Freedom of the Press

More irony and double talk from the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVER:

"There was some rich irony at the White House today -- President Obama signed the Press Freedom Act, and then promptly refused to take any questions."

Press Freedom Act from the President who hasn't held a press conference since July 22, 2009. That was that event where the President, working without his teleprompter said the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when responding to a report that a man broke into a house. Of course another press conference could cause embarrassment if it were to confirm that no one in the administration has read the Arizona immigration bill before very publicly condemning at every opportunity.

Oops!

Don't you just hate it when this happens? After all that noise coming from California about Arizona's new state immigration law, come this little jewel. Section 834b of the California Penal Code:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

I'm not an attorney, but that sure sound a lot like Arizona's SB 1070

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

Maybe we should start boycotting California? Based upon their money management skills, it might not be a bad idea. Actually, with the complete absence of common sense found in California, there may actually be something the water.

What's The President's Agenda?

The President is determined not to use the words "radical" and "terrorist" in the same paragraph as "Islamic". As pointed out by several commentators, Attorney General Eric Holder had no issues making critical comments about America and Americans, calling America "a national of cowards". I could certainly see how the country that had lead the world in defense of freedom around the world for the past 100 years could be seen as "cowards".

"Holder is not the only one who wants to shield us from this obvious truth. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, questioned about the bomber's motives, said he might have been acting out of opposition to the health care bill. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein said he might have become unhinged by the foreclosure of his Connecticut home.

Similar dignitaries have advanced similar theories. The Christmas underwear bomber, Barack Obama initially said, was an otherwise unspecified "isolated extremist." Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan, we were told by journalists, may have been a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder -- although he never saw combat. Back in the George W. Bush years, we were told that the gunman who started shooting at the El Al counter at LAX had just chosen his target at random, and The New York Times found nothing significant when the Mumbai killers targeted a Jewish community center.

Why the reluctance to state the obvious truth, that we are under attack from terrorists motivated by a radical form of Islam?

Good question. What do we gain by side stepping the facts on what appears to be the common factor in attacks on Americans? Are there political reasons or advantages for stirring the Islamic pot? What is the President's agenda here, and where is it taking us?

A leading international Arab newspaper has hailed U.S. President Barack Obama for officially removing the description “Muslim terrorist” as part of his campaign “to reach out to the Muslim world.” The op-ed did not note the radical Muslim bacgkround of the terrorists and reasoned they are equal to other terrorists whose religion is not connected with their acts.

Osman Mirghani, the deputy editor-in-chief of 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,' which is owned by a Saudi Arabian company and published in London, wrote an op-ed last week under the headline "Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?." The Obama administration has broken from the Bush government’s policy of using the term “Islamic terrorism” in official documents and "no longer [is] responding to extremist voices" that call for targeting home countries of terrorists, he explained.

Are we forming our Foreign Policy around not offending the general Muslim population? That somehow if we don't mention that these people who plan and attempt terrorist attacks on our country are Muslims, they will ignore that we have troops on the ground in the Middle East and that our drones are hitting targets in their countries? We are creating a situation where all parties are feeding the giant elephant in the room, but refuse to see it? I don't understand how this policy is in the best interest of America.

America 101 With Dean Obama

A very interesting read: America 101 With Dean Obama

Double Talk From The First Lady?

Why is the NY Post the only media outlet covering this little "slight of hand" trick by the First Lady?

"Not a single expert that we’ve consulted has said that having the federal government tell people what to do is the way to solve" the obesity problem, Michelle Obama told reporters on Tuesday — the same day she thunkingly delivered a 124-page White House Task Force report which gloats that "Twelve Federal agencies participated actively," cites "recommendations . . for federal action" and promises that "leaders in the public and private sectors. . . are ready and waiting to put this plan into action."

"The catchall is this: "The Federal government . . . should provide clear, actionable guidance to states, providers and families on how to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and reduce screen time."

"How is that not telling people what to do?"

Are we now seeing the First Lady establish public policy for Federal agencies? I've not read the reports and "recommendations" mentioned in this article. But wouldn't/shouldn't the question of a First Lady establishing public policy and increased regulations be of interest to other news and media outlets beyond the New York Post? Or do we need to have the National Enquirer bring in the same team that broke the Edwards scandal?

Just asking.

Bill and Hilary Request the Presence of Your Money

Another example of moral corruption of politicians. With tens of millions of dollars in the bank and Bill's speaking fee starting at $150,ooo, Clinton ask supports to pay Hilary's campaign debt of $771,000. Another example of the people in Washington being completely out of touch with mainstream Americans, with desire for money matching desire for power.

By 2007, seven years after leaving the White House, the Clintons had earned a combined $109 million (£73 million) through speaking engagements and bestselling memoirs. Even so, apparently they would prefer American voters to settle Mrs Clinton’s remaining $771,000 debt rather than paying it themselves.

“Hillary’s campaign still has a few vestiges of debt that I know she would like to see paid in full. Will you reach out today to help Hillary this one last time?” - Bill Clinton

And as if this were not enough of a sign that the situation in Washington is completely out of sync with America, just remember that there is no mandatory retirement age for Congress, and many of our "public servants" are in no hurry to retire. Sad. So sad.

Quotes From US Presidents

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama, July 2, 2008