Obama Campaign - "If I Wanted America To Fail"

Total Pageviews

Daily Devotions


If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.

If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.

If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.

If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward

Monday, September 7, 2009

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090907


Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!

"Happy Labor Day"

On September 5, 1882, some 10,000 workers assembled in New York City to participate in America's first Labor Day parade. After marching from City Hall, past reviewing stands in Union Square, and then uptown to 42nd Street, the workers and their families gathered in Wendel's Elm Park for a picnic, concert, and speeches. This first Labor Day celebration was eagerly organized and executed by New York’s Central Labor Union, an umbrella group made up of representatives from many local unions. Debate continues to this day as to who originated the idea of a workers' holiday, but it definitely emerged from the ranks of organized labor at a time when they wanted to demonstrate the strength of their burgeoning movement and inspire improvements in their working conditions.

"Daily Motivations"

Add more therapeutic humor to your workplace. Watch a funny video during lunchtime at least once a week. Ask people to bring in their favorites. A study has shown that people who watched funny videos before taking a creativity test scored 300-500% better than those who watched something "intellectual"! -- Barbara Glanz

"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"The laws of the LORD are true; each one is fair. They are more desirable than gold." (Psalm 19:9-10)

Today the distinction between right and wrong is becoming increasingly blurred. People passionately defend their sinful actions. What is right has become a matter of interpretation. But our sovereign God sets the standards for His creation. His standards do not change.

Our culture understands how important it is to be "right" about certain things. Permit me to give you two examples:

First, an architect building a hundred-story skyscraper takes immense precautions to have the building's foundation perfectly level. If the footings are off even a fraction of an inch, there are tremendous consequences. The farther up he builds on an unleveled foundation, the more unstable the skyscraper becomes.

Second, scientists at Mission Control for NASA in Houston know the importance of being "right" when bringing a spaceship back to Earth. If the angle of re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere is off just a little, the spaceship will encounter too much friction and burn up before it reaches the ground.

Although most people understand the importance of laying the "right" foundation, or having the "right" re-entry angle, they have problems understanding the "rightness" of moral laws. When it comes to stealing, for example, most people divide stealing into categories. They feel that some categories are okay, such as taking a few supplies from their employer. Moral laws, they believe, are not as rigid as other laws. But that is contrary to how God sees His righteous laws, since those laws are an extension of His character.

"The Patriot Post"

"Newspapers ... serve as chimnies to carry off noxious vapors and smoke." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1802

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." -- Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren November 4, 1775

"[O]f those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

"The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act." -- Federalist No. 63

"The Web"

All The President's Radicals


Groups question legality of Obama speech to kids

Prohibition against fed 'control' of curriculum cited by lawyers

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


A lawyer whose work has included myriad civil rights disputes and who has practice before the U.S. Supreme Court is accusing President Obama of trying to push his social agenda by reaching out directly to young children, bypassing parents who may challenge his statements.

And what Obama plans to do on Sept. 8 with a planned speech directly to students in public schools across the United States may even be illegal, according to Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel as well as dean of Liberty University School of Law.

"Obama has pushed his political agenda to the extreme by forcing himself on America's children," Staver said in a statement today. "Obama's political agenda on healthcare and his expansive vision for government is being rejected by the American people. Now Obama is after our children, who, like some socialist members of Congress, have not read the healthcare bill. Americans do not appreciate the president's attempt to use our children as political pawns in his game of chess. Mr. President, you must abide by the rule of law and stop this illegal activity. Our children do not belong to you."

Staver's critique cited 20 U.S.C. § 3403, which regards the Department of Education and states, "No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system."

Staver's concerns were echoed by others as well, including Liberty Legal Alliance spokesman Matt Barber, who said, "Not only is this a violation of federal law, it's just plain creepy. It's surreal. Obama's actions here are right out of the playbooks of Saul Alinsky and Chairman Mao. Soviet Russia? Sure. America? No way. I'm furious. Hands off my children, Mr. President!"

"Who Killed the Constitution?" Here's a dirty little secret: The bedrock of our country is ... dead

WND also reported when the Texas Justice Foundation warned the "classroom activities" suggested by the president's administration connected to the speech possibly were illegal.

"The questions, comments, evaluations and analysis that occurs before, during, and after the president's speech will clearly 'reveal information concerning political affiliations' and probably, 'critical appraisals of other individuals with whom the child(ren) has/have close family relationships' (such as parents)," the foundation said in an analysis of the situation.

"This is perhaps one of the greatest invasions of personal privacy and injecting political affiliation into the public school system in the history of the United States," the Texas Justice Foundation said.

The group cited the Pupil Rights Amendment:

"It also violates 34 Code of Federal Regulations Section 98.4[c] [1] and [2] that defines psychological testing as:
(1) Psychiatric or psychological examination or test means a method of obtaining information, including a group activity, that is not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs or feelings; (emphasis added)

(2) Psychiatric or psychological treatment means an activity involving the planned, systematic use of methods or techniques that are not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to affect behavioral, emotional, or attitudinal characteristics of an individual or group. (emphasis added)

Texas Justice Foundation officials said the group activities suggested by the Department of Education "are not directly related to academic instruction and that are designed to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs, or feelings."

"At this time of intense controversy over the president's far-reaching plans to transform America, it is incredible that he would consider using children to advance his political agenda," Justice Foundation President Allan Parker said. "It violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children, federal law and is perhaps the greatest intrusion of a president into the education process in the history of the United States. In the opinion of the Texas Justice Foundation lawyers, it is both morally and legally wrong."

Liberty Counsel described Obama's actions as "an unprecedented and an illegal political move."

WND telephone calls and e-mails to the White House press office did not generate a response.

But Liberty Counsel's analysis of the event condemned Obama plans to "bypass parents and directly target their children in an effort to implement his political agenda. Millions of parents are justifiably outraged.

"Federal law expressly forbids the Secretary of Education or any officer from exercising 'any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system,'" the analysis said.

The law is:

20 U.S.C. § 3403. (Pub.L. 96-88, Title I, § 103, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 670) United States Code Title 20. Education Chapter 48. Department of Education Subchapter I. General Provisions § 3403. Relationship with States (a) Rights of local governments and educational institutions It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies. The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States. (b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.
Also targeted for criticism was the letter sent by U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan to school principals "encouraging them to cease academic instruction and have clsses tune into a live speech Obama will give to children during schools hours."

"The DOE even provided lesson plans, sample activities and questions that teachers can use to promote the event. The letter encourages teachers to 'build background knowledge about the president by reading books about Barack Obama,'" the analysis said.

Liberty Counsel noted that because of backlash that already has developed, "some of the most offensive language has been softened."

However, "Students as young as kindergarten will, nonetheless, be asked: 'Why is it important that we listen to the president?' and then, initially, were to be asked to write about 'what they can do to help the president.' Their writings would later be used 'to make students accountable to their goals,'" Liberty Counsel said.

"We are a nation of laws," said Barber, "not a federal cult of personality. Obama and the DOE had better pull the plug on this or outraged parents across the country may just insist that members of Congress dust off their 'high crimes and misdemeanors' cheat sheets from the 1990s."

Obama will give the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va. The speech is scheduled to be broadcast live at 12 noon EST on C-SPAN and at whitehouse.gov.

As WND reported, worksheets provided by the U.S. Department of Education encouraged teachers to ask pre-K through 6th-grade students the following questions:

What is the president trying to tell me to do?
What is the president asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?
Students may be asked to write down "key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful, make posters of their goals, create a "supportive community" by sharing those goals with one another.

Junior-high and high-school students may be asked to brainstorm answers to the following questions before the speech:

Why does President Obama want to speak with us today?
How will he inspire us?
How will he challenge us?
What might he say?
They are encouraged to take notes while Obama speaks about personal responsibility, goals or persistence. As part of a "guided discussion," they may talk about what Obama has inspired or challenged them to do.

Officials with the Thomas More Law Center said they were suggesting to concerned parents that students go to school, wearing black arm bands.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the center, said, "Many Americans view the president's speech and the distributed lesson plan as an attempt to foster the cult of personality. It provides a pretext for liberal teachers to engage in political indoctrination. Students should not have to miss school because of the president, but can teach him a lesson in constitutional protesting by wearing the black arm bands."

This type of protest, the law firm notes, was the same type of student protest of the Vietnam War that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why Parents Don't Trust the Educator-in-Chief and His Comrades

by Michelle Malkin


America's classrooms. They think we're crazy. "They" are the sneering defenders of Barack Obama who can't fathom the backlash against the president's nationwide speech to schoolchildren next Tuesday. "We" are parents with eyes wide open to the potential for politicized abuse in America's classrooms.

Ask moms and dads in Farmington, Utah, who discovered this week that their children sat through a Hollywood propaganda video promoting the cult of Obama. In the clip, a parade of entertainers vow to flush their toilets less, buy hybrid vehicles, end poverty and world hunger, and commit to "service" for "change." Actress Demi Moore leads the glitterati in a collective promise "to be a servant to our president." Musician Anthony Kiedis pledges "to be of service to Barack Obama."

The campaign commercial crescendos with the stars and starlets asking their audience: "What's your pledge?"

This same "Do Something" ethos infected the U.S. Department of Education teachers guides accompanying the announcement of Obama's speech -- until late Wednesday, that is, when the White House removed some of the activist language exhorting students to come up with ways to "help the president." Education Secretary Arne Duncan had disseminated the material directly to principals across the country -- circumventing elected school board members and superintendents now facing neighborhood revolts.

O's bureaucrats can whitewash offending language from the Sept. 8 speech-related documents, but they can't remove the taint of left-wing radicalism that informs Obama and his education mentors. A spokesman maintained that the speech is "about the value of education and the importance of staying in school as part of his effort to dramatically cut the dropout rate." But the historical subtext is far less innocent.

Obama served with Weather Underground terrorist and neighbor Bill Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge education initiative. Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in Ayers' pedagogical philosophy. Obama served as the program's first chairman of the board, while Ayers steered its curricular policy. The two oversaw grants to welfare rights enterprise ACORN and to avowed communist Michael Klonsky -- a close pal of Ayers and member of the militant Students for a Democratic Society. SDS served as a precursor to the violent Weather Underground organization.

As investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz reported, Klonsky and Ayers teamed up on the so-called "small schools movement" to steer schoolchildren away from core academics to left-wing politicking on issues of "inequity, war and violence."

A cadre of like-minded educators and national service administrators across the country share the same core commitment to transforming themselves from imparters of knowledge to transformers of society. The "change" agenda trains students to think only about what they should do for Obama -- and rarely to contemplate how his powers and ambitions should be limited and restrained.

Ayers preached his education-as-"social justice" agenda to his "comrades" at the World Education Forum in Caracas, Venezuela, three years ago:

"This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President (Hugo) Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I've come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle -- I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."

Ayers continued:

"I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position -- and from that day until this I've thought of myself as a teacher, but I've also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: You can change your life -- whoever you are, wherever you've been, whatever you've done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: We must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!"

This is why informed parents do not trust the Educator-in-Chief and his "comrades." You can take Obama from the radicals in Chicago. But you can't take the Chicago radicalism out of Obama.

Obama 'Green Jobs' Adviser Van Jones Quits

One Down And Many To Go: Now that Van Jones has resigned, we must continue to remember this radical left-wing type of characters whom President Obama has surrounded himself with. Van Jones is just one of several President Obama’s czar appointees. These "czar" appointees carry a top title, but are not required to be confirmed by the US Senate, or anyone else. Van Jones is just one of the radical left-wing appointees who were to represent (y)our American citizens. As you look at President Obama's nominations in his administration, you will now get a clearer picture of Obama’s own personal, radical, left-leaning values from within. Can you trust Obama to teach (y)our children? Obama’s values, based on the histories whom he has appointed, are different from what I grew up with. Our Holy Biblical values are what we learned, loved, practiced, and try to follow today. You just cannot defeat old time Judeo-Christian values. God Bless America! - oyh


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, who became embroiled in a controversy over past inflammatory statements, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."

The resignation, disclosed without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.

Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

After the resignation, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama did not endorse Van Jones' comments but thanked him for his service.

"What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual," said Gibbs. The president thanks Jones for his work and accepted his resignation, Gibbs said, adding that Jones "understood he was going to get in the way," by becoming a liability to the administration. Gibbs spoke Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Jones issued an apology on Thursday for his past statements.

The matter surfaced after news reports of a derogatory comment Jones made in the past about Republicans, and separately, of Jones's name appearing on a petition connected to the events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That 2004 petition had asked for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had allowed the attacks to occur.

"On the eve of historic fights for healthcare and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, told "Fox News Sunday" that he thought Jones "was brought down" and that his resignation was "a loss to the country."

Jones said he has been "inundated with calls from across the political spectrum urging me to stay and fight."

But he said he cannot in good conscience ask his colleagues to spend time and energy defending or explaining his past.

Jones flatly said in an earlier statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand on the Sept. 11 attacks and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

As for his other comments he made before joining Obama's team, Jones said, "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

Despite his apologies, Republicans demanded Jones quit.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate." Missouri Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond said Congress should investigate Jones's fitness for the job.

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck repeatedly denounced Jones after a group the adviser co-founded, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

James Rucker, the organization's executive director, has said Jones had nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started.

Jones, well-known in the environmental movement, was a civil-rights activist in California before shifting his attention to environmental and energy issues. He is known for laying out a broad vision of a green economy. Conservatives have harshly criticized him for having left-wing political views.

Nancy Sutley, chair of the council, said in a statement released early Sunday that she accepts Jones resignation and thanked him for his service.

"Over the last six months, he had been a strong voice for creating jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources," she said. "We appreciate his hard work and wish him the best moving forward."

Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent

By Matt Cover


Cass Sunstein speaking at Harvard Law School. (Photo: Matthew W. Hutchins, Harvard Law Record.)

(CNSNews.com) – Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.

Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.

“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.

This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”

They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.

The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.

In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.

Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”

The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”

“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”

Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences,” the authors stated. “Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

To ensure that people’s decisions align with the government policy of more organ donors, Sunstein and Thaler counseled that governments should follow the state of Illinois’ example and try to influence people by making organ donation seem popular.

“First, the state stresses the importance of the overall problem (97,000 people [in Illinois] on the waiting list and then brings the problem home, literally (4,700 in Illinois),” they wrote.

“Second, social norms are directly brought into play in a way that build on the power of social influences [peer pressure]: ‘87 percent of adults in Illinois feel that registering as an organ donor is the right thing to do’ and ’60 percent of adults in Illinois are registered,’” they added.

Sunstein and Thaler reminded policymakers that people will generally do what they think others are doing and what they believe others think is right. These presumptions, which almost everyone has, act as powerful factors as policymakers seek to design choices.

“Recall that people like to do what most people think is right to do; recall too that people like to do what most people actually do,” they wrote. “The state is enlisting existing norms in the direction of lifestyle choices.”

Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.

“The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else,” they said.

This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.

Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.

In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.

When asked what the title “Nudge” means and why people need to be nudged, the authors stated: “By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front.

“We think that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”

Updating POTUS $24,000 New York 'date' (or $1,000,000 ?)


First, let me say that I've flown (moved) three presidents up to now and I've seen incredible waste. But, the "new" guy really takes the cake. I don't have an issue with the President promising his wife dinner and a show or that he even takes his wife out. But, when I see the news say that the date cost (only) $24,000, I can't resist exposing what they DON'T say.

Three days before "dinner" a C-17 flew Marines and the helicopter maintenance equipment to JFK Airport ..

The day before "dinner" I flew the USSS (Secret Service) and the motorcade to JFK Airport Our crew of 5 spent two days and nights at the Hilton in Times Square. My hotel bill: $621.66 plus $64 a day in per diem. The USSS guys were at a different Hilton in NYC, so figure that cost another $14,000 (or so) plus per diem. The Marines had to have cost as much and were there four days, so figure another $55,000 plus per diem (for 44 Marines).

We were supposed to fly the motorcade back and go home, but the Air Force was so short of C-17's that we were re-tasked to take the motorcade back, return to JFK and take the helicopter back to Quantico . When we got back to JFK, while the pilot was turning the plane around to park, he noticed a rotor blade sticking out of the hangar where the helicopter was parked and informed me that either it wasn't ready to transport or it was flying home. After shutting down I walked over to the hangar and to my surprise I find FIVE helicopters, not ONE.

We're obviously not transporting five big helicopters. I went and talked to the Marines guarding the "fleet" and found that they were flying all five helicopters home and we were only transporting the Marines and the maintenance equipment. After talking to the Marine in charge, I was told that the White House requested FIVE helicopters. The Marines told me that they spent all morning trying to figure out how much it cost them to come and said they figured it cost them $140,000 to stay there (I don't know where they came up with that). Overall, the trip's total had to be about $1,000,000.

We heard that the President didn't use Air Force One (the 747) so I asked if he came in on one of the 757's. I was told that he came in on THREE Air Force Lear jets. So, date night consisted of:

Two C-17's flying three missions, 3 Lear jets, 5 Helicopters, Presidential Motorcade, 44 Marines, more than 20 USSS personnel on our plane. Who knows what it cost the NYPD and NY Port Authority (at the airport) in overtime.

Note that these are the people who chastised automobile CEO's for using their aircraft. One also sees that the media only use the facts that make the President look good and hide any facts that will detract from his persona..

Is this the 'change' we expected? Many folks I know who voted for Obama are very disappointed and sorry they did so.

The Emperor's clothes on a grand scale. "Transparency"? Our next chance, 2010, is just around the corner. All we have to do is survive long enough."

Reminder: The Population Control Freak & The Perv tonight on CBS

By Michelle Malkin


I reported on Monday that wackjob science czar John Holdren is scheduled to make a second appearance on David Letterman’s late-night CBS show. (He first appeared last spring to stir up global warming hysteria.)

Just a reminder to set your Tivos. It’s still a go, according to the Letterman Show website.

To help The Perv’s writers out, here’s my Top 10 List of nuttiest passages from Holdren’s works (all available at Zombietime and CNS):

10. Planetary control…

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

9. Regulating the number of children…

“Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the “right responsibly to choose” the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a “compelling, subordinating interest” in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society’s survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

8. Forced abortions…

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

7. Forced marriage, forced adoptions, and more forced abortions…

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

6. And it could be legal…

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

5. Involuntary fertility control…

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

4. Not quite human…

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

3. ZEG…“Why should we not strive for zero economic growth (ZEG) as well as zero population growth?”

2. De-development…

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.

…The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

1. Sterilants in your drinking supply…

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Think these passages will come up tonight?

"The e-mail Bag"

H1N1 virus - Government's new Swine Flu Helpline. Basically .. If you wake up looking like this ..

To get the pictures, you must send an e-mail address requesting the mailings.
Don't go to work !!!

ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the circus was in town, I'm going with male.

ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

No comments: