Netanyahu to Congress 2011 – full video

May 25, 2011

THIS is a man who can make a speech.

Eloquent and moving.

Israeli Prime Minister Addresses Congress

Willing to give up land for peace

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Capitol Hill today meeting with members of Congress and delivered an address to a Joint Meeting of Congress.

During his speech to Congress P.M. Netanyahu stated, “As President Obama said, borders will be different than 1967. Israel will not return to ‘indefensible’ borders.”  He added “It’s absolutely vital that a Palestinian state be demilitarized.”

He suggested that Israel is “willing” to advance the negotiations but must “make painful compromises” for peace.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Netanyahu and Congressional Leaders also held a briefing with reporters following the joint meeting.

To members of AIPAC last night, Netanyahu said, “Israel cannot return to the indefensible 1967 line,” which President Obama said is the foundation for negotiation.

Updated: Tuesday at 4:52pm (ET)

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Israeli-Prime-Minister-Addresses-Congress/10737421714-1/

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Netanyahu to Congress 2011, posted with vodpod

Obama should not be President – Birth Certificate from Kenya – Congress should investigate – this may be the PROOF – Where are the experts? Can anyone verify this?

February 3, 2011

 

It sounds good but I’m not an expert.

This really needs to be looked into by Experts and this needs to be addressed to Congress.

 

I’m going to write my Congressman and Governor.  I believe that THIS needs to be investigated.

 

Where is the media to investigate this?

 

This would absolutely be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

 

Is This Obama’s Birth Certificate From Mombasa, Kenya?

Posted on February 3, 2011 by 1dragon1 Comment

 

 

Source:
Note – This story has been shredded by Snopes. However, in the interest of reporting the
full scope of what is being discussed and displayed online, we post the following story.
1-31-11
Here it is, folks! The document we have been waiting for!
Now if only SOMEONE in Congress or the Supreme Court will act on this!
Spread this around…..if these documents are as authentic as they certainly seem to be,
Obama is NOT qualified to be our President and he sits in the White House illegally.
This is what Obama has spent almost $2M (so far) to hide.

Here’s a close-up of the top of the document where you can plainly read his name and his parent’s names, etc….

 

 

A British history buff was asked if he could find out who the colonial registrar was for Mombasa in 1961.
After only a few minutes of research, he called back and said “Sir Edward F. Lavender? Note the same name near the bottom of the photo above.
Source(s): ? Kenya Dominion Record 4667 Australian library.”
And here?s a close-up of the bottom of the document where you can read “Coast Providence of Kenya ” and the
official signature of the Deputy Registrar…..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above document is a “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth”, but below is a copy of the actual Certificate of Birth…
the real-deal legal kind of certificate.
The Mombasa Registrar of Births has testified that Obama’s birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital in
Mombasa is genuine. This copy was obtained by Lucas Smith through the help of a Kenyan Colonel who recently got it
directly from the Coast General Hospital in Mombasa , Kenya . Here it is…..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note the footprint!!
The local Muslim Imam in Mombasa named Barack with his Muslim middle name Hussein so his official name on this certificate is Barack Hussein Obama II.
The grandmother of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. reveals the story of his birth in Mombasa , Kenya , a seaport, after his mother suffered labor pains while swimming at ocean beach in Mombasa
……
“On August 4, 1961 Obama’s mother, father and grandmother were attending a Muslim festival in Mombasa , Kenya .
Mother had been refused entry to airplanes due to her nine month pregnancy. It was a hot August day at the festival so the Obama?s went to the beach to cool off. While swimming in the ocean his mother experienced labor pains so was rushed to the Coast Provincial
General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961(what a sad day for the USA!). Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth which omitted the place and hospital of birth.”
Letter from Kitau in Mombasa , Kenya ……
“I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya . I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put out by Taitz and mine is exactly the same. I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical. I am by nature a skeptical person. I teach science here and challenge most things that cannot be proven. So I went to an official registrar today and pulled up the picture on the web. They magnified it and determined it to be authentic. There is even a plaque with Registrar Lavenders name on it as he was a Brit and was in charge of the Registrar office from 1959 until January of 1964. The reason the date on the certificate says republic of Kenya is that we were a republic when the “copy” of the original was ordered. I stress the word “copy”. My copy also has republic of Kenya . So what you say is true about Kenya not being a republic at the time of Obama’s birth, however it was a republic when the copy was ordered.
The birth certificate is genuine. I assure you it will be authenticated by a forensic auditor. We are very proud Obama was born here. We have a shrine for him and there are many people who remember his birth here as he had a white mother. They are being interviewed now by one of your media outlets.
Fortunately they even have pictures of his parents with him immediately after his birth at the Mombasa hospital with the hospital in the back ground.
It will be a proud day for us when it is proven that he was born here and a Kenyan became the most powerful man in the world.
I encourage anyone to come here and visit. I will be happy to take you and show you the pictures at the hospital myself as well as
my document and many others that are identical to what Taitz posted. God Bless. Kitau”
So, how much more proof do we need?
Well, Here it is…{SJC}
WELL, HERE IT IS….

 

 

 

 

Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, baby Maya Soetoro, and 9 year old Barry Soetoro.
This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi
school inJakarta, Indonesia , shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name
Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: Islam
Nationality: Indonesian
How did this little INDONESIAN Muslim child – Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become President of the United States of America ?
PART 2:
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College …
The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia while an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California . The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for this scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document provides the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking – that he is NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States – necessary to be President of these United States. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya , here we see that there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship..
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.
Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused comment on this matter.
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS – THE MEDIA WON’T!
http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/is-this-obamas-birth-certificate-from-mombasa-kenya/#comment-3789

via-http://www.rense.com/general92/birthcert.htm

 

 

 


Obama Healthcare – UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

January 31, 2011

 

 

So is his Presidency!

The American public deceived.  The change that Democrats voted for, was not a change toward COMMUNISM.  They, I believe, have been taken for a ride.  The legal citizens of this country that are Democrats, in my opinion, have NO VOICE.  Their entire party has become a deception.  It’s an unconstitutional oligarchy that is in control of the vast majority of the POLITICIANS and tools of government.  It’s been slowly inching it’s way to becoming a Socialistic Government.  The Socialists, who started out that way, however, quickly become Progressive (another term for Communists), when presented with the overwhelming weight of their own party’s morphing toward Communism.  Socialism is a concept that isn’t sustained.  The larger the government, the quicker it becomes Communism.

 

 

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Judge: Obama Health Care Plan Unconstitutional, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 

 

Left unprepared for ObamaCare ruling

By Jennifer Rubin

Liberal pundits who have consulted liberal law professors about liberals’ great achievement — ObamaCare — are pronouncing the ruling by Judge Roger Vinson to be much to do about nothing. The ruling is. . . um. . . thinking of a case liberals hate.. um… just like Bush v. Gore ! (Except it has nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause or any other aspect of that case.) It is, we are told, “curious,” “odd,” or “unconventional.”

 

 

Roger Vinson

Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Monday 31 January 2011 23.12 GMT ----- Judge Roger Vinson said that the objection to this specific part of the legislation had an impact on all the other reforms and so he found against the whole law. The ruling is unlikely to have an immediate effect on the prospects of health reform in the country, not least because this provision does not come into effect until 2012 in any case. But the judge's decision is the most severe setback for Obama over one of the signature measures of his first two years in the White House. It is also likely to speed the journey of the healthcare reforms up the judicial food chain until it reaches the US supreme court for a final judgment. The Justice Department reacted to the ruling by immediately questioning the right of the lower courts to stand in judgment on the federal government. "We are confident we will ultimately win on appeal," said the department's spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. Vinson gave his controversial ruling in the district court in Pensacola, a conservative region in the conservative state of Florida. The action was joined by states right across the country, from Maine in the north-east, Mississippi in the south to Alaska in the north-west. Vinson's 78-page ruling hinged on the argument that by requiring people to buy healthcare insurance the government could set a precedent that would upset the free flow of food across state boundaries. "Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," he wrote.

 

 

 

These are complaints, not legal arguments. And they suggest that the left was totally unprepared for the Constitutional attack on their beloved handiwork. After all, the recent mocking by the left of conservatives’ reverence for the Constitution suggests they are mystified that a 200-year old document could get in the way of their historic achievement. They are truly nonplussed, and so they vamp, not with reasoned analysis but with an outpouring of adjectives.

Liberals are particularly perturbed by Judge Vinson’s ruling on severability, the determination as to whether the individual mandate is so central to the law as to make the law unrecognizable and unenforceable without it. But here, the left has only the administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress to blame. From the opinion(the defendants are the Obama officials):

Having determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, and cannot be saved by application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the next question is whether it is severable from the remainder of the Act. In considering this issue, I note that the defendants have acknowledged that the individual mandate and the Act’s health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms “cannot be severed from the [individual mandate].”

Oops. Not some crazy judge, but the administration was the source of the notion that the individual mandate can’t be severed from the rest of the law.

But it’s not just the administration; it seems Congress did its part to contribute to the invalidation of the whole statute. Judge Vinson observes that “the Act does not contain a ‘severability clause,’ which is commonly included in legislation to provide that if any part or provision is held invalid, then the rest of the statute will not be affected.” He observes that this defect is not necessarily determinative. However, “The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law.” Oh, now, there’s a problem.

That is no small matter, the judge explains:

The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’ own attorneys in the [Congressional Research Service] had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was ‘unclear’ if the individual mandate had ‘solid constitutional foundation.'”

As the opinion goes on, the judge makes clear that the Obama team dug its own grave on the severability point:

To be sure, the words “protection” and “affordable” in the title of the Act itself are inextricably tied to the health insurance reform provisions (and the individual mandate in particular), as the defendants have emphasized throughout the course of this litigation

Ezra Klein cherry picks one line from the case (“This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated”) as evidence the court is doing something untoward. But a cursory reading of the the preceding pages explainswhy this outcome is not likely to be repeated. Congress in removing the severability clause, the Obama lawyers in repeatedly arguing the individual mandate was essential to the statute and, finally, the interlocking pieces of the statute itself are such that it’s hard to imagine a similar case arising.

The only thing “odd” about the ruling is the left’s response. The cheerleaders for ObamaCare better hope the Obama legal team has some better arguments in the upcoming rounds of litigation.

By Jennifer Rubin  | January 31, 2011; 6:32 PM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/left_unreasoned_and_unprepared.html

 

 

 

 

Federal Judge Rules Health Care Reform Unconstitutional

 

by Emily Ramshaw
January 31, 2011

Attorney General Greg Abbot speaks about Texas' lawsuit against "Obamacare" on January 31, 2011

Attorney General Greg Abbot speaks about Texas' lawsuit against "Obamacare" on January 31, 2011

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act — the federal health care reform that was signed into law in March — is unconstitutional, largely because it forces all Americans to purchase insurance or face penalties.

“Today’s ruling represents a victory in the ongoing effort to end federal intrusion into the lives of every American through this one-size-fits-all approach to health care reform,” Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement.

Texas is one of 25 states that joined Florida in challenging the measure, known in less affectionate circles as “Obamacare.” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has argued that if the federal government can force people to buy health insurance — hitting them with a penalty if they don’t — what’s to stop them from making other mandates?

“This is a great day for liberty and the vitality of the U.S. Constitution,” Abbott said in a statement. “The Constitution limits Congressional power, and in this case, Congress exceeded its power.”

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola ruled that the federal reform’s mandate that people buy health insurance by 2014 or face stiff penalties is outside Congress’ “Commerce Clause power,” and is therefore unconstitutional. He argued the individual mandate isn’t severable from the rest of the reform, meaning “the entire act must be declared void.”

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate,” Vinson wrote.

Vinson’s decision comes after a federal judge in Virginia ruled that forcing Americans to purchase insurance is illegal. Meanwhile, a federal judge in Michigan has declared the so-called individual mandate constitutional, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Two weeks ago, the U.S. House voted to repeal health reform, though the Senate is unlikely to do so, and President Obama has vowed to veto such a move.

Experts expect the legal challenge to go all the way to the divided U.S. Supreme Court, which is dominated by a 5-4 conservative majority.

“Today’s ruling is exactly the check against congressional overreach that the Founding Fathers intended it to be,” said Arlene Wohlgemuth, executive director of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. “When the U.S. Supreme Court upholds today’s decision, it will open the door for states to implement real health care reform.”

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/health-reform-and-texas/judge-rules-health-care-reform-unconstitutional/

 


Ezra Klein – says that the Constitution is Passé. His Judaism is as well. The boy is too stupid to understand a contract, such is the product of UCLA

December 31, 2010

 

Ezra Klein is a psuedo – Jew:

Klein was born in IrvineCalifornia, where he attended University High School. He attended the University of California, Santa Cruz but later transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles, from which he graduated in 2005 with a B.A. in political science.

Klein was raised Jewish.[3]

He uses his wonderful name to besmirch the Jew.  He doesn’t even realize that the media USES that.  They are ready to use the Jewish heritage to kill it.  The little fool doesn’t even realize it.  The LEFTIES know (the older ones) how this is actually perceived to the people.  They even know exactly what they are.  The younger ones don’t and parrot whatever their mentors say.  They really don’t even know WHY.

This ignorant boy ( because the level of maturity is not there) has yet to start thinking for himself.  He is the product of the UCLA cadre.  He is interesting to watch, because he is one of the last chokes of this civilizations so called elite.  They are going to be gone after this.  Maybe a few more years, but that is all.  Civilization can’t survive in such ignorance.

The Constitution means nothing to this “fluid” minded boy.  Neither does the Torah.  These are outdated concepts.  These LAWS are not really for today, you see, in his mind, they are OUTDATED.  I would like for him to go out and buy a house and sign a mortgage.  I wish him the best percentage around.  Lets say- 3%.  I, then hope that the economy improves.  The bank begins to loose money, because a 3% loan, is actually costing them maintenance now, because prices for everything else have gone up.  At this point, I want to see what he does, when the bank approaches him and says, “well, we are raising your rate to 10%.  After all the CONTRACT that you signed is old and outdated.  We require a re – evaluation of your loan and we determine that you are paying too little.  At this point in time, even though you have a contract, that contract is too old and is being re “conditioned.”  So, they raise his rate to 10%.  Then 2 years later the economy bottoms out again, but do you think the bank will come back to lower the rate?  Well, even if they do, can a person live with such fluidity?  Is it FLUID or FLAKY?  Is it a contract or a suggestion?  Can one plan their future with such instability?  One would only be able to live for today and right now.  One would only be able to live for ONESELF.  One would only be ONE and not more.  A civilization needs 2.2 to replenish itself.  ONE will never be 2.2.

 

Ezra is the perfect example of the diaspora Jew, who has turned on Judaism and has no clue what it means and who HE is.

I bet that he’s constantly confused about his “feelings” about this or that.  Yet, regurgitates all the lessons that he’s been “taught” in school.  Never an original thought.  Never even a THOUGHT.

He sounds like Rahm Emanuel.  He’ll go far.  A useful tool.  A weapon for the elite.

Here is another post about some suicidal Jews out there:

American Progressive Jews are suicidal and self hating – They are far removed from Judaism

 

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Wash Post’s Ezra Klein Laments ‘Confusing’ Natu…, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

Ezra Klein: Honest lefty

1. Blogger Ezra Klein went on MSNBC and said the Constitution is a hundred years old and hard to understand.

Apparently, this drew flak.

2. Then he blogged at 11:55 AM on Thursday: “…My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it. The Second Amendment, for instance, says nothing about keeping a gun in the home if you’ve not signed up with a ‘well-regulated militia,’ but interpreting the Second Amendment broadly has been important to those who want to bear arms. And so they’ve done it…”

Apparently, this drew flak.

3. Then he blogged at 3:57 PM on Thursday: “…The Constitution was written more than 223 years ago, and despite the confidence various people have in their interpretation of the text, smart scholars of good faith continue to disagree about it. And they tend to disagree about it in ways that support their political ideology. I rarely meet a gun-lover who laments the Second Amendment’s clear limits on bearing firearms, or someone who believes in universal health care but thinks the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause doesn’t leave room for such a policy…”

Then I assume, he went to his favorite bar, got loaded and told old war stories. But he did go from the Constitution being written in 1910, to 1810, to 1787 in a few hours so he learned something on Thursday.

Iowahawk had a wonderful send-up: The Constitution is very important.

Ezra Klein made the biggest mistake that can be made by a liberal — progressive — socialist — communist — no labelist — whatever the heck they call themselves on the 31st of the month.

He was being honest.

He does not believe in the Constitution.

He is cynical about it and he projects that same cynicism onto those who disagree with him.

That shocked the left’s system. Being honest does that to them. They use euphemisms to hide their true beliefs. The reason, for example, that they see “illegal immigrant” as racist is that they cannot imagine anyone other than a Mexican  as being an illegal immigrant. They use “undocumented worker” because they want to promote poor Jose coming here to make a grub stake. They do not see the criminals or the relatives from Ireland or the Asian student who overstayed a visa. It’s always  this stereotype.

But I stray. Ezra Klein’s first post-MSNBC interview post was telling and headlined: “What the tea party wants from the Constitution.”

He projected what he wants from the Constitution on to the Tea Party. Sure. The Left sees the Tea Party in their own image. That’s why the Left at first called the Tea Party Astroturf because the Left creates all these fake groups. Look at how it tried to counter the Tea Party movement later with the Coffee Party and the like.

And so it goes with the Constitution. For 8 years, the Left’s railed against Bush shredding the Constitution, a phrase which came to mean nothing. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the Left cried shredding the Constitution once too often.

When the Tea Party cites the Constitution, Ezra Klein projects onto them his own disdain for the document, as he wrote in his 11:55 AM post:

My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it. The Second Amendment, for instance, says nothing about keeping a gun in the home if you’ve not signed up with a “well-regulated militia,” but interpreting the Second Amendment broadly has been important to those who want to bear arms. And so they’ve done it.

That’s their right, of course. Liberals pick and choose their moments of textual fidelity as well. But as the seemingly endless series of 5-4 splits on the Supreme Court shows, even the country’s most experienced and decorated constitutional authorities routinely disagree, and sharply, over what the text means when applied to today’s problems. To presume that people writing what they think the Constitution means — or, in some cases, want to think it means — at the bottom of every bill will change how they legislate doesn’t demonstrate a reverence for the document. It demonstrates a disengagement with it as anything more than a symbol of what you and your ideological allies believe.

In reality, the tea party — like most everyone else — is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution. When the constitutional disclaimers at the bottom of bills suit them, they’ll respect them. When they don’t — as we’ve seen in the case of the individual mandate — they won’t.

What a telling statement in that last paragraph is.

What Ezra Klein means by “most everyone else” is Ezra Klein.

And so the sentence means that Ezra Klein is not interested in living by the Constitution but rather, Ezra Klein wants to decide what the Constitution means.

That is his point of view.

Such a belief would explain why the Left was so upset about Gitmo — shredding the Constitution — under Bush but now could not care less about Gitmo.

But his honesty meant that four hours later, he had to write a post: “Yes, the Constitution is binding.”

The nut paragraph: “But my inbox suggests that my comments weren’t taken that way: The initial interpretation was that I’d said the Constitution is too complicated to understand because it was written a long time ago, and then, as the day went on, that I’d said the document itself is nonbinding. I went back and watched the clip — or at least the part someone clipped and sent me, which is above — and thought I was clear enough. But when a lot of people misunderstand you at once, the fault is usually yours. So if I was unclear: Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment. And no, reading the document on the floor of the House will not make the country more like you want it to be, unless your problem with the country is that you thought the Constitution should be read aloud on the floor of the House more frequently. In which case, well, you’re in luck!”

Still cynical. The Constitution is meaningless to him. Oh it is binding but fluid.

Well, when you are taught — as Al Gore said it — that “the Constitution is a living and breathing document” you really miss the entire point of having a Constitution.

So I do not condemn Ezra Klein. I praise him for telling the truth about his feelings toward the Constitution. To him, limited government and personal liberty are all open to interpretation, which means they do not exist unless a court says they do.

Me? The Constitution means what it says. I even like the Third Amendment.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/27290

 

In contrast to this suicidal Jew, here’s a letter from a proud jew:

OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA – From a proud Jew

I don’t know why American Jews are so self hating, but here is some more examples of shame:

Israel- Jews that hate Jews -Suicidal and demented Jews

 

 


The counting of illegals in the Census is not within the language or the spirit of the Constitution. But they are counted because it’s not in the best interest of our POLITICIANS to NOT count them.

December 28, 2010

The spirit of the Constitution is being bastardized by the SEDITIOUS government and the dereliction of duty that they seem to revel in.

They are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution and all they can do is defile it.

The enemies of this country will use our liberal laws to entrap us, due to the twisting of the truth.  The truth is not spoken and Political correctness is a tool to stifle that speech.  This creates policies that are the demise of powerful governments.  Because the ability to reason is not an ability that is rewarded but thwarted.  The letter of the law can change.  The spirit doesn’t.

 

Illegal Immigrants Factor Into 2010 Census Results, Congressional Makeup

Published December 21, 2010

| FoxNews.com

 

Census data released Tuesday reflects how illegal immigration could shape the makeup of Congress, with border states and other immigration magnets registering big gains over the past decade.

Though the latest Census Bureau information does not include breakouts on race or ethnicity, Western and Southern states with large, or at least growing, immigrant populations were generally the ones that gained enough new residents to warrant additional congressional seats.

Illegal immigrants would constitute just one of several factors in the population shifts recorded in that time. But since illegal immigrants are counted in the U.S. Census by law, they have an inevitable impact on the way House seats are divvied up.

<In the Constitution – there are no laws or policies that talk about people who are not AMERICAN citizens.  Where there were any policies written that didn’t pertain to CITIZENS, the constitution was explicit in saying that it was referring to diplomats or others, even BLACKS who were not “citizens”, when mentioned were explicitly referred to — “cause the number of the inhabitants within their respective districts to be taken; omitting in such enumeration Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colours of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age. ” AND the exact directive to take a census is  – “[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”  The census was conducted, because BIRTHS were not necessarily recorded and, back then, there were no “birth certificates”.  There, simply, was no such thing.  http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html>

 

“You can see how they can have a big impact on the distribution of seats,” said Steven Camarota, research director with the Center for Immigration Studies. “Michigan and Pennsylvania are going to lose a seat and it’s going to go to some other place … because of the inclusion of illegal immigrants.”

Camarota estimated the total number of illegal immigrants counted in the 2010 Census at about 10 million. Total population growth for immigrants in the United States exceeded 13 million over the last 10 years. With the U.S. population at 309 million, that might sound like a drop in the melting pot. But their numbers start to make a difference on a state-by-state level.

 

<It is also not in the best interest of our POLITICIANS to NOT count illegals.  The Constitutional language and spirit are not being represented here.>

Several states with large immigration populations, both legal and illegal, will gain at least one seat out of the latest census numbers. They include Florida, Texas, Arizona and Nevada. South Carolina, Georgia and Washington state, which all saw unusually high rates of growth in their immigrant populations over the past decade, will also gain a congressional seat each. South Carolina, for instance, registered a 150 percent increase in its immigrant population, according to a CIS analysis.

Camarota said that regardless of whether the changes are coming from influxes of illegal or legal immigrants, more districts are going to be created with swaths of people in them who can’t vote.

“Literally we’ll have districts like we have right now where half the adult population can’t vote,” he said. He said the impact they have on the drawing of congressional seats raises “profound and important questions.”

Officials from both parties, though, welcomed the census numbers Tuesday. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said the growth in their constituencies — Hispanics are a key Democratic voting bloc — “pours cold water” on warnings that the census results would reinforce GOP gains from the last election. Republicans, likewise, grinned at the overall population shift to conservative-leaning states — disregarding, perhaps, the factor illegal immigration may have played in that trend.

<When both parties find agreement. Watch out.  The People are the one getting the screwing.  >

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was not among them. The firebrand congressman told FoxNews.com the census underscores the need to examine the counting of illegal immigrants — something he thinks should not be done.

<A lone voice in the wilderness to the ZOO that is our government. >

“We need to drill into it and drill into it deeply,” he said, arguing that the founders did not envision giving congressional representation to those in the United States illegally.

Camarota, though, said there’s little Washington can do to change how the census is conducted since the bureau is constitutionally mandated to complete a nationwide head count of all residents. He said lawmakers should be concentrating on border enforcement instead.

The border debate, though, may continue to take a backseat to proposals that would bring undocumented residents already here out of the shadows and into the fold of society.

The White House said Tuesday that President Obama, who met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, is not giving up on the so-called DREAM Act. The bill, which failed on a vote in the Senate over the weekend, would give some illegal immigrants who go to college or join the military a path to legalization. Obama also called for a broader immigration reform package.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said in a statement Tuesday that it is “disillusioning” to see Republicans who once supported the DREAM Act turn against it in the current climate. They expressed concern not about the number of immigrants entering the country but about the number being forced out.

“At the current rate, another 800,000 people will be deported by the time November 2012 comes around, which does nothing to fix our immigration system and rips apart communities and families and the very fabric of our society,” the statement said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/illegal-immigrants-factor-census-results-congressional-makeup/#ixzz19ROy4lBD

 


CNN – Openly subversive – helped two illegal immigrants lobby for the passage of the DREAM Act on Wednesday’s American Morning

December 10, 2010

Why are they still ILLEGAL?  There are plenty of ways and avenues that they can use to GET LEGAL, yet they choose not to.

Illegals are not JUST taking the jobs that “AMERICANS JUST WON’T DO”

Illegals are getting free education, they even get to teach their kids Spanish, paid for by you and me.  Is this what YOU want your LOCAL REAL ESTATE TAXES, doing?  YES – local real estate taxes – they pay for the Hispanic kids (their babies/pre – k ) to learn SPANISH.  YES – not English – Spanish.

Then, they give LOCAL – INSTATE tuition dollars to ILLEGALS, so the illegal didn’t have to live here and has no allegiance to this country, yet they get a tax break that LEGAL US CITIZENS can’t.  That means that, Maria, from NY can’t go to a school in TX, because it’s cost prohibitive, because her parents did things the RIGHT way.  Yet, Angeles can go to this same TX school even thought she crossed the border ILLEGALLY with her mom last year.  This is just an example, but where is the justice in that?

Everyone has a sob story.  Why should Maria’s sob story be less VALID?  Why should an ILLEGAL have MORE advantages?  Why are we US CITIZENS?  Why should we be proud?

Worst yet, doesn’t this constitute sedition by the media and outright treason by people in “our” government?

CNN Lets Two Illegal Immigrants Vouch For the Passage of the DREAM Act:

By Matthew Balan | December 08, 2010 | 22:17
Matthew Balan's picture

CNN’s Kiran Chetry helped two illegal immigrants lobby for the passage of the DREAM Act on Wednesday’s American Morning, which would grant amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant youth. Chetry encouraged them to express their concerns for the legislation, as many Republicans in Congress don’t support it, and tossed softball questions, which gave them ample time to vouch for the act.

The anchor interviewed Cesar Vargas and Gaby Pacheco 40 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. Chetry labeled the two “classic examples of who this DREAM Act would help, if it were to pass the Congress” (both were also held up as examples by the Obama administration as two out of the “10 Reasons We Need the Dream Act,” as listed on the White House’s blog on December 3). She turned to Vargas first and asked, “Are you worried that this [bill] will fail, since there has not been a lot of Republican support?”

After he gave his initial answer, the CNN anchor played up his credentials: “If you take a look at your resume, I guess you could put it, it’s very, very impressive. You are going to be graduating from law school in May. You have a 3.8 GPA. You’ve interned with the Brooklyn DA. You’ve worked very hard, yet, at the same time, you really can’t legally work once you graduate. So what is your plan right now, Cesar?”

Chetry then did the same with Pacheco: “Gaby, as well, you’ve worked hard at school, an honor student- president of your student body in college– and you likened it- it’s interesting- you said, ‘I went from being this- you know, all-American- played on sports teams, did really well in school- to now being a criminal.’ What are you going to do?”

Later, after listing the DREAM Act’s requirements for illegal immigrants, the anchor prompted Pacheco to address a specific Republican’s opposition to the proposed legislation: “So Gaby, I want your take- when somebody like Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican from Alabama, calls it a bill that would result in reckless proposals for mass amnesty and encourage more illegal immigration, what do you say to that?”

CNN didn’t turn to any opponents to the bill during the segment. It’s just another example of the network “playing favorites,” contrary to their claim in a recent ad.

The full transcript of Kiran Chetry’s interview of Cesar Vargas and Gaby Pacheco on Wednesday’s American Morning:

Kiran Chetry, CNN Anchor; Cesar Vargas, Illegal Immigrant; & Gaby Pacheco, Illegal Immigrant | NewsBusters.org

CHETRY: Well, today, Congress could vote on the DREAM Act, giving almost a million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship by going to college, or for serving in the military for two years. But critics are calling it reckless, and call it mass amnesty in some cases.

We are joined now by two people, both illegal immigrants, who would be directly impacted by the bill. Cesar Vargas’ parents brought him to Brooklyn from Mexico when he was just five years old, and Gaby Pacheco’s parents came from Ecuador when she was seven. Great to have you both here this morning.

CESAR VARGAS: Thank you for having us.

GABY PACHECO: Thank you.

CHETRY: You really are classic examples of who this DREAM Act would help, if it were to pass the Congress. Cesar, let me start with you. Are you worried that this will fail, since there has not been a lot of Republican support?

VARGAS: Well, all I know is that I’ll continue to fight for my dream. America’s a can-do country, and I would do just that- persevere. Overall, all I want is the opportunity to serve my country and to give back to the country that has given me so much.

CHETRY: If you take a look at your resume, I guess you could put it, it’s very, very impressive. You are going to be graduating from law school in May. You have a 3.8 GPA. You’ve interned with the Brooklyn DA. You’ve worked very hard, yet, at the same time, you really can’t legally work once you graduate. So what is your plan right now, Cesar?

VARGAS: At this point, as I mentioned before, it’s fighting for my dream and to share my stories to our congressional leaders and to say that we’re not a problem. We’re the solution. We are here to serve our country. For me, personally, I want to serve my country in the military, and also, to contribute to the economy and to serve and contribute to the country I love, the country I call home.

CHETRY: Gaby, as well, you’ve worked hard at school, an honor student- president of your student body in college- and you likened it- it’s interesting- you said, ‘I went from being this- you know, all-American- played on sports teams, did really well in school- to now being a criminal.’ What are you going to do?

PACHECO: Well, I’m going to continue to fight and we’re going to walk the halls of Congress and we’re going to let the people know, like Senator Lemieux from Florida, that Mel Martinez was a champion for the DREAM Act, and he needs to do the right thing for Florida. As a matter of fact, 70 percent of the people- voters in the United States support the DREAM Act, and what we’re saying is to please give us a chance, give us an opportunity to serve and give back.

CHETRY: I just want to let people know what exactly the DREAM Act would be- the requirements. You have to be under the age of 29, and you also would have to arrived in the U.S. before turning 16- like you two. You were brought over with your families. You have to be in the U.S. for five years, graduate high school, or have a GED, have a clean record and- quote, ‘good moral character.’ You would also then have to wait 10 years before gaining legal residency. So Gaby, I want your take- when somebody like Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican from Alabama, calls it a bill that would result in reckless proposals for mass amnesty and encourage more illegal immigration, what do you say to that?

PACHECO: Well, that’s not true. What’s going to happen is only the people that are here, the people that have been living here- myself, I’ve been living in the United States for 18 years- I’m an American. The only thing is that I haven’t had a path- I haven’t had a way to legalize my status, and the DREAM Act would do just that, and- you know, after the 10 years, I would be able to become a resident. And then- you know, there’s still a waiting period for me to be able to get my citizenship. So it’s a very long process, but it would give us the opportunity to work, to go to college, to serve in our military, be on the front lines, and give back to our country.

CHETRY: And Cesar, this is the other ironic part for you is that- you know, you want to stay here. You said you want to contribute to the U.S. economy. You’re sort of up against a wall, unless this gets passed. But you’ve had offers from other countries- China, Spain, perhaps Canada, that really want you and your brain power.

VARGAS: And that shows my commitment to this country. I love this country. This is my home. I don’t want no medals- no awards. All I want is the opportunity to share in the American dream. You know, in my heart and soul, I am an American.

CHETRY: Well, best of luck to both of you. You’re doing very well for yourselves, and we’ll see what happens as this goes before the Congress. Thanks so much, Cesar Vargas and Gaby Pacheco, for telling your stories to us this morning.

VARGAS: Thank you.

PACHECO: Thank you.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/12/08/cnn-lets-two-illegal-immigrants-vouch-passage-dream-act#ixzz17kXPk8Cz


Amtrak – New gun rules allow weapons – Uselessly, unloaded, but allowed. The criminals load their weapons, but the average citizen is a hostage

December 10, 2010

The average citizen is the criminal always.

The criminals go around with guns loaded, but the average, out in the open shmuck gets told that he’s “incompetent,” but the criminals are apparently more competent.

A gun is a tool.  It can be used to kill a rabid dog or a violent criminal.  But the decision is made by the person using it.  Just like a kitchen knife.  Maybe we should outlaw that too.  Whats next?

Maybe they should put us all in a padded room and call us crazy.  The insane are not allowed weapons either.  The criminals, however, HAVE RIGHTS.  Even when they are not citizens of this country.  Yet, we are subjectively determined to be incompetent to know the difference from right and wrong by the government that is not even competent to know that IT’s only real job is to defend AMERICA—- NOT the world.  Because if they defend the world, then who’s defending us?  The politicians and the government have disarmed us on many different levels. If they are not defending America, then they may indeed, dismantle America.  Other governments defend their property.  If there is no one to defend us, then, we will cease to exist.

Our View: No more risk in Amtrak’s new gun rules

A closer look shows decision is not out of line; same policy in place for decades on airlines.

train%20copy.jpg

Amtrak’s recent announcement that it would allow passengers to bring unloaded guns on trains that offered checked baggage service must have struck many in the traveling public as odd.

After all, the announcement comes soon after another federal agency began conducting full-body scans and intrusive pat-down searches at many of the nation’s airports. But a closer look at the Amtrak rules show that they aren’t out of line.

Pushed by the National Rifle Association, Amtrak’s gun policy matches those already in place for airliners, even in this era of heightened security. Airlines allow unloaded guns packed in hard-sided containers to be stored in lockers.

interior%20of%20train.jpg

Train passengers planning to check their guns must give Amtrak 24-hour notice. For law-abiding travelers who want to transport their guns legally, the new rules are fair and reasonable.

But let’s be real here — they are no deterrent to determined criminals.

Millions of riders board trains and subways loaded with bags and backpacks. They don’t pass through metal detectors and are not subject to pat-down searches or bomb-sniffing dogs.

So it’s impossible to know who’s packing now or not.

Make no mistake: We are not advocating airline-like security measures for trains. It would cost a fortune and slow public transit to a halt.

Most Americans recognize the reality. In an open society, terrorist targets are endless.

Any place the public gathers in our nation — trains, ferries, subways, malls, stadiums, schools and Christmas tree-lighting ceremonies — there’s the possibility of terrorists taking advantage.

Although the train gun rules are new and startling to some, the policy does not increase public risk a bit. (This editorial originated with our sister newspaper The Sacramento Bee.)

Editorials are the opinion of the Merced Sun-Star editorial board. Members of the editorial board include Publisher Debra Kuykendall, Executive Editor Mike Tharp, Editorial Page Editor Keith Jones, Online Editor Brandon Bowers and visiting editor James Bennett.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/12/10/1687732/our-view-no-more-risk-in-amtraks.html#ixzz17jsjKIDs


%d bloggers like this: