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

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Medias failing “Freedom of Speech”

By Oscar Y. Harward

As we look at each individual state, congressional district, and/or even a community, and make an effort to evaluate as to why this referenced locale votes liberal, moderate, or conservative, it is imperative that we look at the bias and/or diverse presentations to the locales by the main-stream Medias of TV, radio, and print in the same areas.

In areas where the Medias present their stories with a liberal bias in a locale, you will find the voters responding accordingly. The moderate and/or conservative Medias also have a respective voting record in their locals accordingly.

However, wherever you find an area where the voting records continue to be more liberal, you will find liberal Medias of the area who will print and accept liberal editorial views while denying the printing of conservative editorial views on the identical issues in the matching areas. The liberal left-leaning editorial articles presented will be published over the more conservative-leaning editorial articles by a ratio of five to one or more. Additionally, liberal left-leaning editorial articles will be presented with a positive accent while more conservative-leaning editorial articles will be presented with a more negative tarnish.

A diverse presentation of the news means the “main stream” media must begin in practicing “Freedom of Speech” by reporting the truth, rather than liberal bias. Sometimes, it appears many in the liberal main-stream lack the abilities to acknowledge the truth without a liberal bias. Political polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans view journalists in the Medias and their presentations as liberal and left-wing accounts. Left-wing liberal versions in the Medias have led many American voters to change their own voting decision process in their selection viewpoints.

Communications are shifting in America and around the world. An “open and free” Internet is making dramatic modifications of peoples’ views. With a few strokes on a computer keyboard, any individual may communicate their personal thoughts to thousands, and even millions, of same-thinking individuals all over the globe. Any can share the same fiscal, social, and military values to and fro. With these findings on the Internet, Americans are uncovering they are not attached to a closed liberal view of singular thoughts.

Americans are discovering they can acquire a more open examination of the news from Fox News Channel. As a result, Fox News Channel’s audience is growing rapidly with more and more viewers realizing a “fair and balanced” version of the news, as opposed to other “biased liberal views of the news” offered by CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and even many local news stations, etc.

Neilson’s data suggests’ that 14 years old Fox News Channel may now have more audience viewers on an average time frame than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined. ABC, CBS, and NBC should adjust their reporting to a more “fair and balanced” presentation. Many editors and reporters fail to acknowledge the importance of reporting “free and honest” coverage on issues are most important components of our “Freedom of Speech”.

There is a coordination in today’s world combining partisan politics to higher education. As liberals are defeated in the electoral process, the defeated liberals are appointed as professors and/or other instructors in Universities and Colleges, teaching our children the same harmful and destructive political beliefs which the voters rejected. Many liberals in the Medias fail or refuse to recognize and/or accept opposing positions, when other conservative views may carry an equal or perhaps, a more productive view. For some liberals in the Medias, it is much easier to silence and/or disassociate/discard more Conservative, Christian, and/or old English common-sense views.

For liberal editors and reporters of the Media to reject opposing conservative viewpoints, are disallowing Americans the same “Freedom of Speech” they, themselves, otherwise pledge to practice. A large majority of Americans are seeking a “fair and balanced” presentation of the news. Those in the Medias who offer this approach will grow. Others will wither on the vine. And to our friends in the liberal Medias, think as Voltiare said, “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too”.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Prevent criminal activity with amnesty to illegal immigrants

By Oscar Y. Harward

Capitol Hill Democrats have not completed their agenda in the 111th. Congress. After “cramming down our throats” several radical laws in the past 2 years, American voters responded by defeating many Democrat Party members in the Congress and Senate. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi team is winding down; however, the Democrats continue to press radical left-wing legislation for the last part of November and December, 2010.

The US Senate “lame-duck” session reopens on November 29, 2010. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote on S. 3827; proposed legislation which, in my opinion, is a slight disguise to grant amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigration is a foremost issue as more criminal activity is entering the USA, specifically, crossing into America from Mexico.

You may choose to contact (y)our US Senators by telephone, send E-mails, faxes, and/or visit the Senators’ offices encouraging each how important it is to vote “NO” on S. 3827.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has written an article concerning S.3827. These 10 items are jam-packed into short points of concern. The entire article with more comprehensive dialogue may be read at the following “link”: http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/58-immigration/821-ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-s3827-the-dream-act

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, and It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply

5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits

6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty

7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service

8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration

9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Radical Islamic Muslims crushing American Constitutional freedoms

By Oscar Y. Harward

Ronald Reagan said, "Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation from government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment." Ronald Reagan was exemplifying that inalienable rights are granted from God as defined in Judeo-Christian values and explicitly expressed by our founding fathers. This should not be confused by radical Islamic Muslims’ beliefs as defined in their Quran.

For histories, radical Islamic Muslims, in support of their Quran beliefs, have been at war with all Judeo-Christians around the world. The battles continue today with disputes of US Constitutional freedoms v. the Quran and Sharia Law. In expanding and intense battles, Islamic Muslims are pressing their beliefs upon America, Constitutional freedoms, and Judeo-Christian values. These transformations of radical Islamic Muslim replacement pursuits apply to many other nations of the free world.

Prior to the attack on US Marines in 1983, there was little fear of attacks on US Military armed forces’ facilities around the world. On Sunday, October 23, 1983, one homicidal Hezbollah radical Islamic Muslim, driving a truck loaded with 12,000 pounds of dynamite and drove his truck into a US Marines’ barrack in Beirut, Lebanon killing 241 Marines.

Up until 9/11/2001, Americans had little fear of getting into an airplane for business or pleasure. On September 11, radical Islamic Muslims flew 2 hijacked commercial airplanes into the New York City “twin towers” killing some 2,750 innocent Americans.

Radical Islamic Muslims flew one hijacked commercial airplane into the Pentagon killing 184 innocent Americans.

Radical Islamic Muslims flying 1 hijacked commercial airplane to an unknown destination crashed in Pennsylvania killing 40 innocent Americans. Most believe the target was the US Capitol, the White House, or perhaps, Camp David.

These illustrations are a few of many incidents with radicalism by Islamic Muslims common-day references. Radical Islamic Muslims are damaging and/or destroying America, our Constitutional freedoms, and our Judeo-Christian values.

Over the last 30 years of so, radicalism of Islamic Muslims are using our Constitution in the spread of more extremism.

The ACLU, in selling their agenda to provide individual freedoms, are continuously filing lawsuits against taxpayer-stripped federal, state, and local governments, Houses of Worship, Non-Profit organizations, etc. In many of these filed cases, the prosecuting ACLU is defeating the defendants due to their abilities to pay the legal cost in fighting the ACLU. Many of these cases are chipping away at Constitutional freedoms as intended by our founding fathers. These radical Muslims will kill any humans of Judeo-Christian values. The weapon of choice is becoming suicidal and/or homicidal bombings.

Flying in airplanes around the world has forced governments and airlines to use security in protecting public passengers and shipping of products. Full-body scanning machines and pat-down is now used as the most common used security.

Radical Islamic Muslims on September 11, 2001 did fly 2 hijacked commercial airplanes into the New York City “twin towers” killing some 2,750 innocent Americans, another into the Pentagon killing 184 innocent Americans, and a third hijacked and crashed airplane killing 40 innocent Americans. Islamic Muslims are now attempting to build an Islamic Muslim Mosque near “ground zero”. Even worse, they are seeking the taxpayers to support in funding the project.

Americans Constitutional freedoms are being crushed by radical Islamic Muslims and their criminal activity. Americans should not be penalized and/or forced to be seen by others on full-body scanning machines. American airline passengers should not be forced to tolerate full pat-down searches. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for Radical Islamic Muslims’ criminal activity. Radical Islamic Muslim nations should be forced to pay the cost for their own peoples’ potential criminal actions by keeping Americans and the world’s other free-loving people secure.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Charlotte Airport Director Says He Wants the TSA Out

Published by Bane Windlow


CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WBTV) – The director of Charlotte Douglas International says he doesn’t think the TSA should be in charge of the airport’s security.

“I think they spend way too much money and I think it could be done a lot quicker, a lot better at a lot less expense,” said Jerry Orr.

Orr said he has always believed the airport’s police officers could do the job TSA agents do. He says he has been carefully following the backlash of the body scanners and thorough pat downs over the past several days.

To him, the complaints — especially flight attendant Cathy Bossi’s harrowing experience over being asked to removed her prosthetic breast — are nothing new. “With the amount we’ve spent with the technology that’s available that’s seems a lit overboard doesn’t it,” said Orr.


Charlotte-Douglas is now the second airport I am aware of that is considering throwing out TSA. Orlando is the other and San Francisco already uses a private contractor.

The TSA stories hitting the media are getting more and more horrific with each passing day. I think the worst one I’ve seen so far now is the experience of a Mr. Tom Sawyer, a bladder cancer survivor, who has to wear a urostomy bag. Despite his warning to the TSA security guard, who patted him down regarding his condition, the agent caused the bag to leak and Mr. Sawyer had to board the plane with his own urine splashed on him.

While the fascist director of TSA, John Pistole, insists they will not budge on the new intrusive procedures, I have a feeling his hand is going to be forced eventually. The backlash is building and I think the Congress is going to have no choice but to intervene.

Constitutional freedoms with profiling of suspects must be allowed

By Oscar Y. Harward

Homeland Security Agency (HSA) has issued newer rules for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) examinations of full-body scanning machines and pat-down that many say are too invasive. TSA’s full-body scanning machines will not show plastic bomb elements and most object to full pat-downs as too sexually abusive. Who wants anyone to fondle their private bodies? To discontinue all testing would trigger a total shut-down in airport travel that would further injure our US economy.

ACLU lawsuits, along with the SCOTUS have determined “profiling” is a form of discrimination. Now, “profiling” has turned the issue into a “national security” concern with an internal battle between our TSA security agents and flying passengers. Flying has become a “profiling” issue dealing primarily with Islamic Muslims’ terrorism. Men and women of Islamic Muslim communities around the world have become the primary suspects. Why are all other persons treated as the suspicious ones? Law enforcement professionals must be allowed to do their jobs, even by the use of “profiling”.

After 9/11, President G.W. Bush said Islam is a “Religion of Peace”. How wrong he was then! It is apparent President Bush realizes his faulty statement. America, and other nations around the world are constantly facing attacks from radical Islamic Muslims.

Frequently, President Obama says the “United States is not at war with the Islamic Muslim community, and never will be”. The facts may dispute Obama’s own words. President Obama should know better.

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) said, “The U.S. is at war with violent Islamist extremism, and the Obama administration does moderate Muslims no favor by refusing to recognize this.”

When you review the facts http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm; as provided by “The Religion of Peace”, you will see that 3,098 Americans have died in 67 Islamic Muslims attacks since April, 1972. Furthermore, you may find at least 30 foiled attempts against the US since 9/11/01 http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/at-least-30-islamic-terror-plots-against-u-s-foiled-since-911-eleven-in-nyc-video/.

Islamic Muslims have been at war with America, Israel, and many other nations and/or persons who disagree with Islamic Muslin teachings.
Islamic Muslims’ ideals v. Judeo-Christian value wars did not start yesterday. There are writings of the 7th. century of Islamic Muslin wars against any other Judeo-Christians and/or countries of the world.

Winston Churchill (1874 -1965) http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Winston-Churchill-Islamism.htm; has been known as one of the world’s most wise warrior statesman for his success against Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Fascism. Churchill joined the Fourth Hussars, a Calvary Regiment in the British Army, in 1895. After serving as a war correspondent while serving in now Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, he wrote a book, “The Story of the Malakand Field Force”.

Churchill’s named "Mad Mullah". Speaking of the Pathan and Beluchi tribesmen of the border regions, he noted with some sarcasm that “the Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir holds to-day: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet.”

Churchill wrote, “Civilization is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed”. Churchill continues, “Fanaticism is not a cause of war. It is the means which helps savage peoples to fight. It is the spirit which enables them to combine - the great common object before which all personal or tribal disputes become insignificant. What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith was to the Arabs of the Soudan - a faculty of offence or defense”.

Dr. Michael Kessler, Assistant Director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and Visiting Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University says in his article, “Islam is not a religion. It is a violent political ideology of which religion is only one component and is based on its own set of laws that has no tolerance for non Muslims”.

Many Americans are outraged as many within the Islamic Muslim communities appear to be trying to replace our Holy Bible and Judeo-Christian values with the Quran and their Islamic Muslim militant beliefs. Terrorism within the radical Islamic Muslim communities around the world practice Sharia Law, an ideology which is strongly contrary to our Constitutional freedoms and Judeo-Christian values.

Constitutional freedoms with profiling of suspects must be allowed. The ACLU should repeal their earlier resolve on this issue. Crime prevention and early detection in law enforcement is one of their primary teachings in our society. “Profiling” at airports must be allowed in an effort for professional law enforcement to do what they do best, saving lives.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Engineering change to the Legislative, Judicial, and Public School Branches

By Chuck Sproull, Springville IN, 11/21/2010

On Friday Nov 19, I had the privilege of attending a lecture at IU by Dawn Johnson, Pres. Obama’s appointed head of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.. She had been serving as acting Assistant General of the DOJ OLC. Her four topics were Reproductive Liberties, Rule of Law, Torture Memos and DADT.

Reproductive Liberties is just another term for pro-choice and for irresponsible women to have unwanted children aborted. Now, anyone who understands the English language, and who knows that the group of killers of pre-born babies called Planned Parenthood (PP), is actually making the majority of their profits from selling unreliable birth control condoms and then abortions of resulting accidental, unwanted pregnancies; we can see that PP is actually preventing reproduction; and therefore Dawn’s topic should have been more honestly titled “Un-reproductive Liberties.” Likewise, honest people understand that the organization whose acronym is PP actually stands for Prevented Parenthood.

After her lecture I mentioned that I had just retired after 45 years with the US Navy. Even though I retired from the Department of Defense, I am still a soldier in God’s Army. I still love and feel very defensive of our Constitutional Republic and the culture of life (consisting of three processes - normal marriage, conception-birth, and education-maturity) that God gave us through the strong Bible-based convictions of our Founding Fathers. As a Sonar Technician and Oceanographer I love to see what’s going on under the surface, and as a Logistics Management Specialist I am meticulously analytical and familiar with the Systems Engineering. So I asked her to look at all these legal and political issues from a Systems Engineering point of view.

During the Systems Engineering process, from design to production of a new defense system or piece of equipment, the engineers love to design equipment they hope will be go through production and operate reliably in the field. If the new equipment experiences too many failures, they love to make engineering changes to replace low reliability parts with higher reliable parts to improve their overall reliability, resulting in higher quality performance. Too many failures puts an extra burden of expense on the maintenance of those systems.

I also mentioned that our legal and political systems and American tax-payers are burdened by issues like teen pregnancies, suicides, abortions and homosexual (so-called) marriages and “don’t ask don’t tell” in our military. (By the way, just as its impossible two male plugs or two female receptacles to “mate,” its impossible for two men or two women to “marry”).

Then I asked Dawn if she thought that (1) getting rid of pornography and condom distribution in our tax-payer-funded public schools, (2) parents teaching their children to appreciate all the physical and biological gender distinctions between male and female, (3) parents and teachers cooperating to teach youth self-discipline within decent Biblical moral standards and abstinence from intimacy until marriage, (4) teaching them by good example to appreciate the normal marriage concept, and (5) teaching women how to love their babies during the conception- to-birth process (real meaning of Planned Parenthood); would this relieve some of the legal burden off the shoulders of the DOJ?

If we would teach our youth high moral values so effectively they (1) wouldn’t even want to engage in abnormal marriage, (2) would not even want intimacy before or outside normal marriage, (3) would love their children so much they wouldn’t even want abortions, and (4) would voluntarily keep their families small enough to ensure all their members were cared for; would those ease the burden on the shoulders of our political and legal systems and tax-payers, and produce higher quality of life in our American culture? And would these make DOJ’s job easier? And she agreed.

So I suggest we make something like an engineering change to the Legislative, Judicial and Public School Branches of our tax-payer-funded government – in Nov 2011 vote out low reliability Senators and Representatives, and vote in new leaders who have demonstrated conservative values and appreciation for our Constitutional Republic. This would eventually raise the quality of life in America to where we could be a good example to the rest of the world (“city on a hill”) instead of letting them influence us, and put the tax-payer-funded Planned Parenthood abortion industry and Human Rights (wrongs) Campaign out of business.

Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act



1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.

The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty

Under The DREAM Act Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.

4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty.In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply

Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5 years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.

5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits

The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.

6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). Within 8 years of the initial grant of status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree.

If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education requirement can be waived altogether.

7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service

DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.

Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.

8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration

Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years after enactment) and are 21 years of age.

Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who don’t want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.

9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.

10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process

When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however, prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the nearly impossible task of proving a negative.

The Honorable Jeff Sessions is a Republican U.S. Senator from Alabama.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Does crime pay on Capitol Hill?

By Oscar Y. Harward

If a Representative in the US House fails to list and pay taxes for 17 years, should he/she be prosecuted and jailed? Would it make any difference if he/she was the former “tax-writing” Chairman of Ways and Means Committee?

If a Representative in the US House used government offices, government employees, and government stationary in failing to report $600,000 in annual income for an effort of 5 years to raise a total of $30 million for his/her own personal organization, should he/she be prosecuted and jailed?

If a Representative in the US House fails to list hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets, should he/she be prosecuted and jailed?

If a Representative in the US House violated his/her lease by converting a residential unit into a campaign office, when others had been evicted for similar offenses, should he/she be prosecuted and jailed?

This may be a short summary of 13 charges brought against Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) by the US House Ethics Committee. Rep. Rangel was convicted of 11 of the 13 charges.

The US House Ethics Committee, on a 9 to 1 vote, is recommending “censure”? Why not expulsion? In despite of Rangel’s 20 term history, the penalty must be an example of following the law.

If a banker has been working with a financial firm for 40 years of financial success and then it was found that the banker had stolen and/or misappropriated $1 million, should he/she be “censured” or should he/she fired and prosecuted? In any business, the common-sense answer would be fired and prosecuted.

The House Ethics Committee says that Congressman Rangel is guilty. Of these 11 of 13 convicted issues that were addressed, how much of taxpayers’ money is adequate for expulsion?

Is a majority on Capitol Hill so corrupt as to bequeath Congressman Rangel a “pass” with a “censure” rather than “expulsion”? Congressman Rangel says he is not a crook. The hard evidence will dispute that.

Where is any moral or legal responsibility for any member of the US House Ethics Committee to vote for “censure” rather than “expulsion”? Where is any moral or legal reasoning and responsibility for any member of the US House vote for “censure” rather than “expulsion”?

How can members of Congress on Capitol Hill expect to ever achieve the trust from Americans? Should it be a “trust” for members of Congress to receive nobility from Americans serving in “public service”? Members of Congress must prove that “Crime does not pay on Capitol Hill”.

Friday, November 19, 2010

President Obama, you are not a Ronald Reagan

By Oscar Y. Harward

There is much disbelief in every word coming from the lips of President Obama. Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election, Obama had many questionable friends and associates who had unsavory backgrounds. While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Sen. Obama promoted left-wing legislation and revolutionary liberal public funding. During Obama’s term in the US Senate, Obama continued with, questionably, the most “radically liberal” legislation of the time. During his tenure as a candidate for President, Obama repeated his “radically liberal” message.

An overwhelming majority of main-stream Media members are so supportive of left-wing politics. The majority liberal main-stream Medias continued, and even today, continues to give Obama “passes” on the issues. Liberal main-stream Medias elect to deny the facts, fail and report the news by ignoring his words and/or activities, or spinning unwise words into a positive story.

Now, President Obama is pushing the US Senate for a positive vote on ratification of a new nuclear-arms treaty agreement with Russia. Obama refers to the new treaty as a "national security imperative".

Obama says it is not about politics. It is all about national security. President Obama, oh yes it is. It is all about our national security, Europe’s continued freedoms, and protecting the “free world” from Russia’s missiles and their aggressive Communist Party politics.

President G.W. Bush had planned to install an anti-missile ground-based system in the State of “free and independent” Georgia, Europe. After the 2008 General Election of President Obama, Russia invaded Georgia and seized control of Georgia. Without any dispute of Russia invading Georgia from President Obama, that prevented the United States from installing an anti-missile system in Georgia.

Under Obama’s new nuclear-arms treaty agreement, the Russian asked for and President Obama guaranteed that the United States will not set up an anti-missile ground-based system in the State of Poland and/or the Czech Republic in Europe. This anti-missile system would protect European allies. Obama claims that a mobile system is just as effective and less expensive.

The major problem in is that President Obama has, on numerous occasions, proven that the words from his lips may be “untruthful words”. Obama’s expressions of today are opposite of his words of yesterday. Obama’s speech of today are probably opposite of his words of tomorrow. President Obama is attempting to present his new nuclear-arms treaty agreement with Russia comparable to the late President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START). Any ratification of Obama’s new nuclear-arms treaty agreement with Russia supported on Obama’s explanations is problematic.

It appears President Obama may be preparing a puzzle, one piece at a time, not to build upon our prosperous nation, but to wreck or transfer America’s Constitutional freedoms and our treasured Judeo-Christian values.

President Reagan’s agreement eventually brought down the “Iron-Wall”, or as it was recognized as the Communist Party’s Soviet Union bloc. In doing so, the Berlin wall fell and unified Berlin, Germany. Who can compare Obama’s success(es) around the world to the multiple successes of Ronald Reagan http://www.reaganfoundation.org/default.aspx?

President Obama, Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine, and President Obama, you are not a Ronald Reagan!

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Will Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats deny Americans a restoring economy

By Oscar Y. Harward

In November 2008, Americans voters were searching for a healthier solution to restore a sluggish American economy. The voters’ proposal was to grant Barack Obama and the Democrat Party on Capitol Hill opportunities to show their plans. Almost immediately, the American electorate saw that the Democrat Party’s Obama/Reid/Pelosi team was a mistake as their solution was to spend more of taxpayers’ money to bail out our industries and our government. Americans screamed “NO” to more spending but the Democrat Party’s Obama/Reid/Pelosi team ignored the calls. Americans realize that when you are deep in debt, you have to “stop the spending” in personal budgets and in government budgets.

During the past two years, the White House and Capitol Hill Democrat Party team of Obama/Reid/Pelosi have raped American taxpayers by proposing and passing legislation which was intensely opposed by the American public. On occasions, many elected Democrat Party members on Capitol Hill admitted that they voted for legislation even though they had not even read the bills.

In the last two years, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi team attempted to swing members of the GOP to cross the aisle in support of the most radical and liberal giveaway legislation ever proposed on Capitol Hill. Most Republicans held their position in refusing to cross over and support radical, left-wing proposed legislation, just to vote yes.

On November 2, 2010, American voters responded to the radical, left-wing legislation saying, “Stop the spending”. American voters were surprised and outraged but awakened as members of the Democrat Party continued to ignore the call. Now, the American electorate is calling upon the Republican Party to right the wrong. In the meantime, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi team has spent more deficit spending than all other Congress’s combined between our first President George Washington and continuing through President Ronald Reagan’s administration. With more damage in doing so, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi team promised to create jobs restoring an expanding economy. Sadly, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrat Party team left America in financial distress with few or no additional jobs.

Even now, Democrat Party’s Obama/Reid/Pelosi team has allocated $800 million to Wisconsin, $400 million to Ohio, and $2 billion to Florida, all for high-speed rail. Within the last few days, each of these new GOP Governors-elect Scott Walker (R-WI), John Kasich (R-OH), and Rick Scott (R-FL) have all said “NO” to this spending. These three governors want this $3.2 billion of allocated funding returned to the taxpayers.

When will they ever learn to listen? On November 16, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood indicated that the $1.2 billion may be transferred to Charlotte, NC for a high-speed rail. Today, taxpayers are funding each passenger $32.00 per ride. Why should American taxpayers be forced to pay even more?

To make corrections in saving our nation, members of the Republican Party must stand firm on continuing to reduce taxes on all, and that includes what Democrats call the wealthy. Democrats must learn to understand that it is those with resources (money) in our society who create jobs. When was the last time you met an indigent individual who created jobs?

Members of the Democrat Party must also understand that it is the Labor Unions that are destroying businesses by demanding more salaries and benefits than industries can afford to provide and compete in the world economy.

Jobs, jobs, and more jobs are the primary issues to restore Americans in putting people back to work. The GOP must and will stand firm in accomplishing these goals without softening and/or compromising principles to, again, slow down our economy. Republicans must refuse to cut all deals that may injure the goals in restoring our American fiscal and/or social freedoms.

Under the majority GOP leadership in the US House of Representatives, expect the radical left-wing minority Democrat Party to continue with attempts to create anxiety on all proposed conservative issues. By standing firm, GOP leadership can return America back to a prosperous economy.

Along the way, President Obama’s veto and Senate Democrats’ blockage will serve in delaying the restoration of our economy.

America still has the best technology and greatest workers in the entire world. Labor Unions must learn to work with industries allowing businesses a fair shake for profits in the marketplace.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Kojo Nantambu raises a falsified and old ugly face

By Oscar Y. Harward

If you cannot debate the question with facts, you may circumvent the issue at hand. Kojo Nantambu, as President of Charlotte's NAACP, may have just become one of the best at evading a subject issue and distorting the topic into the minds of his following. In doing so, Nantambu is damaging the NAACP, Charlotte, and the entire community.

When Kojo Nantambu was recently elected as President of Charlotte's NAACP, some who knew Nantambu may have foreseen a potential stumbling block under his leadership.

Why is Charlotte's NAACP Kojo Nantambu unjustifiably attempting to stir up racism in a delightful community? For many years, Charlotte has been a “shining star” of equality in America. His first impression in a public hearing began with Nantambu arousing a crowd by enticing the crowd to start a chant, "No justice, no peace", stirring up the community in the closing of some local public schools.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, like most other communities across America and the free world, are in a recession. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Schools must cut out-of-control spending. Will the facts show that former Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools under Democrat Party leadership spent excessive taxpayers’ money by overbuilding schools?

Doesn’t the NC General Statute require County Commissions to provide public schools’ any and all budget requested funds, negotiate and settle the differences between the two government agencies, or the County Commissioners are required to schedule a “bond issue” within some 60 days or so?

Everyone who knows former Mayor Pat McCrory at all knows Pat McCrory is not a “racist”. This must have become a shock for Pat McCrory to be called a “racist” by anyone. After serving 7 terms (14 years), there is not one blemish of evidence that Pat McCrory is a “bigoted” individual.

For Kojo Nantambu to call former Mayor Pat McCrory a “racist” may be only a remembrance of his own past views of many years. There are now few who may say the same for NAACP President Kojo Nantambu. The City of Charlotte, the NAACP, and the entire community may need to be reminded that Kojo Nantambu, himself, does have a criminal past that most hoped his profile should never be recalled.

Is the evidence Nantambu has revealed at the Board of Education meeting and now his erroneous statement regarding former Mayor Pat McCrory an indication of what Charlotte and the surrounding communities may see as expectations from Kojo Nantambu as President of Charlotte's NAACP in the future?

Charlotte and the surrounding communities have no desire or need for Kojo Nantambu to stir “racism” with or without any authentication. What group would have desires in coming to Charlotte for a convention when there is “racism” in town or the attendees may be witnessing violence as a result thereof? Other NAACP leaders may wish to consider new leadership.

Kojo Nantambu owes an apology to former Mayor Pat McCrory, the City of Charlotte, the NAACP membership, and the surrounding communities.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Obama/Reid/Pelosi’s “cram down our throats” so-called “Dream Act” legislation

By Oscar Y. Harward

President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are continuing their dirty tricks during this year 2010 lame-duck session. When will President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats decide to honor the wish of the majority?

Year 2010 “lame-duck” session begins on November 15. Capitol Hill Democrats are saying they will consider passing the so-called “Dream Act”. The Democrat Party so-called “Dream Act”, as identified as House Version H.R. 1751 and Senate Version S. 729, is proposed legislation which will provide amnesty to “illegal immigrants”.

Political polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this legislation.

America is in a recession and many are unemployed. Numerous Americans are finding it difficult to find jobs, to pay monthly house or rent payments, to make car payments, other monthly payments, to keep food for their families on the table, and of course, to pay their over-burdened taxes and many other necessities.

Where are the minorities on this issue? Could it be considered “illegal immigrants” are taking the limited jobs away from the minority community? Are Capitol Hill Democrats turning their backs on the minorities or are they misleading the minority community?

The first criminal activity for illegal immigrants is to falsify and/or to purchase a counterfeit identification such as a Social Security Card, driver’s license, etc. These purchased and/or otherwise fictitious documents are stolen records, often on living American taxpayers. Illegal immigrants pilfer from the taxpayers as they collect healthcare, housing, food, education, and other benefits. Many illegal immigrants bring illegal drugs, crime, and other unwanted activity. A great number of arrested illegal immigrants are numerous repeat criminals. While a large majority of Americans oppose “illegal immigration”, a substantial majority of Americans welcome “legal immigration”.

Many members on Capitol Hill were defeated in the 2010 General Elections but these massive losses are not the end of the Democrat Party’s political world. With good solid leadership and common-sense ideas, Americans will buy-in on the ideas and the Democrat Party will return with victories. To again “cram down our throats” unwanted legislation will only solidify a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to defeat candidates of the Democrat Party in the future.

The so-called “Dream Act” to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants is more of a tragedy than a dream for Americans. Americans do not desire any additional criminal activity. Will Capitol Hill Democrats who vote to “cram down our throats” “illegal immigration” legislation also have a future in politics?

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Stop earmarks now

By Oscar Y. Harward

Throughout Primary and General Election year 2010, many candidates for election and re-election heard one strong message, “Stop the spending”. Conservatives, primarily Republican Party candidates, responded declaring that if elected they would vow to stop the out-of-control spending and reduce the $13.7 billion national debt. The American electorate granted the GOP with near record number of victories in the US Senate, US Congress, Governorships, and state General Assemblies.

One of the shouts from the 2010 Election voters is to “stop the spending”, and “stop funding” of “earmarks”. “Earmarks” are mere instruments for elected members in government to award individuals, local organizations and/or other governments with taxpayers’ money in return for their support/votes for re-election(s). Frequently, in all major communities, we see and/or hear where some local private and/or public groups and/or organizations are receiving “grants” from government. These grants are taxpayers’ funds. It should not matter whether these grants are going to private or public, political, or agricultural, we must cut our government spending and “reduce” our national debt.

Another area of funding “earmarks” happens when the Pentagon is pressed to purchase unwanted and outdated military equipment at taxpayers’ expense. The effected Senator or Congressman knows that to cancel the jets, tanks, trucks, etc. may damage the economy in his/her state or congressional district. An “earmark” is placed to protect his or her political territory rather than making a professional decision to reduce wasteful spending and improve our US military.

Currently, our US Debt exceeds $13.6 trillion and growing larger. Now it appears even some of the older elected members of the GOP just do not get it. Stopping “earmarks” means to stop funding “earmarks” now. “Legislate” and eliminate the funding of all “Earmarks”.

What is happening to Republican Party Senate Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Senator McConnell now wants to continue the funding of “earmarks”. Had I not seen the words coming from Sen. McConnell’s own lips, I could have believed the words that could come from Democrat Party Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) says stopping the funding of “earmarks” would make no differences in the budget. Furthermore, Sen. Inhofe said to stop “earmarks” would turn the budgetary matters over to President Obama. Sen. Inhofe, what you said on this matter is pure “bull”. Senators, some of us may have fallen off of a truck, but we did not fall off a truck yesterday. Do not even try to misuse your words in any effort to confuse Americans’ minds on “earmarks”. Had I not seen the words coming from Sen. Inhofe’s own lips, I could have believed the words came from Democrat Party President, Barack Obama.

Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Ensign (R-NV), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Richard Burr (R-NC), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Bob Corker (R-TN) and other members in the Senate are trying to control out-of-control spending just by starting to “stop the spending” by ending the funding of “earmarks”. We need more Senators to stop the “earmarks”.

Elected members in government offices must declare that to protect our great nation and our precious Constitution, all healthy individuals and all state, county, municipal governments must become more self-supporting rather than depending on government(s) for more support. Governments must fund and protect our US Military and our Constitutional freedoms, help the disabled, the sick, the elderly, and other “legal citizens” who have fallen through the cracks.

In 1994, the American electorate called on the GOP to curb spending, reduce taxes, create jobs, etc. A majority Republican Party in the US Senate and Congress was (re)elected. Some few years later, the GOP was back to excessive spending of the budget. Americans gave the majority members back to the Democrat Party. This 2010 Election year, the American electorate, again, responded to the cry of “stop the spending”. Will the GOP respond?

American voters have given the GOP an opportunity to prove that they can stop the spending, reduce taxes, create jobs, and restore Constitutional freedoms. There are many areas in the US Budget to cut the spending. The US Senate and Congress must reduce the national debt to save our nation for our children, their children, etc. To stop funding “earmarks” is a start of spending control.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

President Obama, Islamic Muslims, and the UN Human Rights Council

By: Oscar Y. Harward

For some time, it has been a mystery as to why President Obama would appeal Arizona’s SB 1070 to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The State of Arizona and America are not governed under or by the United Nations. Arizona’s SB 1070 is a newly initiated law to stop or control “illegal immigration” entering Arizona from across the Mexican border and transporting excessive criminal activity into the State of Arizona. At the present time, some news reports say members of the Mexican “drug cartel” dominate and control some portions on southern Arizona. While Governor Jan Brewer and others have cried out for US Military help from President Obama, it appears President Obama supports the Mexican “drug cartel”.

Immediately after Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law, President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the new law. US District Judge Susan Bolton combined all lawsuits filed against Arizona’s SB 1070. Judge Bolton issued a mixed ruling leaving both the State of Arizona and the Obama administration appealing the decision to the US 9th Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA. Now, it is up to Circuit Court Judges John Noonan, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, and Richard Paez, appointed by President Bill Clinton to make a legal decision. Whatever their decision, the loser will most likely appeal to the SCOTUS.

At the same time of SB 1070 being decided in the Federal Courts, President Obama appealed Arizona’s SB 1070 to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). President Obama is appealing an Arizona law to the UNHRC? When and on what “right” did President Obama determine that the United Nations would supersede Arizona’s SB 1070 law and the US Constitution?

The UN General Assembly elects forty seven (47) members to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Their members are http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm:

African States (13): Angola (2013), Burkina Faso (2011), Cameroon (2012), Djibouti (2012), Gabon (2011), Ghana (2011), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2013), Mauritania (2013), Mauritius (2012), Nigeria (2012), Senegal (2012), Uganda (2013), Zambia (2011).

Asian States (13): Bahrain (2011), Bangladesh (2012), China (2012), Japan (2011), Jordan (2012), Kyrgyzstan (2012), Malaysia (2013), Maldives (2013), Pakistan (2011), Qatar (2013), Republic of Korea (2011), Saudi Arabia (2012) Thailand (2013).

Eastern European States (6): Hungary (2012), Poland (2013), Republic of Moldova (2013), Russian Federation (2012), Slovakia (2011), Ukraine (2011).

Latin American & Caribbean States (8): Argentina (2011), Brazil (2011), Chile (2011), Cuba (2012), Ecuador (2013), Guatemala (2013), Mexico (2012), Uruguay (2012).

Western European & Other States (7): Belgium (2012), France (2011), Norway (2012), Spain (2013), Switzerland (2013), United Kingdom (2011), United States (2012)

Shazam!!! Now I see! Obama’s political logic has arrived. Based on “human rights” reports, United Nations HRC is controlled by “Islamic Muslim nations” and other African states. Radical Islamic Muslim countries who practice “Sharia Law” may be ruling on America’s human rights, Arizona law, US Code, and Constitutional law? How about HRC members Cuba, Uganda, Pakistan, Russia, China, Mexico, etc. and their human rights? What American, as a defendant, would want these countries on a jury to decide America’s “Human Rights”, US Code, or perhaps, Constitutional law?

President Obama was totally aware of his injudicious activity in appealing Arizona’s SB 1070 to the United Nations Human Rights Council. Obama’s decision may have been based on the fact that the UNHRC is controlled by Islamic Muslin nations; many who hate America.

President Obama is attempting to allow the United Nations to overthrow Arizona law, US Code, and our Constitutional freedoms by authorizing the United Nations HRC to intimidate and supersede Constitutional sovereignty against law abiding American citizens.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

President gives India 20% of our vote on the UN Security Council

By Oscar Y. Harward

Here we go again. There was little mention in the main-stream media as President Obama endorsed his support to offer India a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Currently, five (5) nations make up the UN Security Council, either one of whom alone are allowed to veto any and all legislation. These five nations for individual veto powers are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

By adding India to the Security Council, this will give six (6) nations who may be allowed to veto any legislation. India is a great nation. What is significant with Obama’s proposal is the President is being so charitable to give away 20% of America’s voting rights. Adding India to the Security Council gives India an additional vote to veto American freedoms as we offer other nations of the world. What is the purpose for adding India to the Security Council? If you want an additional member of the Security Council, why not add America’s very best ally in the Middle East, Israel? Why should Obama not consider a trading ally in Germany, Japan, Canada, and/or many other allies? What has India offered America or the free world for the nation of India to deserve a seat on the UN Security Council?

President Obama says his visit is for trade and democracy. Well, well! Maybe, I am just confused. President Obama is proposing more economic trade with India. India is already one of the leading nations of the world in nuclear energy and the Internet assistance and their other supporting services. India is already a trading partner with America and practices a parliamentary system of government. Americans are in greater need of jobs and tax relief than offering more aid to other prosperous nations. With a crippling US economy, and adding aid to India, could be comparable to asking American taxpayers to bail-out California, the wealthiest state of the entire United States.

While I support an open and free world economy, it was my opinion that Obama and the Capitol Hill Democrats would consider Obama’s trade to India as an effort of exporting more American jobs. On this trip to India and Asia, Obama promises more American jobs. Mr. President, what, where, how, and when are these American jobs coming to America as you promise?

Obama’s trip to India and Asia was merely another far-away vacation with the family. With America in a deep recession or perhaps a depression, again President Obama is spending taxpayers’ money as a child would do likewise in a candy store. This useless expenditure of taxpayers’ money is costing America $1 billion, and it appears Obama does not even care. Am I missing something? Where am I wrong? It is my belief this speech is an effort by President Obama to substantiate a $1billion vacation at taxpayers’ expense while America is in recession, or perhaps, a depression. Obama still does not get it.

President Obama is illustrating that his education and short political experience does not show any specialized abilities for him to serve as a responsible Commander-in-Chief. Where are the leading Democrats on this issue? Do they care?

Again, am I missing something? It is my belief that this speech in New Delhi, India is an effort by President Obama to substantiate a $1billion vacation at taxpayers’ expense while our American economy is in recession, or perhaps, a depression. Obama just still does not get it.

Wake up Obama. America is awake and Americans are not stupid. Do not try to cover your misuses for other personal intentions. Do not give any American freedoms to India or to any other nations. Extended freedoms are to be shared with our closest fiscal, social, and military allies.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Constitutional freedoms, fiscal and social value responsibilities are winners in 2010

By Oscar Y. Harward

As members of the Republican Party enjoy the victories of the 2010 Elections, there may be a storm that may be arising from the more moderate wing of the GOP.

2010 Elections’ results within the overall national electorate provided Americans with a choice of supporting conservative Republicans of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party over the liberal Democrats Never Under Taxed (NUT) Party.

The TEA Party members and supporters are ordinary middle class Americans who feel that they are overtaxed and continue to watch unwanted and unneeded legislation that is ‘crammed down our throats’. The TEA Party supporters and a majority of Americans are seeking more Constitutional freedoms and Judeo-Christian values. The Democrats continue to discredit the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party on the issues. On these issues, the American electorate made their choices on November 2 and the more conservative TEA Party candidates won.

With all the elections results that are in, candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin won 62 and lost by 23. That represents a 73% win for TEA Party candidate supporters.

The Republican Party picked up some 680 seats in state legislatures with at least 19 states in total GOP legislative control. Republicans now control 55 State Houses and/or State Senates, compared to 38 for the Democrats. This represents the most total victories in state legislatures since 1928 and with total control of legislatures since 1966. Republicans won 29 governorships with a net gain of 3. 2010 is the year for 44 state legislatures to redistrict their own US Congressional Districts and all 50 state legislative districts.

Some more moderate members of the Republican Party are bickering and appear to have their minds “politically warped” with more conservatives elected on November 2. Sen. Lindsey “Flimsy” Graham (R-SC) and former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) seem to be opposed to TEA Party supporters although a majority of Republicans support the principals and values of the TEA Party.

It was “Flimsy” Graham who said he was going to “transform” the GOP. Remember, it was candidate Obama who said he was going to “transform” the United States. Several more moderate Republican Party Senators on Capitol Hill and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) endorsed more moderate candidates in the GOP primaries like Florida’s Charlie Crist against Marco Rubio (R-FL), Trey Grayson against Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Castle against Christine O'Donnell (R-DE) and other NRSC opposing candidates. Mike Castle represented arguably the most liberal Republican on Capitol Hill. “NRSC” leaders, as an extension of the Republican National Committee (RNC), should refrain from endorsing any candidates in GOP primaries unless there is justification for criminal and/or moral issues at hand. RNC Chairman Michael Steel should have made sure of refraining from all NRSC leader endorsements. If you wish to endorse candidates, resign from the NRSC leadership position(s).

The GOP US Senate leadership on Capitol Hill was faulty in allowing Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to serve as a leader in the US Senate after denying the results of her loss in a legal GOP Primary Election and then announcing herself as a write-in candidate in the General Election.
Additionally, who is to decide whether any candidate for elected office is qualified, so long as they qualify as required by the US Constitution, whether it is former G.W. Bush, his Chief of Staff Karl Rove, or anyone else? Any of us may prefer additional experience or anything else, but no one should disqualify anyone who qualifies within our Constitution.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) endorsed Sens.- elect Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ron Johnson (R-WI) and other candidates who have a desire to restore responsibility in stopping out-of-control wasteful spending. We must reduce the existing $13.7 billion national debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/. We must restore our social issues in legislation on Capitol Hill.

Americans have now granted the Republican Party all across America opportunities to restore our Constitutional freedoms, and our fiscal and social values. We must stop the out-of-control spending, reduce our national debt, and restore Judeo-Christian values into our livelihood.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Proposals for restoring America’s basic values in the 112th. Congress

By Oscar Y. Harward

With the GOP victories of November 2, 2010, America’s voters have answered. Our government cannot be all the answers to all persons all the time. May I offer these proposals and with many candidates’ commitments in restoring America’s Constitutional freedoms? I believe a majority of Americans will support each and all:

1. Repeal ObamaCare. Americans prefer to choose their own healthcare system. Medicare and Medicaid will prevent anyone from being denied healthcare when their life is in danger.

2. Tort Reform in our “entire” Judiciary; but specifically, in our Healthcare system.

3. Drill baby! Drill! America has more oil reserves than all the oil combined in the Middle Eastern countries. These oil finds are now awaiting the location to recover and refine, ready for businesses and consumers. Americans are currently importing $305 billion of oil, $127 billion from OPEC nations. Foreign oil is costing Americans approximately $82/barrel. Newly refined American oil should cost consumers approximately $16.00/barrel which would represent a savings of $1.57/gal. Examine how a savings of $1.57/gal. would help the family budgets? That should represent approximately $500 to $1,000 savings annually?

Any legislator rejecting the additional new drilling of American oil should by blamed with requiring American businesses and consumers to pay excessive cost for oil and gasoline and to fund the radical Islamic Muslim organizations who are fighting our US Military to protect American freedoms and others around the world.

4. Enforce immigration. Stop “illegal immigration”. “Illegal immigration” is eating away our Constitutional freedoms and our economy.

5. “Legislate” to eliminate the funding of all “Earmarks”. Each individual, each community, each local and state government must become more self-supporting. Government must help the disabled, the sick, the elderly, and other legal citizens who have fallen through the cracks. Frequently, in all major communities, we see and/or hear where some local private and/or public groups and/or organizations are receiving “grants” from government. These grants are taxpayers’ funds. It should not matter whether these grants are going to private or public, political, or agricultural, we must cut our government spending and “reduce” our national debt. It is a must to save our nation for our children, grandchildren, etc.

6. Stop funding and sell Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). There are hundreds of privately owned and operated TV, as well as hundreds of privately owned and operated radio stations. Continue with the FCC to enforce these private entities only to maintain the morality in the public interest. Sell PBS and NPR to the highest bidders. Our taxpayers do not want to allow some radical individual(s) or groups to pick up the pieces of taxpayers’ purchased equipment and start his/her/their own radio and/or television network.

7. Stop funding Amtrak. Amtrak is costing taxpayers an enormous amount of resources, while flying is competitive in cost.

8. Dissolve the US Department of Education. As the US Department of Education has evolved, our educational grades have deteriorated. The NEA, a teachers’ union has become the foundation of the Department of Education. The NEA Labor Unions have damaged our children’s development in education. In the past year, Glenn Beck has taught Americans more about our Founding Fathers than the NEA has taught our children in the last five (5) years.

9. Enforce the US Immigration laws and US Code in denying government assistance, at taxpayers’ expense, to” illegal immigrants”. Americans support “legal immigration”. Americans oppose “illegal immigration”. Under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder’s decisions, our current administration declarations will allow “terrorists’ to walk the streets without any police enforcement interference.

10. Dissolve Indiana’s state-subsidized "Porn Institute" and all other X-rated projects across America and around the world. Social issues must be addressed on all matters.

11. It is imperative that America maintain a US Military which is second-to-none. Specifically, America and the free world must defeat all terrorism at all cost.

12. There are other proposals for Conservative Republicans and all others to address in refraining from excessive spending at the taxpayers’ expense.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Islam and political correctness

Marcia Segelstein - OneNewsNow Columnist - 11/2/2010


Speaking ill of Islam is now "numero uno" on the ever-growing list of what's considered politically incorrect in America. For reasons I can't quite fathom, it's become a cause célèbre among liberals, who seem bent on defending the religion of Mohammad against any and all detractors.

Perhaps what they don't understand is that it's possible for most of us to denounce Muslim extremism and certain Islamic practices without condemning or thinking badly of all Muslims.

Here's a case in point. According to a recent article in Britain's Daily Mail, a judge in the United Arab Emirates has ruled that under Sharia law husbands are allowed to beat their wives and children with one caveat: there mustn't be any physical traces of the beatings.

Here are the facts of the case. An unnamed Emirati man was found guilty of "slapping his wife so hard he damaged her bottom lip and teeth," and kicking his 23-year-old daughter, causing bruises on her hand and knee. He was found guilty of assault and given a small fine to pay. For the record, he initially claimed it was all an accident.

The man decided to appeal, "claiming that even if he had intended to strike his wife and daughter, under Shariah law he had the right to do so...."

The appeal was heard by a senior UAE judge, Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri. Previous Shariah court judgments have given husbands what's called the "right to discipline," which may include beating. The judge used this case to offer further clarification on that point. "Although the law permits the husband to use his right to discipline, he has to abide by the limits of this right. If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment," he said. And what would constitute "abusing" that right? According to al Hajeri, one way to determine whether a man had gone too far, as it were, would be to look for physical evidence of beating. If he leaves marks, he's overdone it. Otherwise he is within his rights.

I wonder how Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar would have reacted if Bill O'Reilly had told the facts of that case during his latest visit to The View. Would they have considered it insulting to the religion of Islam and stormed off the set? As it was, all O'Reilly did on his appearance October 14 was refer to the fact that it was Muslims who attacked us on 9/11. When the co-hosts calmed down and returned to their seats, they appeared to be appeased when O'Reilly called the attackers "Muslim extremists" instead of just Muslims. Is Judge Falah al Hajeri a Muslim, simply upholding and clarifying Shariah law -- or is he an extremist? Is the husband in the case an extremist -- or a law-abiding wife beater? Is it insulting and politically incorrect of me to report this story?

And then there is the revealing case of former NPR analyst Juan Williams. Here's the exact text of the remarks he made on The O'Reilly Factor which got him in trouble:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

And this with regard to the Times Square bomber:

"He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."
For that, NPR fired him. What was his real mistake? Expressing nervousness at being on airplanes with passengers identifying themselves as Muslims? Quoting a Muslim extremist about being at war with America?

As Williams himself said, political correctness shouldn't stop us from speaking the truth, from stating the facts -- which is exactly what German Chancellor Andrea Merkel did when she recently declared that Germany's efforts to create a multicultural society there have "utterly failed." Merkel was speaking largely about the four-million Muslims who live in Germany, but have primarily not integrated into the culture or learned the language.

A plain-speaking, common sense approach to the world's concerns about Islam should not be off limits. There are real issues to be addressed and fears to be confronted. Allowing political correctness to shut down the conversation won't get anybody anywhere.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Return justice to Common Sense Law

By Oscar Y. Harward

In the early days of our great nation, our founding fathers brought to America “English Law”. “English Law” is often referred to as “common sense” law.

Many of these “wise” men and women saw vision, then studied, offered, and established simple legislations into our Constitution. Over the years, the legislatures have “lawyerized” our US Code and States’ General Statues. At any time when there may be even an insignificant difference in “common law” which may not be precisely defined, legislators compose, propose, and ratify new laws, often making the simple setting even more confusing when in fact the issue in question should apply to common sense law.

A three judge panel on the US 9th Circuit of Appeals is now suggesting that with Arizona’s new law, SB 1070 may be questionable as to whether Arizona’s law enforcement should be authorized to enforce any legislation comparable to US Code on “illegal immigration”. If Arizona’s law enforcement is denied any responsibility of enforcing “illegal immigration” even under a new state law as SB 1070 clearly defines, will this force America to employ new members as our US Military Police to enforce all Constitutional law and US Code? More important may be is what happens when America has a President and administration that will not enforce the Constitution and US Code as defined? A most important question is when will this President and his administration enforce the Constitution and US Code as terrorists enter our nation?

If the US 9th Circuit of Appeals opinion is confirmed by SCOTUS, would a confirmed extended SCOTUS opinion deny municipal and county law enforcement officers from enforcing State General Statues?

When can America return to “ole-time” Constitutional freedoms and “common-sense” law? Can legislators return to simplicity in a free and open society? Will America accept a simpler judiciary? Have we reached a time which will require legislators to continue to write and pass more laws where “common sense” justice could and/or would be better rendered?

On Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck show of November 1, 2010 in making reference to a conversation at the 1787 Constitutional Convention: A lady asked Ben Franklin the question, “What have we got a republic or a monarchy?”. Ben Franklin responded, “A republic if you can keep it.” Let us all join together to become more honorable and personally accountable to save our Republic for ourselves and future generations. God Bless America.