Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation!

Page Links:

Make No Mistake. Obama Is Holding The American People Hostage To Amnesty.
Chilling letter to Obama
An American Citizen's Response To Obama
EVERY AMERICAN MUST READ THIS
Going beyond disrespect
One Nation Under Arrest
Heritage Responds to President Obama’s Claims
There is Nothing Conservative About This President
THIS IS AN EXCELLENT COMMENTARY AND SHOULD BE READ BY EVERY AMERICAN
The Gathering Storm
This is ch ill ing ...
How to Impeach a President

" Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation "

Gary Hubbell
Aspen Times Weekly

Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America 's future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America 's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America .

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.

Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.

Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.

We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.

In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.
Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker.

Back to top:

"Make No Mistake. Obama Is Holding The American People Hostage To Amnesty."

The sad and shameful truth is that Obama's lawsuit against Arizona’s tough new immigration law is part of a grand scheme to ram Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens down the throats of the American people.

That’s right. Just as Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress rammed ObamaCare, the so-called Stimulus bill and other government takeovers down our throats, they are now planning to force through an Amnesty bill against the wishes of the American people.

Simply put, ANY attempt to secure the border – something the federal government refuses to do – foils their Amnesty plans. And that's precisely why this frivolous lawsuit against the state of Arizona must be stopped!

And it can be stopped. Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA) just introduced an amendment that would expressly prohibit the Obama Justice Department from participating in lawsuits that seek to invalidate the Arizona immigration law.

A vote on this crucial amendment could take place in a matter of days and that means there is not a moment to lose. The politicians in Washington need to hear from patriotic Americans like you right now.

Make no mistake, if this lawsuit goes forward... Amnesty stays on the table and our border remains unsecured. If we stop this lawsuit, we deal Amnesty a death blow.

Have Illegal Cartels Invaded The United States?

Of course, Arizona is not alone. Other states are rapidly following Arizona's lead.

According to the Associated Press: "Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures. ... Bills similar to the law Arizona's legislature approved in April have already been introduced in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, South Carolina and Michigan..."

Why the sudden rush by other state to jump on the Arizona bandwagon? Recent news reports, largely ignored by the Mainstream Media, indicate that criminal cartels have actually INVADED the United States.

Michael Webster with RenewAmerica.com writes: "A high ranking Mexican Army commander who insists on remaining anonymous has told the U.S. Border Fire Report that Mexican coyotes are now being trained by the Mexican Drug Cartel known as the Los Zetas and are operating in the deserts of Arizona."

Another story in Human Events reads: "The United States is ceding parts of Arizona to the Mexican drug cartels. So says Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu. ... the sheriff described how his deputies were outmanned and outgunned by the cartel smugglers who increasingly operate using military tactics and weapons. The result, said Sheriff Babeu, was that a wide corridor of Arizona from the border North to the outskirts of Phoenix is effectively controlled by the cartels." [Emphasis ours]

Human Events also reported that the federal government recently posted warning signs 80 miles north of the border "urging U.S. citizens not to camp or hike in the 'Active... Human Smuggling Area' because 'Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals.'"

That’s not all. One recent report by Reuters reads: "Police in an Arizona border city are on heightened alert after receiving a warning... that officers may be targeted.... Nogales Police Chief Jeff Kirkham said the department received the threat through an informant.... 'The warning was ... that the officers, if they are off duty, are to look the other way and ignore any... trafficking loads that are coming across the border, otherwise they will be targeted,' Kirkham told Reuters."

Statements suggesting that the United States is being "invaded" by illegal alien criminal cartels are not mere rhetoric as Obama, Pelosi and Reid would like you to believe.

In states along the southern border like Arizona, it is actually happening. Yet, Barack Obama and his extremist allies in Congress refuse to act decisively to secure the border. And, they’re moving heaven and earth to make sure Arizona doesn’t secure its border either.

As Senator DeMint stated upon the introduction of his amendment, "States like Arizona shouldn’t be prosecuted for protecting their citizens when the federal government fails to do so. The federal government is rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging many more to enter our nation illegally when they refuse to enforce our laws. States along the border are facing kidnappings... human trafficking and gang violence and they have a duty to keep their residents safe."

We must defend Arizona and the others states who are willing to get the job done... and we can do that, right here and right now, by forcing our elected officials to support the DeMint-Vitter Amendment.

Send your urgent and personalized letters to the Republican and Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. Or alternately, send your urgent letters to each and every Member of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

Let's flood our elected officials with an avalanche of letters and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that Senators DeMint and Vitter have the right idea. Demand that they support the DeMint-Vitter Amendment that will prohibit the Obama Administration from wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits against Arizona's new immigration law.

Recently, Senator Jon Kyl claimed that Obama privately told him: "The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all won’t have a reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."

Is Obama trying to hold border security "hostage" to so-called "comprehensive immigration reform." Is that why Obama is refusing to enforce our nation’s federal immigration laws? Is that why he's doing everything in his power to stop others from securing the border?

Kyl certainly thinks that's the case: "That’s why it’s being done. They frankly don’t want to do it [secure the border].”

And apparently, Obama's Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, thinks so too. In a recently issued Public Service Announcement (PSA), Solis extends an open invitation to illegal aliens to report their employers to the Department of Labor if they believe they are not being paid fairly.

"You work hard, and you have the right to be paid fairly. I'm U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.... Remember, every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not. So, call us... it is free and confidential... we can help."

Excuse us? Isn't the Department of Labor, in its capacity as an agency of the Executive Branch, supposed to ENFORCE our nation's laws?

Instead of helping illegal aliens file grievances against employers, why isn't the Department of Labor issuing a PSA that instructs people on how to go about reporting companies that are blatantly hiring illegal aliens? Enough is enough. The American people must expose the Obama Administration’s manipulative refusal to secure the border. And, the Administration’s frivolous lawsuit against Arizona must be stopped.

As Senator David Vitter recently said, “The state of Arizona is simply taking responsibility for a problem that the federal government has neglected for years, but Washington’s only response is to oppose these new enforcement efforts and take them to court. The Obama administration should not use taxpayers’ money to pay for these lawsuits that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.”

Senators Demint and Vitter have thrown down the gauntlet. As patriotic Americans, each and every one of us has a duty to back them up and send Barack Obama and the pro-amnesty crowd in Washington a clear message... Stop holding border security hostage to amnesty... secure the border now.

Back to top:

" Chilling letter to Obama "

By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT*

THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST CHILLING

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Author: Lou Pritchett
*
*
This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise. Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing... It's happening right now.*

Back to top:

"An American Citizen's Response To Obama"

Barack OBAMA, in his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America 's story.

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians. Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence ?
Bill of Rights?
Didn't think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr. Obama?
Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present.
There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they?

Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East . No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America .
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.
And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Back to top:

That, Mr. Obama is the "Muslim heritage" in America .

" EVERY AMERICAN MUST READ THIS "

Be Sure to SEND This URL to all you know!
Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
http://www.infowars....g-all-firearms/
http://community.mar...st-step-banning
" U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade "
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg .
The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.
We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictatorship).

p.s. States that reciprocate.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USReciprocity.pdf
Back to top:

" Going beyond disrespect "

The movie " Corpus Christi " is due to be released this June to August. A disgusting film set to appear in America later this year depicts Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals! As a play, this has already been in theatres for a while. It's called " Corpus Christi " which means "The Body of Christ".
It's revolting mockery of our Lord. But we can make a difference. That's why I am sending this e-mail to you. If you do send this around, we just might be able to prevent this film from showing in America . Let's stand for what we believe in and stop the mockery of Jesus Christ our Savior. Where do we stand as Christians? At the risk of a bit of inconvenience, I'm sending this to all I think would appreciate it, too.
Please help us prevent such offenses against our Lord. There is no petition to sign, no time limit, or minimum number of people to send this to.. It will take you less than 2 minutes! If you are not interested and do not have the 2 minutes it will take to do this, please don't complain when God does not have time for you because He is far busier than we are. Apparently, some regions in Europe have already banned the film. All we need is a lot of prayer and send this URL to all you know!
Back to top:

" One Nation Under Arrest "

One Nation Under Arrest

Before President Barack Obama took over the White House, no United States citizen had ever been forced by the federal government to buy a product against their will. But now, thanks to the passage of Obamacare, Americans, by dint of their mere existence, are now required to purchase Obama administration approved health insurance or face a penalty assessed through the Internal Revenue Code.

This is simply unprecedented. The income tax doesn't kick in until an American earns income. Auto liability insurance doesn't become mandated until an American chooses to drive (and even then it's only by the state). And farmers must first grow food before they are subject to the regulations of the Department of Agriculture. But facing federal government sanction for simply breathing? That is a troubling assault on American liberty.

Unfortunately, Obamacare is just the latest example of the growing reach of the federal government into all aspects of our lives. While the final bill passed by Congress specifically made the noncompliance with an IRS individual mandate penalty not a crime, far too often when the spotlight of American attention is not focused on an issue, Congress has gone ahead and criminalized what was once before perfectly normal behavior. Consider, for example, small-time inventor and entrepreneur Krister Evertson, whose story is recounted by Heritage fellows Brian Walsh and Hans von Spakovsky:
In May 2004, FBI agents driving a black Suburban and wearing SWAT gear ran Evertson off the road near his mother's home in Wasilla, Alaska. When Evertson was face down on the pavement with automatic weapons trained on him, an FBI agent told him he was being arrested because he hadn't put a federally mandated sticker on a UPS package.

A jury in federal court in Alaska acquitted Evertson, but the feds weren't finished. They reached into their bag of over 4,500 federal crimes and found another ridiculous crime they could use to prosecute him: supposedly "abandoning" hazardous waste (actually storing, in appropriate containers, valuable materials he was using for the clean-fuel technology he was developing). A second jury convicted him, and he spent 21 months in an Oregon federal prison.

Putting the wrong stamp on a package. Storing your own property own your own land. When did these actions become federal crimes? Why? How can we stop them? A new book launched yesterday and published by The Heritage Foundation answers these questions. One Nation Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty documents how over the past 50 years the politicization of American criminal law and practice has created traps for millions of innocent and unwary Americans and threatens to make criminals out of those who are just doing their best to be respectable, law abiding citizens.

In 1998, an American Bar Association task force estimated that there were over 3,000 federal criminal offenses scattered throughout the 50 titles of the United States Code. Just six years later, that number is estimated to be over 4,000 and Columbia law professor John Coffee estimates that the federal government could use the criminal process to enforce as many as 300,000 federal regulations.

Lavrentiy Beria, the chief of the Soviet security and secret police under Stalin reputedly said, "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime." Our country is by no means a Soviet police state yet, but a federal government empowered with a sprawling code that makes all of us potential criminals is more than just an existential threat to American Liberty. This overcriminalization trend must end. Become informed. Learn the issues. Buy the book. And fight back.

Back to top:

" Heritage Responds to President Obama’s Claims "

From Heritage President
Edwin J. Feulner

President Barack Obama this week cited The Heritage Foundation’s research in an attempt to sell his health care package as a “middle of the road, centrist approach.”

We take great exception to this misuse of our work and abuse of our name. This is but the latest act in a campaign to sell this big-government program as a moderate law that incorporates conservative ideas. Americans should not be fooled.

Let’s be very clear: We oppose this new law because it is a radical new intrusion into the daily lives of all Americans and a massive takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. We view the President’s health care law as inimical to our national interests and offensive to the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government.

Our research has shown that President Obama’s health approach is financially unsustainable and will ultimately lead to health care rationing, a lower quality of care and a greater degree of dependence on government. We deplore those outcomes and are committed to making the intellectual case for this law’s repeal.

What part of that does President Obama not understand?
Specifically, President Obama told NBC’s Today Show host Matt Lauer that a centerpiece of his health care package, “in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market—that originated from The Heritage Foundation.”

But the President knows full well—or he ought to learn before he speaks—that the exchanges we and most others support are very different from those in his package. True exchanges are simply a market mechanism to enable families to choose their health insurance. President Obama’s exchanges, by contrast, are a vehicle to introduce sweeping regulation and federal standardization on health insurance.

Moreover, we completely disagree that President Obama’s law improves the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market. On the contrary, it will create a staggeringly complex and costly insurance system that will drive up premiums for Americans.

The President’s health care law is only eight days old, and already it has cost our economy billions of dollars. Late last week, AT&T alone took a $1 billion charge because of the impact of the bill, and the consulting firm Towers Watson told the Wall Street Journal that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion. It is sad, given the present state of our economy, that the President’s party in Congress has reacted not by trying to find ways to spare the jobs that will be lost because of this law. Instead, they are trying to intimidate companies that take such charges with threats that they will be hauled in before the Energy and Commerce Committee.

It is also revealing that President Obama is still struggling to sell the American people on a bill that he and his party rammed through passage by a narrow margin in the face of bipartisan opposition. It is a sign of desperation that he, his handlers and the media echo chamber are reverting to the campaign practice of selling the President and his policies as centrist, middle of the road and aisle-crossing. As the country has found out the hard way in the past 15 months, they are none of those things.

The President has made a habit of using conservative talking points when trying to sell a liberal ideology because he knows that this is a center-right country that rejects his agenda when articulated honestly. His supporters have even tried to pin the blame of the potentially unconstitutional individual mandate on us. This approach brushes over the details of our research and ignores our ability to evolve past further developed research.

More than 16,000 new IRS agents will be hired by the government to enforce the President’s mandate on the American people. The President’s health care plan also raises premiums, taxes, and costs while lowering quality, and expanding Medicaid. These are not conservative ideas.
And let’s be clear, these are not ideas Heritage has ever, or would ever, support.

We made every effort over the past year to share our ideas for better health care reform with the President and members of both parties in Congress, but were not invited behind the closed doors. Now, after the bill is signed, it seems the President wishes we were along for the ride. We were not. We remain fervently opposed to the President’s partisan plan, and urge its immediate repeal. This is not common politics, its common sense.

Had President Obama limited his bill to centrist elements, he would have won wide bipartisan support for effective reform both within Congress and among the American people. He would have won it, too, at a fraction of the cost of this intolerable, huge and intrusive legislation. He would not now be facing popular rejection by the American people. And he would not need to misrepresent Heritage policies and positions in an attempt to give his radical health plan the patina of respectability.

Back to top:

" There is Nothing Conservative About This President "

There is Nothing Conservative About This President

According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century. Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut writes in today's Wall Street Journal: "A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office." Last March, by 54% to 37%, more people said it was a good idea for the government to exert more control over the economy. Now, by 51% to 40%, a majority of Americans say they want less government control.

President Obama has always tried to cast himself as a centrist. During the 2008 campaign, he promised Americans he would cut their taxes, expand the military, and enact "a net spending cut" for the federal government. Lower taxes, a strong defense and shrinking the size of government; these are core conservative beliefs. Unfortunately, President Obama has completely abandoned them by raising taxes on lower-income Americans, cutting defense spending, and enacting a $862 billion failed stimulus.

And we haven't even mentioned the President's health care plan yet. With polls showing that the President's health care plan has only gotten less popular since it became law, the White House has been desperate to portray their plan in as centrist a light as possible. So on March 30th, President Obama told "Today" show host Matt Lauer that "a lot of ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation." Heritage Center for Health Policy Studies director Robert Moffit responds in today's Washington Post:

The Obama health-care law "builds" on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-ponder with cheese "builds" on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there.

For us, the health insurance exchange is to be designed by the states. It is conceived as a market mechanism that allows individuals and families to choose among a wide range of health plans and benefit options for those best suited to their personal needs and circumstances. People would have a property right in their health policy, just like auto or homeowners' policies, and be able to take it with them from job to job.

Under the Heritage design, individuals could choose the health plan they want without losing the tax benefits of employer-sponsored coverage. The exchange we propose would be open to all state residents and -- very importantly -- be free of federal regulation.

Under the president's law, however, the congressionally designed exchanges are a tool imposed on the states enabling the federal government to standardize and micromanage health insurance coverage, while administering a vast and unaffordable new entitlement program. This is a vehicle for federal control of state markets, a usurpation of state authority and the suppression of meaningful patient choice. Heritage finds this crushing of state innovation and experimentation repugnant.

This law constitutes a massive alteration of the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states, and strikes at the heart of American federalism.

This is not the first time the Obama administration has falsely claimed Heritage Foundation support for its policies. During the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Obama ran a multimillion-dollar television ad falsely claiming that we supported his tax plan. We did not. Then just last month, an Obama Treasury official falsely suggested to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that we supported the administration's financial reform plan. We do not.

We understand that the President is frustrated by the fact that the American people soundly reject his push to turn our country into a European social welfare state. But he only undermines his own credibility when he tries to use our good conservative name as cover to support his wildly unpopular policy positions.

November Pay Cut

Retribution is less than 1 year away!
Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.
1. U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
2. They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
3. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years
4. You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
5. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.
6. Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000
7. Do you feel SCREWED?
8. Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., decrease?
9. NO WAY.
Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I.
• Why should they care about you?
• You never did anything about it in the past.
• You obviously are too stupid or don't care.
• Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barny, et al, care about you?
Send the message to these individuals --- "YOU'RE FIRED!"
In 2010 you will have a chance to get rid of the sitting Congress: up to 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House!
Make sure you're still mad in November 2010 and remind their replacements not to screw-up.
It is ok to forward this to your sphere of influence if you are finally tired of the abuse. Maybe it's time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution..
28th Amendment will be as follows:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”

Back to top:

" THIS IS AN EXCELLENT COMMENTARY AND SHOULD BE READ BY EVERY AMERICAN "

"THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT COUNTRY"
by Pat Boone ......

"We're no longer a Christian nation." - President barack obama, June 2009

" America has been arrogant." - President barack obama

"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals."- President barack obama

"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."- President barack obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president. I keep wondering what country he believes he's president of.

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale's "The Man without a Country," a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, "Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"

The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: "You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country's naval vessels - under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed."

And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America . The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan's dying hours in his small stateroom - now turned into a shrine to the country he fore swore - never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America , refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president - a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white - I want to ask him, "Just what country do you think you're president of?"

You surely can't be referring to the United States of America , can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It's because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn't you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago ? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Papers": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900's that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson 's intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute . were your ideas about America 's Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that " America is no longer a Christian nation"? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that " America has been arrogant"?

Even if that's the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of "not always living up to her ideals," how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be "considered a Muslim nation"?

Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a "Muslim nation"?

Why are we not, then, a "Chinese nation"? A "Korean nation"? Even a "Vietnamese nation"? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you're trying to make is a religious one, why is America not "a Jewish nation"? There's actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution - and the success of our Revolution and founding - owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran ? Even in Egypt ? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can't you? You do recall Muhammad's directives [Surah 9:5,73] to "break the cross" and "kill the infidel"?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected.. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are "no longer Christian," who have "failed to live up to our ideals," who "have been arrogant," and might even be "considered Muslim" - you are president of a country most Americans don't recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?

All who love their Christian Belief's and your Country... Forward this URL to all in your address book.

Back to top:

" The Gathering Storm "

The devastation and ignorance being caused by this catastrophic occurrence will forever
destroy the fiber and character of a once great nation with little hope for correction or
rebuilding at the present rate of duplicity and complacence being displayed
by the American public.

and your taxes and your personal choice.
Back to top:

This is   ch ill ing ...



In

1952

President Truman

established one day a year as a

" National Day of Prayer."

In

1988

resident Reagan

designated the

First Thursday in May of each year as

the National Day of Prayer.

In June

2007

(then)

Presidential

Candidate Barack Obama

declared that the   USA   Was no longer a

Christian nation.

This year

President Obama,

canceled the

21st annual National Day

of Prayer ceremony

at the White

House under the rouse

Of "not wanting to offend anyone"



On   September 25, 2009

from   4 am   until   7 pm ,

a National Day of Prayer

for the Muslim religion was Held on Capitol Hill,

Beside the White House.

There were over 50,000 Muslims that

Day in DC.

I guess it Doesn't matter

if   "Christians"

Are offended by this event -

We obviously

Don't count as

"anyone" Anymore.

The direction

This country is headed

Should strike fear in the heart of every Christian.

Especially knowing that the

Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be

Converted they should be Annihilated

This is not a Rumor –

Go to the website

To confirm this info:

(   http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/ )

Pay particular attention to the very bottom of the page:

"OUR TIME HAS COME"

I hope that this Information will stir your spirit.

The words of   2 Chronicles   7:14

"If my people, Who are called by my Name,

Will humble themselves And pray,

And seek my face, and Turn from their Wicked ways,

Then will I hear from Heaven

And will forgive their Sin and will heal Their land."

We must pray for Our nation, our communities,

Our families, and especially our children.

They are the ones that are going to suffer the most

May God have Mercy...

IN GOD WE TRUST.

Please pass this URL on,

Maybe someone, somehow can figure out a way to put America

back on the map as it was when we were growing up,

a safe place to live by

The Ten Commandments

Back to top:

" How to Impeach a President "

• Posted by Darla, ADMIN / National Director on June 17, 2010 at 10:55pm in Admin Alerts.
AS you will see by the following information until we have a Flip in the House and Senate this isn't going to happen.

WE HAVE TO GET OUT THE VOTE FOR THE REMAINING PRIMARIES AND GENERAL ELECTION!!

This is our only recourse to make this President either a lame duck or actually impeachment.

Wikipedia

Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, and which may or may not lead to the removal of that official from office. It is the first of two stages. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed.

United States

Main article: Impeachment in the United States
The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding. The House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right,
much in the fashion of President Andrew Johnson's trial. Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Unlike the British system, conviction requires a two-thirds vote.

[EDIT] IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES

In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[2] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. [citation needed] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[3] Four years later, Ford would become president when President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment.
Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment. The House has impeached 14 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.

[EDIT] OFFICIALS SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT

The central question regarding the Constitutional dispute about the impeachment of members of the legislature is whether members of Congress are officers of the United States. The Constitution grants the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States." [2] It has been suggested that members of Congress are not officers of the United States. [4] Others, however, believe that members are civil officers and are subject to impeachment.
The House of Representatives did impeach a senator once:[5] Senator William Blount, in 1798. The Senate expelled Senator Blount and, after initially hearing his impeachment, dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction. [6] Left unsettled was the question whether members of Congress were civil officers of the United States. The House has not impeached a Member of Congress since Blount. As each House has the authority to expel its own members without involving the other chamber, expulsion has been the method used for removing Members of Congress.
Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives,[7] states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges preferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

[EDIT] PROCESS

The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass by a simple majority articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate. To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

[edit] History of Federal Impeachment Proceedings in the United States

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 64 times since 1789 (most recently against Judge Thomas Porteous of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana), and only the following 19 federal officials have been impeached:
• Two presidents:
• Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted by the Senate, falling one vote short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 35-19 to remove him. The Tenure of Office Act would later be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in dicta.
• Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote, and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote. The House rejected other articles. One was a count of perjury in a civil deposition in Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (by a 205–229 vote) and an article which accused Clinton of abuse of power by a 48–285 vote. President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The Senate vote fell short of the necessary 2/3
needed to remove him from office, voting 45-55 to remove him on obstruction of justice and 50-50 on perjury.
• One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
• One Senator, William Blount, in 1797. He was expelled by the Senate, which declined to try the impeachment.
• One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• Fourteen other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from Florida. Hastings's name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate
Richard Nixon was never impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him and did report those articles to the House of Representatives, Nixon resigned before the House could consider the impeachment resolutions and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford, although this would have had no binding effect on the impeachment proceedings.

Back to top: