Very interesting reading, sundogger

Smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be in the cards
July 9, 12:03 PM Conservative Examiner Anthony G. Martin
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
SOURCED FROM
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d9-Sources-say-smackdown-of-Obama-by-Supreme-Court-may-be-inevitable

Advertisements

Statement by the President on the Occasion of Ramadan

On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I want to extend our best wishes to Muslims in America and around the world. Ramadan Kareem.

Ramadan is a time when Muslims around the world reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God.  This is a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared.  But Ramadan is also a time of intense devotion and reflection – a time when Muslims fast during the day and pray during the night; when Muslims provide support to others to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere.  For all of us must remember that the world we want to build – and the changes that we want to make – must begin in our own hearts, and our own communities.

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.   Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality.  And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want to extend my best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families and friends – as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan.

I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.

May God’s peace be upon you.

The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown.

 

Why ALL Elections Matter, Even the Little Ones

Gun Rights Roundup

by Buckeye Firearms Association

When there is a close race for president or there is a controversial issue on the ballot, voter turnout increases. But for midterm elections and elections for smaller offices, voter turnout drops.

That makes sense. People vote for the big things and tend to ignore the small things.

But what you may not realize is that the small things matter. ALL elections matter. Why? Because the people running for “entry level” offices today are the crop of candidates who will run for major offices tomorrow.

If you’re like most people, you will vote “top of the ticket.” That means, you’ll vote for the big names at the top of the ballot, and likely ignore candidates for offices such as judge, city council, clerks, and other offices.

But this is a mistake. If you don’t vote for minor offices, it’s possible for anti-gun candidates to sneak into the system. As they gain experience and popularity, they become candidates for major offices, such as governor, senator, or president. And by that time, it’s often too late.

Sure, there are good third party candidates you can vote for, but in the present two-party electoral system, these candidates almost never win. You almost always will have a choice between two viable candidates. If both are bad on gun rights, there’s nothing you can do about it. You can only vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s just the reality of things. 

What would happen, though, if all gun rights advocates voted with the same care and enthusiasm in every single race on the ballot? What would be the result of demanding that every elected official, from the lowest city clerk to the governor of your state right up to the president, vowed to protect your Second Amendment rights?

You would create a pool of good candidates. And when you went to the ballot box, instead of voting for who you think would do the least harm, you could vote for who you think would do the most good.

That’s why elections matter. Not just the big ones, but the small ones as well. ALL elections matter.

Think about this in November. Do your research before you vote. Make good choices ahead of time. Write down your choices and take a “cheat sheet” with you to the polls.

If you vote for solid Second Amendment candidates now, you’ll have far better choices in future elections.

Gun Rights Roundup is a joint venture of Buckeye Firearms Association and USCCA. We will keep fighting until every American enjoys their natural right to carry and self-defense. For more news on pro-gun law, politics, and events, click here to subscribe to Buckeye Firearms Association’s FREE Newsletter.

 

Iam not adovacting or pushing this cfommentary, just looking for the opinions of others, Sundogger

 

 

by Mark Thomey

Not long ago, my cousin Phil in Tennessee forwarded me, and several others, an e-mail from a man relating the story of an emergency room experience he had in Florida.

Our Florida visitor was aghast at the number of, what he later discovered to be, illegal invaders availing themselves of American tax-payer funded medical care. He also related comments from the emergency room physician about how truly overrun and outstripped the health care system was by ‘those people’ and that something had to be done about it. He then went on to compile a list of facts about how much more these invaders receive from the federal government in social security, medicaid, and welfare benefits than do native-born American citizens who’ve played by the rules and paid into those systems all their working lives. He closed with an impassioned plea to, ‘vote them all out’, adding that the November 2010 elections will give us, ‘a golden opportunity’, to clean house.

I thought that some uniquely Southern commentary was needed, so I composed the following reply.

Phil, et. al.:
In November 2010 we have a golden opportunity to do …….. what??

With all due respect, are y’all naïve enough to think that replacing Tweedle Dum, marxist Democrats with Tweedle Dee, marxist Republicans is going to fix anything?

The Republicans are really more damnable than the Democrats, because they LIE about who and what they really are. The Republicans have never met a big government program or marxist principle they didn’t like. Their so-called conservatism is a putrid, weak, excuse for anything by that name. Here is a good observation about what Republican conservatism REALLY is:

‘This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; … American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. … The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip.

Rev. Robert L. Dabney, DD; Chief of Staff to Gen. Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson, CSA

Besides, if you’re a Southerner who really knows his history and loves his country (the South), then voting for Republicans should be abhorrent to you. After all, it was they who took our liberty from us in 1865. Does a leopard change his spots? They have ALWAYS HATED US.

A close friend of mine was a top level Republican insider in Washington, D.C. for many years. He helped write their platform for their 1996 San Diego convention. At a party one evening, after bashing the South and Southerners for a good bit, one of the other higher-ups asked,

‘Given how we feel about and treat the South, I wonder why they keep voting for us?’

The reply was,

‘BECAUSE THEY’RE OUR NIGGERS.’

That, my friends, is what they really think of you and me. So, are you going to keep licking the boot that kicks you?

Let’s face some uncomfortable facts here. There is only ONE party ruling this country, and it is Marxist/Communist to its core. That party has two factions – Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats are the RADICAL Marxists. The Republicans are the MODERATE Marxists. Both factions govern according to the ten points of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, to wit:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public
purposes.

Marx openly called for the abolition of private property. Yet he later affirmed that this had been accomplished when the political franchise had been extended to those who held no property. When the non-property owner can legislate for the property owner and when the have-nots can legally vote to plunder the property of the haves, then Marx declared that private property has been abolished. The current ‘property tax’ system also helps achieve Marx’s goal. It doesn’t matter if your mortgage is paid in full, and you hold the deed in your hot little hands. Fail to pay tribute to the Lord High Sheriff for a couple of years, and then tell me who REALLY owns your property! You don’t OWN ANYTHING! You simply squat on the government’s plantation. You’re WORSE OFF than the medieval serf. At least the serf knew he was a serf. You think you’re FREE. You think you OWN your land. If so, you’re a fool.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Hello! Can you say IRS? King George III would have happily been emasculated in order to have such a draconian tax collecting agency. Besides, from a Christian perspective, it is IMMORAL to steal bread from the mouth of him who laboured for it. But then, Communism is an immoral system, isn’t it? Flying a red-and-white striped rag over it, or boldly saying, ‘It’s not communism when we (the u.s.) do it!’, is the height of absurdity and self-delusion.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Like the abolition of private property comment above, if the government legislates the theft of your parents’ estate via inheritance taxes, which robs you of ANY inheritance,  then it is little consolation to PRETEND that you have inheritance rights.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

This could be described as, ‘the government comes and takes by force, and throws you in prison to boot, if you don’t comply with all the other stuff listed here’, policy.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

This was tried early in American history. Congress created the Bank of the United States for this very purpose. It was Southern statesmen who helped to defeat it It was finally accomplished in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve (which is a PRIVATE banking cartel – NOT a government agency). The Fed was given a ‘license’ to print counterfeit money, backed by absolutely NOTHING except your faithand the Fed’s promises, and then they forced us to use it. This is why we have constant inflation-deflation and the infamous boom-bust cycle. No matter how hard you workor how much you save, you can NEVER get ahead, because the fiat currency known as the Federal Reserve Note becomes more worthless every day.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

FCC, ICC, FHwA, USDOT, etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Wall street/bank bail-outs, take-over of General Motors, nationalization of health care, Goldman-Sachs, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Interior Department, Bureau ofLand Management, Minerals Management, Department of Energy, etc.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

‘All Americans have a RIGHT to a good, well-paying job’, and other such marxist drivel. Minimum wage laws, family leave, mandatory benefits, etc.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Note the gradual abolition of ‘family farms’ in my lifetime in favour of AGRI- BUSINESS, which is a euphemism for CORPORATE FARMING/FOOD MANUFACTURING.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

The coup de grace! Yes, public schools are marxist/communist institutions. A study of the history of ‘public education’ in America shows that all the proponents of public schools were socialists (one form of Marxism). The condition of public education you see today is EXACTLY what they envisioned. And those ‘good public schools’ are funded by the abolition of private property (PROPERTY TAXES) from item 1, above. See how neatly it all ties together???

Do you get it now?!?! The united States is a communist country.

The answer to this problem will not be found in exchanging Tweedle Dum for Tweedle
Dee, or as I like to call it – rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The dearest interests of the South can NEVER be reconciled to the current system. The current system is irreparably broken, plus it is owned and controlled by the central bankers of the Federal Reserve and the heads of the multi-national corporations. They won’t allow anyone to enter the system that they think will upset the status quo.

Therefore, the only substantive, SANE solution is SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE! Then, we will have a chance to fix the problems that confront us on our own terms. Join me in a real solution – a Southern Solution. VOTE SECESSION!
 

The reply to Mark’s response will be continued next week.


Mark Thomey is the Vice-Chairman of the Southern National Congress and current Chairman of the Alabama Delegation. For more information: http://SouthernNationalCongress.org

I know this article is rather long, but gives the best, most succinct answer to what is going on in the USA today.  General Boykin will answer your questions regarding the existence of ‘benign’ Muslims, apart from their ignorance of the truth of Islam’s core beliefs.  Thanks to Guns and Patriots for this interview!  Sundogger

 

Islam’s Primary Objective is Conquest

by  W. Thomas Smith Jr.

08/03/2010

Exclusive interview with Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, U.S. Army (Ret.), former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a former Delta Force officer who CBS’s 60 Minutes once dubbed “the Holy Warrior,” is a no-nonsense counterterrorist expert whom the television newsmagazine also said, “has probably seen as much combat as anyone in uniform.”

Indeed he has, having fought and led soldiers in several American wars and military expeditions since the invasion of Grenada. He was the commander of Delta Force in the bloody battle of Mogadishu. He went on to serve as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He’s the author of the just-released novel, “Danger Close.” And he’s an outspoken and unapologetic Christian, who believes America can succeed in the war on terror, but some serious mistakes — not the least of which is a public ignorance of who the enemy is — must be corrected.

This week we sat down with Boykin and discussed everything from Afghanistan to the proposed mosque near ‘ground zero’ in New York.

W. Thomas Smith Jr.: Recent reports indicate that the Taliban in Afghanistan is stronger than ever and U.S. forces in that country are starved for resources. I’d like to get your thoughts on that.

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin: I don’t know that the Taliban is stronger than ever. But I’ll give you some generalities to think about. First, in those areas controlled by the U.S. — and even those controlled by the UK — the Taliban is not stronger than it previously has been, because the U.S. has been very aggressive in pursuing the Taliban, and also helping to build the infrastructure and work on economic development in those areas under U.S. control.

The Taliban has gained some strength in areas controlled by other NATO nations or coalition partners. That’s because those countries have not been aggressive. They’ve been reluctant to aggressively pursue the Taliban.

In my view, that is one of the big problems today.

When we made the transition to NATO, we brought in countries that came with national caveats.

Those countries came in with a set of rules-of-engagement that applied only to them, and in many cases those ROE told them to stay inside their bases, don’t go out and pursue the Taliban. It’s an issue of being risk averse in terms of casualties. So the Taliban may have resurged in some of those areas, and probably has, and has been able to operate fairly freely in those areas.

Smith: Can we win the war in Afghanistan?

Boykin: The question that really needs to be asked is ‘what does that mean?’ Can we define winning? I would use the term, ‘succeed.’ Can we succeed? And I think the answer is an unequivocal, yes.

But in order to succeed in Afghanistan, we have to develop an infrastructure that would allow for economic development, which would ultimately give people hope for the future so they are not tied to handouts from the Taliban. In order to develop that infrastructure, we have to have a secure environment.

It has been discovered that there is an estimated trillion-dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan that — if mined — could be a tremendous economic boon. The problem is, you’ve got to have an infrastructure that allows for commercial production and selling on the international market. That means we’ve got to build roads, bridges, educational institutions, and it must be done in an environment that’s secure. Then the people have more hope and a greater expectation from their government than they do from the Taliban.

Smith: So what is the difference between succeeding and winning?

Boykin: If you say, ‘Can we win?’ You are fundamentally assuming that someone is going to capitulate, that the losing side will sign a treaty and agree to stop fighting. But we’re not going to see that here. The Taliban is not going to capitulate because they are hard corps radical jihadists. Period. They’re going to go across the border, go into seclusion, and hide.

But if we bring the society to a point where they are strong enough and willing to resist the Taliban, that is success in my view.

Smith: So how do we succeed or win the broader war on terror if the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hizballah and others don’t capitulate, and instead go into seclusion only to fight another day? How do we succeed without completely wiping them out?

Boykin: Remember the war on drugs? Did we ever expect that we would eradicate drugs? No. But our efforts were to bring it to a tolerable level. It’s like crime. Can you defeat crime or win the war on crime? No.

These jihadists are committed, suicidal — in many cases — zealots that really believe their calling from Allah is to destroy Western democracy, kill infidels, and establish a caliphate that will ultimately usher in the reign of the Mahdi. You are not going to defeat an organization like that by killing them all. They just continue to reproduce because this is based on a theology, not holding a piece of ground or a particular objective. We’re talking about a war of ideas here, and that idea is not going to go away.

In my view, it’s been a mistake to call this a war on terror, because terror is a tactic. I see this as a global insurgency, which recognizes the insurgent nature of this war and recognizes that there are things we have to do to stop the spread of this insurgency. And that’s a matter of using the elements of national power.

The military defines seven elements of national power starting with diplomacy, then information, military, economics, financial, law enforcement, and intelligence. It’s not just a military solution. So we have to put great pressure on — for example — countries like Iran to stop funding Hizballah and Hamas. We have to use our economic power, to the extent that we can, through sanctions. We have to share intelligence with our allies so they can take action against terrorist-elements in their countries. So we have to go down the list. But it’s a holistic kind of approach to bring it to a level where we are sure we can defend ourselves against it, and we can go to its source — to the extent that it’s possible — and destroy it.

Smith: I know we are doing those things to a fairly high degree, but then it seems we are giving Muslims a pass on everything in this country. For example, the proposed mosque near ‘ground zero’ in New York.

Boykin: I am so disappointed. I’m also angry that there are those who are so uninformed and intimidated by these people that they are willing to allow this. We need to remember that Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a First Amendment issue. That’s our fundamental mistake. The second thing is, people have no understanding of Islam’s history or its basic tenets.

Islam’s objective in America is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law.

When they defeated the nomadic tribes in Mecca, they built a mosque at the most holy site. The message was one of triumph, that Islam has now defeated you and Islam reigns supreme. They did the same thing at Córdoba [Spain]. They did it in Jerusalem. Same in Constantinople. The message was always one of conquest and victory.

Now, ‘ground zero’ is not holy, but it is sacred because of the lives lost. They want to build a mosque there to proclaim that Islam reigns supreme. Do you know what that is going to mean to Muslims all over the world?

The recruiting to the Jihadist cause will be exponentially increased as a result of the very symbol — the very message — associated with that mosque there. It is incomprehensible to me. It was supported by Christian pastors and Jewish rabbis in this thing they call an interfaith dialogue. It shows such an extraordinary lack of understanding for what Islam is doing.

Smith: What about our counterterrorism capabilities here at home? Where do we need strengthening?

Boykin: It starts with recognizing who the enemy is.

When our administration’s analysis to law enforcement across the country that the future threats to America are right-wing Christian groups, pro-life groups, second amendment groups, and returning veterans; and never says, Islamic terrorists; then we have a fundamental problem of recognizing who the enemy is.

Secondly, the administration has gone to great lengths not to use the terms Islamist, Jihadist, or terrorist. If you can’t recognize your enemy, how are you going to develop a strategy or a methodology to deal with them?

We need to be able to call them who and what they are.

After the Fort Hood shootings by Nidal Hassan, the president finally said, ‘We are at war against Al Qaeda.’ Some people – including conservatives – applauded and said, ‘He finally gets it.’

Well, no, he doesn’t get it. That’s not the enemy. They are ‘an’ enemy, a force to be reckoned with. But we are at war with Islamic Jihadists. They come in many forms and many varieties, and they are not all Al Qaeda.

That is where this administration is coming up short. We have to recognize what these people are about, what there intentions are, and how they intend to pursue those things. And there’s enough information and intelligence available that we should have no difficulty determining that.

Smith: This brings to mind the problem of many Americans not understanding the fact that despite Al Qaeda being Sunni and Hizballah Shia – and so should be at odds with one another – they are in fact collaborating with one another against the West. Hizballah is an incredibly dangerous organization. And the two are working together in Africa, South and Central America, and elsewhere throughout the world.

Boykin: Unquestionably. Again, remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They believe that. There is substantial evidence that Iran today is not only supporting Shia Hizballah in south Lebanon and elsewhere, but Iran is also supporting the Taliban, which is Sunni. And because the Taliban and other Sunni elements are enemies of America, the Iranians are more than happy to provide them with weapons, technology, know-how, training, and money.

So again, it is a question of public information and education.

G & P – Thanks to LTG Boykin for this interview.


Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at marine1@uswriter.com.

Like this article? Get the latest Guns & Patriots delivered to your email every Tuesday. Sign up here – it’s free!