serving as a fighter pilot against which Soviet-made weapons were aimed.
I have since concluded that the Vietnam War contributed greatly to the end of the Cold War. Just as the race for space began with the Soviet launch of Sputnik, escalating our fears that the Russians had got the jump on us technologically, the Vietnam War convinced the Russians that the vast technological leaps the U.S. had made in the waging of war—particularly an air war—were such that they would always be at a disadvantage.
Beginning in the 1970’s both the U.S. and the Russians took steps to put the nuclear genii back in the bottle. Following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 and a succession of aged leaders of the Communist Party, the best remembered of whom was Nikita Krushchev, the wheels began to come off the Soviet wagon. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, it was only a matter of time before the Soviet system failed entirely.
Article II, Section I of The Constitution of the United States: The Presidential Oath of Affirmation states “I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Any federal law that has justly been approved and entered into the United States Code becomes part of the Law of the Land, the Constitution. Therefore, the protection of our country, in any terms from protecting our borders to protecting our environment, is a direct obligation of the President of the United States. Question: When is the President of the United States of America guilty of violating the Law of the Land? Answer: when he willfully violates the Oath of Affirmation.
Glen was one of the first commentator to support Shirley Sherrod who outed from her job at USDA without justification for a speech she gave last spring to the NAACP referring to a white farmer looking for help. Her speech was taken out of context and no one from the government or NAACP investigated the release video before coming to conclusions.
A black federal worker has resigned from a Georgia agricultural job after a video clip showed her saying she had not helped a farmer as much as she could have because he was white.
The anti-terror wing of the Marriott Hotel in Oak Brook, Illinois bounced a conference to be held by Muslim activist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir. The organizers, predictably, insist that they advocate “peaceful government reform”.
Reporter Manya Barchear’s excruciatingly nuanced account claims the conference was “dedicated to reviving the prevailing system of rule that immediately followed the death of the Prophet Muhammad”. Chicago PC code for Sharia Law.
This is from the LA Times. Goes to show, not everyone is in favor of boycotting AZ:
The city councils of Hemet and Lake Elsinore, both in Riverside County, approved proclamations Tuesday in support of Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law.
The Yorba Linda City Council in Orange County approved a similar resolution earlier this month, countering actions taken by leaders in cities such as Los Angeles, who voted to boycott doing business with Arizona companies in protest of the law. . .
. . . The Hemet City Council unanimously approved the measure, proposed by Mayor Eric McBride. Dozens of residents testified throughout the evening, with supporters praising the council for taking a stand against illegal immigration and for the rule of law, and opponents accusing the council of fostering racial profiling and discrimination. Residents on both sides criticized the White House and Congress for failing to address the issue.
This is a good explanation of Arizona’s new Immigration law, if you are talking to someone who maybe a little dense or slow.
This was written by a Mexican who is now a naturalized US Citizen from Globe, Arizona, and I think it's a great explanation of the illegal immigration issue.
Here is the quote:
"If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or for an airline flight, and when you got to your assigned seat you found someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would properly be asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, which they would not be able to produce. They would be called "gate crashers" and they would properly be removed.
Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!
In "section AZ", of "Stadium USA", we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 "sections", and even many in our own "section" do not want tickets checked, or even to be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.
My own ticket has been bought and paid for, so I am proudly going to show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it, such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protesters such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would do proudly, then you must be condoning those illegal activities."
This makes perfect sense to me. What do you think?
Since Obama has never shown his ticket I guess he feels obligated to not ask others to show theirs.
By Thomas E. Brewton
A central tenet in liberal-progressive-socialism is re-directing allegiance from the family as the primary social unit and elevation of the political state as the sole source of individual well-being. Ultimately fathers' role in this social paradigm is relegated to anonymously furnishing sperm to donor banks.
Many liberal-progressives will strongly object that they do not share this view. But they cannot deny the history of their secular religion and the teachings of those who animated it, as well as the actions of the New Left baby-boomer, student-anarchist generation, who now are in positions of authority, ranging from government and education to media.
An article" in the Wall Street Journal (available only to subscribers, unfortunately) drives this point home.
Quote:
In "The Switch," coming later this summer, Jennifer Aniston plays an attractive 40-year-old professional who has given up on finding Mr. Right for marriage and decides instead to move straight on to motherhood with a donor father. The movie offers a largely celebratory treatment of donor insemination, as do two other movies out this year, "The Back-up Plan" and next month's "The Kids Are All Right." Indeed, one of the bottom-line conclusions these movies are pushing is that the children turn out "all right" with donor dads.
Hollywood is not the only industry peddling the story line that flesh- and-blood fathers are an optional accessory in today's families.
Plenty of academicsfrom New York University sociologist Judith Stacey to Cornell psychologist Peggy Drexler—also have been arguing that mothers can do just as well raising children with donor fathers as they can with real ones.
In her book, "Raising Boys Without Men," for instance, Ms. Drexler claims that "maverick moms," including single women who rely on donor insemination, are just as successful raising boys as mothers who opt for the older model of marriage and motherhood. All that is needed for parental success, according to Ms. Drexler, is a "caring and supportive" model of mothering.
This view, of course, is a product of liberal-progressivism's feminist Women's Liberation Movement that surfaced in the 1960s.
Bill Ayers, a close friend, confidant, and political and philosophical advisor to President Obama (as well as the putative ghost-writer of Obama's Dreams From My Father, was a principal officer in the radical wing of the 1960s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and later a founder and officer of its even more radical offshoot, the Weather Underground. He has this to say regarding fathers and families: