CNN Gets it!

In a recent interview with President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, Wolf Blitzer asked these questions:

WOLF BLITZER: "Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people who they suspect are illegal?"

FELIPE CALDERON: "Of course."

BLITZER: "If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job, they can work . . ."

CALDERON: "No, no. If somebody do that without permission, we send back them."

And Calderon says Arizona's law breeds intolerance and hate.

Conclusion
We allowed this dissimulator of information to address the United States Congress and THEY gave him a standing ovation after he "dissed" the United States and especially the state of Arizona. What's even more disgusting is that President Obama joined him in his negatively charged comments about Arizona. Now Obama refuses to enforce Federal law. Who's side is Obama on? Does he hate America that much? We are SICK of his apologies and negative comments towards Arizona. How about unifying the country instead?

Obama is un-American!

Action To Take
Let the White House know that you demand that this administration ENFORCE Federal laws - especially in Arizona. Tell them to close our borders and protect the United States for a change.

Audacity and Mendacity

Obama was rude and ignored the Israeli President Shimon Peres on his recent visit to the US and yet he rolls-out the red carpet for our Mexican neighbor. What gives?

Mexico's President, Felipe Calderon has the gaul to come to our country and proceed to bash the crap out of it every chance he has publicly. And what does OUR President do? He JOINS him and offers Calderon the opportunity to speak in front of Congress where he continued his denouncing Arizona's immigration law.

Who's side is Obama REALLY ON?

Let's be clear about our Mexican "friend". He strongly criticizes the USA for its nasty immigration laws, causing HIS citizens to be "harrassed." Calderon totally ignores the fact that millions of HIS citizens are here ILLEGALLY! How about a look at his countries immigration laws?

What Are Mexico's Laws?
Mexican Immigration law states the following:

• Immigrants cannot be an economic burden to Mexico (they cannot sponge off of welfare or entitlements like they do here in the USA)
  
• Immigrants must be healthy (many ILLEGALS carry disease to the USA)
  
• Immigrants must have NO criminal record (80% of Arizona ILLEGALS are criminals)
  
• Immigrants MUST SHOW a birth certificate (We require immigrants to show their green card)
  
• Immigrants must provide their own healhcare (ILLEGALS here get free healthcare)
  
• The Mexican government CAN ban foreigners due to their RACE (we cannot)
  
• Illegal entry into Mexico is a felony crime punishable by up to 2 years in jail for the first violation, and up to 10 years in jail for subsequent violations (Misdemeanor in the USA)
  
• Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment for up to 2 years in jail (Slap on the hands here)
  
• Deportation can occur without any due process (Long process to deport here)
  
• Police MUST enforce these laws (CA, MA and other states IGNORE Federal law)
  

Conclusion
Both Calderon AND Obama are hypocrites. It is unconscionable that they both speak poorly about OUR country - ESPECIALLY OBAMA! Our "leader" is unworthy to be OUR President. He hates America and shows it every chance he has. He apologizes and then slams the US to foreign leaders.

We asked for change. This is the INSULT we got.

Featured Article - Kick the Dog

Obama is Kicking the Dog

By Jeannie DeAngelis writer for the AmericanThinker.com

"Barack Obama has taken up the fine art of "kicking the dog," which is a narcissistic practice where a person in authority passes blame along to the lowest level, where, for lack of a fall guy, the dog ends up getting kicked. Obama claims that the buck stops with him, yet the president habitually avoids blame by pointing the finger of accusation at animate people and inanimate objects, which translates into presidential "dog-kicking."

Obama has proven to be a master blamer and finger-pointer. In fact, Obama takes finger-pointing to a whole new level. The president even finger-points at and blames people for finger-pointing and blaming. Dog-kicker Barack obviously considers blaming others an executive privilege and exclusive right.

Recently, while addressing the explosion and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf, a temperamental Obama did some public canine-kicking in the Rose Garden. The president "harshly criticized BP and other companies for falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else."

A "visibly angry" Obama chastised big oil for passing the buck, saying, "I did not appreciate what I considered to be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into the matter."

Potentially in a position to ultimately bear some responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, slickster Obama greased the censure wheel to ensure his own seamless slippage through an oily situation, and he did so by kicking a dog or two.

Often guilty of defying prior commitments with contradicting actions, Barack Obama began by holding British Petroleum to their pledge to "pay for the response effort." The president vowed to personally "hold them to their obligation."

Suddenly bailout Barack is a stickler for obligatory liability?

Pointing a long and growing-ever-longer finger toward the camera, void of even a hint of self-awareness, Obama chided BP, Transocean, and Halliburton executives, saying, "I will not tolerate more finger-pointing or irresponsibility."

So does the Obama "I don't have to count my time because I'm the president" exemption also extend to finger-pointing and passing the buck?

Mr. Obama said he was "not going to rest or be satisfied until the leak was stopped at the source ... contained and cleaned up." But rest assured: If the leak is not "stopped," "contained," or "cleaned up," it won't be Barry's fault.

The president assigned blame and did so by masterfully identifying himself with the victims. Barack said, "I saw firsthand the anger and frustration felt by our neighbors in the Gulf, and let me tell you, it is an anger and frustration that I share as president."

Obama even used the "blame Bush" maneuver to excuse himself from culpability. Barry said, "For a decade or more, there's been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. ... That cannot and will not happen anymore."

For added fortification, Obama hauled out the Gipper, and by doing so exercised the skill of what can only be described as the highest form of manipulative obfuscation. Obama blasphemed Reagan's words and used them as a missile against Bush, B.P., and Big Oil by borrowing and misappropriating the old phrase, "we will trust, but we will verify."

A more apropos Reagan quote would have been, "How can a president not be an actor?"

Still pointing the bony finger of blame, Obama said that Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar recognized the need for reform prior to the spill, but he "often-times has been slammed by the industry, suggesting that somehow these necessary reforms would impede economic growth."

It's incomprehensible that the President of the United States would try to exempt himself from responsibility by suggesting that the Obama administration was prepared for a spill "from day one" but was hindered from effecting a viable solution by the oil industry. This is the same man who continually blames G.W. Bush for everything and anything, including natural disasters.

Mr. Obama said no one could reach the leak, which is five thousand feet below the surface of the ocean. Precisely, if the ocean didn't insist on being so deep, then there wouldn't be so much "uncertainty," and plugging the stubborn geyser wouldn't pose an ongoing quandary for Obama.

Hitting on a few more points, the president shared the government's use of "every available resource" to address the oil spill. Except, of course, resources unavailable because someone somewhere is preventing their use.

According to the ever-vigilant Mr. Obama, "Over one million feet of barrier boom have been deployed to hold the oil back. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of dispersant helped to break up the oil." Unfortunately, Obama did sacrifice an opportunity to shift blame onto the slippery, hard-to-contain nature of petroleum for a crisis that otherwise would be well under his firm control.

Obama added, "13,000 people and the National Guard had been deployed to help protect the shoreline and wildlife." Surely Barry would have greater success if "sea turtles, birds such as sea gulls and pelicans, dolphins, manatees, and Gulf sturgeon" would collaborate with federal efforts by avoiding the oil slick, as well as by steering clear of the water's edge.

As the Rose Garden remarks concluded, the president reiterated support for offshore drilling, because unlike George W. Bush, British Petroleum and most other living, breathing human beings, the blameless Barack, even in the face of uncontrollable plumes of crude oil, "never tires, never falters and never fails."

Concluding the Rose Garden scolding, Obama did personally accept one key responsibility, saying, "it's absolutely essential ... we put in place every necessary safeguard and protection so that a tragedy like this oil spill does not happen again."

Better think long and hard about that one, Mr. President, because in an imperfect world, having precautions in place could pose a problem the next time the need arises to point a finger, pass the blame, or kick a dog."

The "Nudge" Czar at Work

Obama's "Nudge Czar", Cass Sustein, is busy promoting his version of government Internet control. He obviously does NOT support the 1st Amendment and wants to control Internet content using the equivalent of the "Fairness Doctrine." Czar Sustein wants to mandate Internet "balance." In his own words:

"[web] sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites. So that if you're reading a conservative magazine they would provide a link to a liberal site just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a popup on your screen that would show an advertisement or even a quick argument for a competing view. If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction, it would be great. And if we can't get voluntary arrangements maybe Congress should hold hearings about mandates."

"...The best would be that this would be done voluntarily but aahhh the word voluntary is a little complicated. And sometimes people don't do what's best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a LEGAL MANDATE as the last resort and to make sure it's neutral as possible. We have to get there aahh but to have an ULTIMATE WEAPON designed to encourage people to do better."

So there you have it. This administration is actively destroying our 1st Amendment rights. Inalienable Rights. GONE! POOF! If you don't volunteer to cooperate, then it will become a "Legal Mandate" to provide the opposite political view on the Internet web site.

That's TREASON!

This guy is just one of the many radicals that work directly with President Obama. He hired these CZARS without the consent of Congress. They are directing governmental power to make "America" more like the tyrannical "Amerika."

Cass Sustein is an enemy of America and the Constitution of the United States. America, how long will you put up with blatant treason?

High Level Jug Heads

It seems that the Obama administration really isn't much different from any bully on the block. If they disagree with a political policy, they simply demonize it or beat it into the ground with criticism. Here are the facts to back this up.

Most recent to vocalize their opinion of the new Arizona Immigration law are Attorney General Eric Holder, Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley, and Homeland Security Director, Janet Napolitano. These are pretty high-level people in the Federal government. They hold jobs with a fair amount of power and influence. They are unafraid of finding fault with the perceived flaws of the Arizona Immigration law which parallels the existing Federal Immigration law.

These individuals have each on separate occasions and quite publically (using the Lame Stream media) have been extremely critical of the Arizona Immigration law. Granted, they have the right of free speech. However, they all have admitted that they have NOT taken the time to read the Arizona law before criticizing it.

Questions: If you haven't read the law, then how can you accurately focus on the bad parts of the law? Isn't this a rather obvious question to ask? It's like saying you don't like beets, but you have never tasted them. It's the same logic.

How can ANY criticism be valid under these circumstances? It cannot. This is what happens when you begin to evaluate Progressive logic. It makes no sense and in this case is based on prejudice, and not facts.

Action To Take
Stop being misguided and misled into believing something based on this non-existent logic. Think for yourself. Gather the FACTS and make your own decision based on truth – not propaganda. Ask your own questions, because the Lame Stream media won't. They are on Obama's side and cannot be objective about reporting any longer.

Weekly Polls

The Rasmussen Reports is an independent electronic publishing firm that specializes in public opinion polling. Here are some current results on some main issues:

Presidential Tracking Poll
This tracks how the President is doing by those surveyed.

• Strongly Approve... 27%
• Strongly Disapprove... 40%
• Approval Index = ... -13

Presidential Approval Index
This chart is from RasmussenReports.com:


Job Approval Rating Since Election


Is the country headed in the right direction?

• Strongly Agree... 30%
• Strongly Disagree... 64%
• Don't Know... 6%

Featured Article - Inverted Morality

Why Left Talks about "White" Tea Parties
By Dennis Prager - talk radio host.

"Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.

But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:

The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.

One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).

Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."

You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.

As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left -- strong and weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.

This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.

But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.

And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left's. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.

Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.

Finally, if one eschews the "racism" explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America's distinct values -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) -- to blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties."