THE PROSTITUTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.

Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

ON THE BRINK OF DESTRUCTION

It is just amazing to watch this gutless, aimless administration carry on day after day with complete disregard for the welfare of its constituency. To turn a deaf ear to the wants and needs of the American people is unconscionable beyond any comprehension. Our country is in complete financial tatters and this gutless ideologue we call a President continues to leverage the futures of our grandchildren. He treats Iran like an errant child while at the same time throwing one of our most trusted allies, Israel, under the proverbial bus. Due to this cowards complete ineptitude, Iran now has a nuclear capability that threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East even more so than it already is. Is there any doubt that Iran has every intention of turning these weapons against Israel and eventually America? Iran is in bed with Pakistan, radical Shiite’s in Iraq, Russia, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. The Iranian’s are supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and any number of radical Jihadist factions around the world. They have even been tied to militant Muslims in the Philippines. Due to the fractured frame work of American foreign policy perpetrated by this progressive psycho, the entire world is threatened.

I am old enough to remember the “greatest generation” that was so gallantly heralded by Tom Brokaw. There was a day not too long ago that we as Americans would never have stood for such incompetence from our leaders. I ask the question; “whatever happened to America?” Hundreds of thousands of courageous men and women from all walks of life made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live in the finest, most prosperous country in the world. Yet, this spineless, myopic Muslim sympathizer has disrespected each and every one of them through his ignorance, conceit and ineptitude. It should be blatantly apparent to even the most casual observer that this mans loyalties lie not with America but with those who feel we owe the world an apology for our success. We are the most giving nation in the world yet this drone feels that we have not given enough. He continues to throw America’s best and brightest young people into the hell fires of war in Iraq and Afghanistan without so much as a scintilla of concern. He is sacrificing these people and their families on the altar of political expediency.

Our country is in trouble. We are facing an internally generated holocaust that will surely consume our liberties, our way of life and our future if we do not act immediately. Without a concerted effort by the American people, our country will unravel leaving only the barest fabric of government to make our decisions for us. The upcoming election is the most critical in our countries history. Squander the opportunity and pay the price. We must divest ourselves of our party loyalty and affiliations. There is no place in this election for the “what is best for the party” voters. We MUST vote for what is best for America and put our country back on track. If we miss this chance to right the ship, this political juggernaut will consume us all.

TAKING BACK AMERICA FROM THE BRINK

When Arizona's new law was signed on Friday, Hispanics demonstrated outside the state capitol in Phoenix, fearful of what it would mean for them. "If a cop sees them and they look Mexican, he's going to stop me," a 18-year-old Hispanic told the Associated Press. "What if people are U.S. citizens? They're going to be asking them if they have papers because of the color of their skin." The young man claimed that he was that even though he was a U.S. citizen he risked being arrested and put in jail.
Other news stories discuss Hispanics believing that they will have to have to carry multiple IDs to avoid prison. "Even if you're legal, you're in fear that maybe your driver's license isn't going to be enough or if you're walking down the street and the police stop you," a 21-year-old University of Arizona college student told CNN. "It's a constant fear we're living in and even legal citizens are afraid to go out."
But it is a dangerous game stirring up fears of people being hunted down and put in jail because of their race or nationality. The law specifically bans picking up someone just because they are Hispanic or even because the person was originally from Mexico or any other country you can read a copy of the law right here. Anyone arrested for a crime must have their immigration status determined before they are released. Thus, it is not just Hispanics who will be required to provide evidence of citizenship, but so will all whites, blacks and Asians. If the eligibility for public services depends on citizenship, again, everyone who applies, regardless of race, will have to provide an ID. In other circumstances, law enforcement officials must have reasonable suspicion, not based simply on the person's race or origin, that the individual is an illegal alien before they can ask to check someone's ID.Police today already have to deal with the "reasonable suspicion" standard all the time in other areas of law enforcement, and most understand very well how this standard limits what they can do. Police know that they can't pull over drivers for fear that they are smuggling drugs just because they are black. "Reasonable suspicion" requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of "reasonable prudence" that a crime has been committed. Obviously in a state such as Arizona, with an estimated half a million illegal immigrants, the vast majority OF illegal aliens are going to be Hispanic. But the reasonableness standard used by Arizona specifically requires something other than just race or national origin.The ID requested is hardly draconian: a driver's license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or "any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification." Rather than requiring multiple IDs as some fear, the law clearly says that "any" of the IDs is sufficient. And the notion of having to carry IDs is not something unique to Arizona. President Obama and many Democrats, such as Senator Charles Schumer, support a national ID card, so it hard to argue that Arizona's requirement will impose an undue burden.Even if a person does not present the required ID, that doesn't necessarily mean the person faces problems. The new Arizona law requires that "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." Today, this is not hard to accomplish quickly as computer records have photographs and other identifying details for people who have state-issued IDs. The only exception to making "a reasonable attempt" is if making that investigation would "hinder or obstruct" a criminal investigation. That isn't going to effect many cases.
Obama has now instructed the Justice Department to find some way to challenge the new law. It seems very unlikely that they will succeed in stopping the law's primary requirements. Sadly, the president and others are unjustifiably stirring up extreme fears. This might be good short-run politics, but those stoking these fears must realize that their credibility is on the line. Unless some federal law will quickly be rammed through Congress, it will soon become evident that U.S. citizens and legal residents have absolutely nothing to fear.

Stopping North Korea Weapons Proliferation Now!

Pyongyang's bellicose words provide all the legal justification we need to interdict its ships.

At this moment the Kang Nam, a North Korean tramp freighter, is on the high seas tailed by a team of American destroyers and submarines and watched by reconnaissance satellites and aircraft. The vessel had cleared the Taiwan Strait at the end of last week as it headed south. Yesterday, it was reported to have turned back north toward the Chinese coast. On board, its cargo could contain plutonium pellets, missile parts or semi-ripe melons. In any event, Washington wants to know what is in the rusty ship's hold.

Why the interest in this particular vessel? The Kang Nam is a "repeat offender" and known to carry "proliferation materials." As an unnamed American official told Fox News this month, "This ship is presumed to be carrying something illicit given its past history." United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874, unanimously passed on June 12, broadened the concept of illicit cargoes as far as North Korea is concerned. It prohibits Pyongyang from selling arms, even handguns. The Kang Nam's U-turn is a sure sign that it is carrying contraband and is now seeking a safe port.

The Security Council, while banning Pyongyang's export of weapons, has not given U.N. member states the means of enforcing the new restrictions. Resolution 1874 calls upon countries to inspect North Korean cargoes on the high seas -- but only "with the consent of the flag State," in this case North Korea. Should Pyongyang refuse -- as it most certainly would -- a member state can, within the terms of the resolution, direct a vessel to "an appropriate and convenient port" for inspection by local officials. Should Pyongyang refuse to divert the ship, the resolution contemplates the filing of a report to a U.N. committee.

It looks as if Washington will file such a report soon. Last week, the U.S. promised China it would abide by the restraints imposed by Resolution 1874. This means, in all probability, that the U.S. will be reduced to watching the Kang Nam unload illegal cargo items at some port.

Yet Washington does not have to adopt such a feeble approach. The North Koreans have, inadvertently, given the U.S. a way to escape from the restrictions of the new Security Council measure. On May 27, the Korean People's Army issued a statement declaring that it "will not be bound" by the armistice that ended fighting in the Korean War. This was at least the third time Pyongyang has disavowed the interim agreement that halted hostilities in 1953. Previous renunciations were announced in 2003 and 2006.

The U.N. Command, a signatory to the armistice, shrugged off Pyongyang's belligerent statement. "The armistice remains in force and is binding on all signatories, including North Korea," it said immediately after the renunciation, referring to the document's termination provisions. That may be the politically correct thing to say, but an armistice as a legal matter cannot remain in existence after one of its parties, a sovereign state, announces its end. Today, whether we like it or not, there is no armistice.

Furthermore, there has never been a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War. This means the U.S., a combatant in the conflict, as leader of the U.N. Command, is free to use force against Pyongyang. On legal grounds, the U.S. Navy therefore has every right to seize the Kang Nam, treat the crew as prisoners of war, and confiscate its cargo, even if the ship is carrying nothing more dangerous than melons. Because the Navy has the right to torpedo the vessel, which proudly flies the flag of another combatant in the war, it of course has the right to board her.

But does America have the will to do so? "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," President Barack Obama said in the first week of April, reacting to North Korea's test of a long-range missile. Unfortunately, the president's words have apparently meant little because Kim Jong Il's belligerent state has, since that time, detonated a nuclear device, handed out harsh sentences to two American reporters, and announced the resumption of plutonium production. North Korea has threatened nuclear war several times in recent days and this month sent one of its patrol boats into South Korean waters. American envoys, in response, have issued stern warnings, participated in meetings in the region, and engaged in high-level diplomacy in the corridors of the U.N. None of these measures, however, has led to the enforcement of rules or the punishment of the North Korean regime.

North Korea's words, in contrast, have meant something. It has, as noted, ended the armistice. Of course, no one is arguing that the nations participating in the U.N. Command resume a full-scale land war in Asia. Yet recognizing the end of the temporary truce would allow the U.S. to use more effective measures to stop the North Korean proliferation of missile and nuclear technologies. The Bush administration sometimes got around to warning Kim Jong Il about selling dangerous technologies but never did anything about it.

Instead, President George W. Bush outsourced the problem to the U.N. In October 2006, in response to the North's first nuclear detonation, the Security Council passed a resolution aimed at halting North Korean proliferation. Unfortunately, Beijing refused to implement the new rules, calling the measures unacceptable, even after voting in favor of them. Since then, more evidence has come to light of North Korea's transfer of nuclear weapons technologies to Iran and Syria.

The lesson of the last few years is that the U.N. is not capable of stopping North Korean proliferation. No nation can stop it except the U.S. Of course, ending North Korea's sales of dangerous technologies to hostile regimes will anger Pyongyang. This month, for instance, the North said that interception of the Kang Nam would constitute an "act of war."

Yet, as much as the international community would like to avoid a confrontation, the world cannot let Kim Jong Il continue to proliferate weapons. Moreover, it is unlikely that he will carry through on his blustery threats. The North Koreans did not in fact start a war when, at America's request, Spain's special forces intercepted an unflagged North Korean freighter carrying Scud missiles bound for Yemen in December 2002. Even though the Spanish risked lives to board the vessel, Washington soon asked Madrid to release it. At the time, the Bush administration explained there was no legal justification to seize the missiles.

Now, the Obama administration has no such excuse. There is definitely a legal justification to seize the Kang Nam. North Korea, after all, has resumed the Korean War.

Obama Administration Seeks Welfare Checks For Gitmo Terrorists

Not only does the Obama Regime plan on settling terrorists in your neighborhood, they also plan to send them welfare checks so that they don’t have to work like the Americans they want to kill. During his news conference, [National Intelligence Director Dennis] Blair also said the Obama administration is still wrestling with what to do with the remaining 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which the president has ordered closed.

Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening, may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed. That would happen when they can't be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won't take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighers (WEE'-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can't find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China.

Blair said the former prisoners would have get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States. "We can't put them out on the street," he said. I feel confident that I speak for the vast majority of Americans when I say “HELL NO” to this proposal. Shutting Gitmo is wrong. Settling these enemies of America in our midst is even worse. And supporting them with the hard-earned money of American citizens is intolerable. This is clearly not the sort of hope or change that any lover of America can believe in.

Obama’s Nefarious Narcissism

President Obama is unyielding in his “…pursuit of dominance and ambition,” comporting himself with an undeniable air of “egotistical grandiosity.” Nevertheless, the president deserves more pity than censure. Obama possesses impressive prowess as a politician, which has garnered him self-absorbed nurturing from a nation of sycophants who refuse to recognize a tortured man, “…excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige.”

“Narcissists are aided, abetted and facilitated by four types of people and institutions: the adulators, the blissfully ignorant, the self-deceiving and those deceived by the narcissist.”

Classic narcissists lack compassion, are arrogant and disproportionately proud. They present with excessive selfishness, ostentatious views of their own talent and have an insatiable craving for admiration. Typically, the textbook narcissist over stresses personal deeds and abilities expecting credit for being superior based on accomplishments that are disproportionate to their demand for adulation.

Barack Obama shines when straddled between two Greek columns, amidst wafts of machine-generated smoke, skilfully orating to an adoring throng of 75,000. Likewise, “the narcissistic leader prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is smoke and mirrors, devoid of substance, consisting of appearances and mass delusions.” Invesco Field-like events, think Brandenburg Gate, infuse Obama with a shot of “excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation,” which for the narcissist, is like crack to an addict.

The emotionally secure grasp the enormity of high profile positions like, let us say, leader of the free world. “Two years in the U.S. Senate, seven years in the Illinois Senate, one loss in a primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives, one stirring keynote address at a Democratic National Convention and two best-selling books,” elevated Obama, in his own pretentious mind, to aspire to the most powerful position in world. This type of self-promotion is indicative of someone who, “…demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievement,” fitting the paradigm of “megalomaniac delusions of grandeur” run amok.

Narcissists are usually people with a thin resume, having accomplished little prior to their ascendance. They appear to have erupted on the scene from nowhere…received as providential messiahs …unencumbered with a discernible pasts…ostensibly unburdened by prior affiliations and commitments.

The president displays classic characteristics of a cerebral narcissist, possessed with “fame, fearsome power and omnipotence,” coupled with belief in his own “unequalled brilliance.” He recently lauded himself as gifted, “deriving narcissistic supply from [his] intelligence and/or academic achievements.”

The Obama stratagem managed to beguile an adoring constituency, win a major election and catapult him to the presidency.

Given a high, enough level of frustration, triggered by recurrent, endemic, and systemic failures in all spheres of policy, even the most resilient democracy develops a predilection to “strong men”, leaders whose self-confidence, sangfroid, and apparent omniscience.

Barack Obama is on a self-ordained messianic mission, attempting to mend 200 years of what he believes, are severe American “injustices.” “Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the “old ways” - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order.” Obama has pledged to level the playing field and vowed to single handily “change the world.”

The president travels the world flaunting self-righteous stances. He demonizes his predecessors and lionizes himself. “The Narcissist cannot regard humans, situations, entities, political parties, countries, races…he either idealizes his object – or devalues it.” Since January 20th, Obama has been involved in propping up his own presidency through the negative exploitation of the Bush years. Notably failing to diplomatically correct Hugo Chavez’s compliment, lauding him a “…intelligent man, compared to the previous president,” he welcomed as flattering, an uncouth remark toward an ex-president.

Barack Obama habitually and “predominantly focuses attention upon himself, to the exclusion of others,” which the DSM-IV, of the American Psychiatric Association defines as pathological narcissism. At the Summit of the Americas, he endeavoured to endear global affection by befriending, “…special or high status people,” like brutal dictators Chavez and Ortega. In a room filled with our nation’s enemies, Obama narcissistically exempted himself while censuring America by saying, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Narcissists tend to be “dogmatic, rigid and doctrinaire.” In a similar manner, Obama dampens, “free thought, pluralism, or free speech” if differing from his own. For example, he dismissively ignored Americans vocalizing patriotic ideals and exercising First Amendment rights by attending Tea Parties. When finally acknowledging the protesters, he did so in a derogatory fashion, referring to them as, “…folks waving tea bags around.” Obama blurts out off-the-cuff belittling statements, jolting even his sincerest devotees with the visible ire he exhibits toward political rivals. He also seems acutely ruffled by a “…certain news channel, on which he’s not very popular,” indicating palpable irritation toward their differing viewpoint.

Narcissists routinely exercise smug impatience by devaluing those they view as intimidating, because for them “every disagreement is criticism and every critical remark a…humiliating rejection – nothing short of a threat.” Barack Obama too holds detractors in contempt and attempts to diminish their stature in order to minimize the impact of critical disagreement. Narcissists exhibit classic cognitive dissonance acting “conspicuously, indignant, aggressive, and cold.” Recently, while debating with colleagues Obama was “boastful and pretentious” glibly reminding subordinates that his tax policies prevail because, lest anyone forget, “He won!”

If challenged, Obama has a pattern of reacting in a top-heavy outrageous 24-hour news cycle manner. If the public seems defiant, Obama quickly asserts power by unapologetically inflaming large groups like the faith community denying foundational Judeo-Christian roots. Flexing liberal political muscle, he appoints to the Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighbourhood Partnerships, gay activist Harry Knox.

Feeling judged for treating England’s Gordon Brown in a discourteous manner, Obama symbolically flips the proverbial bird and bows acquiescently to a Saudi King. He desires correspondence with Ahmadinejad but is hesitant about meeting Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu. Obama struts around with a conceited, in-your-face megalomaniacal egotism, which is “dictator like nature.” With every retort to incongruity, he swiftly reminds his critics who is the head rooster in the coop.

Narcissists exhibit imperious elitist tendencies and a pervading sense of entitlement because they deem themselves better than anyone else. If unscripted, Obama’s true feelings come out. He languishes in the lavish lifestyle, which includes Air Force 1 shuttling he and Michelle to Chicago for Valentine’s Day. In times of economic pressure, the common herd does not enjoy the same luxuries he benefits from, especially peons residing anywhere other than the top floor of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Cross Obama and a disturbing side of him may surface, dishing out curt responses and mocking public corrections. What he wants, thinks and believes is what counts. Do not preclude his decisions or expect him to do anything he does not want to do, from producing a birth certificate, to answering unscheduled questions at press conferences. Barack Obama anticipates, international deference, recognition and admiration, even if the reputation of our nation diminishes as a result.

Focus America! Like all egocentric self-promoters Obama, “is charming and extroverted. But the problem is that this doesn’t necessarily make him a better leader.”

DEATH OF A NATION

This economic crisis is too useful for Obama to want it to end. When Rahm Emanuel -- and later Hillary Clinton -- spoke of never letting a good crisis "go to waste," many people were shocked. But now Obama seems to embody the corollary: that the crisis should continue until he has thoroughly milked it to reshape American politics, society and the economy. Like Faust, he seems to wish that this "given moment" will "endure forever." Unlike Faust, however, he will not lose his "life and soul" to such a wish. He'll sacrifice ours instead.

First came the "stimulus package." With only about $185 billion of its $800 billion in spending to be spent in 2009, Obama clearly never intended the spending to be about stimulus but wanted the need for a stimulus to trigger the spending he wanted anyway. Then came the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding, often forced down banks' throats. Now comes word that even as banks want to return the money, the Treasury is making them keep it. One source at a TARP bank reports that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is insisting that banks go through their "stress test" before refunding the TARP money. As Stuart Varney speculates, in The Wall Street Journal, Obama wants the banks to keep the money so he can enforce his regulations on them.

Now comes Geithner's plea for extra regulatory powers and Obama's concession to global economic regulation at the G-20 summit. Both moves are game-changers for any major American business. Geithner wants the power to take over any business, presumably in any field whose failure would imperil the national economy. Today it's banks, brokerage houses, car companies and insurance firms. Tomorrow? Who knows?

And Obama agreed to agree on international "high standards" for the regulation of all "systemically important" companies to be promulgated by the new global Financial Stability Board (FSB). The United States, occupying one of 20 chairs on the FSB board (21 if we count the EU), will come to a consensus with other central bankers from the G-20 nations on what these regulations should say. Then the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and the other regulatory arms of the U.S. government will impose them on our economy.

(Some have objected that Congress needs to be consulted, but as long as the agreements are "voluntary" and the U.S. agencies are merely "asked" to impose the regulations, no further grant of congressional authority is needed. But, of course, there will be nothing voluntary about the administration's demand that the agencies implement the coming FSB directives (no matter how intrusive they may be).

And, finally, there is Obama's delegation of a total overhaul of the tax code to a commission headed by Paul Volcker with a mandate to report back in December of this year.

So with the tax code totally changing, Europe about to formulate regulations for our economy, the U.S. government empowered to take over any large company, the deficit and spending reaching unbelievable levels and the feds insisting on continued control of banks, what businessman in his right mind is going to invest in anything? How could even the most foolish optimist pull the trigger on a business investment without knowing the tax consequences, the regulatory framework and the policy of the banks on lending?

But Obama knows all this. He knows that his steps will delay economic recovery. But he wants these changes, not as means to an end, but as the end itself. And he is determined to get them passed and set in stone while the rubric of "crisis" justifies his doing so.

He is not unlike a leader who takes his country into war, knowing that by "wagging the dog" he can reinforce his power.

But ultimately, does Obama care if he is reelected? Doesn't he know that he needs a good economy to extend his mandate to eight years? Yes, of course he does. But he probably figures that he can turn the economy around as Election Day 2012 draws nearer and reap all the credit then. In the meantime, no good crisis should ever go to waste.