Obama, trying to beat McCain to punch, sends 1,200 troops to...to sit at desks

.
So...after again behaving with arrogance during a private meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday, and giving them the impression that he wasn't interested in sending troops to help secure our southern border, President Obama waltzed out of the room and immediately announced that he's sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border as well and $500 million for "enhanced border protection and law enforcement."

He hadn't said a word to the Republicans, even though they had been discussing this very thing with him. In fact, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that he and Sen, McCain (R-AZ) had told Obama that McCain was introducing an amendment that very day that would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border and would be paid for with unspent stimulus money.

"Sen. McCain spoke to it...and then I stood up. One of the things I said was we were going to the floor in a few minutes to request additional money for sending troops to the border. But that was the end of the conversation."

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who described the meeting as "testy," said the president

"wasn't embracing" the call to secure the bordersbefore pressing forward with a comprehensive immigration policy overhaul.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) put it a little more bluntly:

"The more he talked, the more he got upset. He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

What?  What is wrong with Obama?  Maybe the Republicans weren't questioning his motives, but I sure am. Why doesn't he seem able to sit at a table with his opponents and behave with any kind of openness and sincerity?

The last time he has a real meeting with Republicans, he did the same thing. He goes in, puts on an anemic show of bipartisanship, all the while arrogantly keeping Republicans at arms length - and making sure he doesn't do anything that will give them any credit. So insecure in his authority, he is loathe to give any appearance that he's not totally in control. So he leaves the meeting intending to do only that which will prove to Americans that he's the one on top.

Last time, after the health care 'summit', he continued on with his own plans despite every good idea and point made by his opposition. This time, it was "get to the people and announce a border guard surge before McCain gets to the Senate floor."

His announcement came just as several Republican border security amendments, including McCain's, were being introduced on the Senate floor. Amazing...

McCain, whose re-election depends on appearing firmly conservative, said from the floor that he appreciates Obama's decision ...but there needs to be more.

"I think it is a recognition of the violence on the border which has been really beyond description in some respects," McCain said. "But it's simply not enough."

But will his "surge" do any good?

A White House official, who claimed Obama's announcement was "part of his comprehensive plan to secure the southwest border," has confirmed that the National Guard will "provide intelligence, surveillance," "training capacity" and support for "reconnaissance" and "counter narcotics enforcement" until more Border Patrol officers can be hired. The additional funds are to improve security technology and increase the number of agents, investigators and prosecutors for the area.

Essentially, according to Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-AZ),

..."the 1,200 border patrol troops are, in effect, desk jobs...They aren't boots on the ground at the border, they were not intended to be deployed to the border. Rather they'll be investigating, administrative support, maybe training. Now that's all fine...but the real value of the National Guard is to be seen."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer gave a response that we hope Obama can learn from; she spoke with courtesy regarding the deployment, even though he is an opponent and has mocked her, and even though it's obvious the deployment is simply a political gesture. She applauded his plan as a "very significant and important shift in the president's immigration and border security policy."

"I am pleased that President Obama has now, apparently, agreed that our nation must secure the border to address rampant border violence and illegal immigration without other pre-conditions, such as passage of 'comprehensive immigration reform...I am anxious to hear of the details that have not yet been disclosed of where, how, and for how long additional forces will be deployed. With the accountability of this election year, I am pleased and grateful that at long last there has been a partial response from the Obama administration to my demands that Washington do its job."

But the CATO Institute had no trouble summing it up;

President Obama is deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and requesting $500 million more for border security. With due respect to Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, who want even more troops and money, this approach is neither here nor there. (And it echoes Obama’s split-the-baby decision on Afghanistan, not willing to go for a whole-hog escalation but also not willing to rethink the overall policy.) Half-measures won’t do it here, Mr. President (and Congress). If you lack the heart (or have too much of a brain) for a full wall-and-militarization of our southern border — and perhaps mass rounding up and deportation of 12 million people — it’s time for a fundamental reorganization of the immigration system.

U.S. immigration (non-)policy is nonsensical and unworkable. We’re beyond the point of perestroika; it’s time for regime change.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, (D-AZ), who, with others, had requested more border security after a rancher, Robert Krentz, was murdered in March by an illegal immigrant, kept her party face on and praised Obama for the deployment. She said that Arizona resident,

"... know that more boots on the ground means a safer and more secure border. Washington heard our message."

Apparently no one told her that those boots won't actually be on the ground.

Quotes from FOXNews.com - May 25, 2010
.

Boycott The Boycotters: Can We Boycott SEIU?

"According to National Right to Work,

'A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.'
State where people have the right not to participate in a Union include:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

If you live in one of these states and have been paying into a Union that you don't like nor want, check out your RTW law, and see what you need to do to stop their deductions from your paycheck."

Further, urge your state legislator to introduce Right to Work legislation in your state's next session...

SEIU Says Boycott Arizona? It's Time to Boycott SEIU

.
Among organizations that have threatened to Boycott Arizona are the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)

SEIU States on their website:

"Arizona has polarized our nation and given license to a racist, anti-immigrant underbelly that has no place in this country and this law must stop in Arizona.

"Now that we’ve made a public stand to protest this unjust law, we ask that you make a personal pledge to boycott intolerance with us by joining us.

"Sign the boycott pledge. It Stops in Arizona."

I grew up in Minnesota, in a politically active DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) Family. As a child, I was at gatherings where I met Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. My neighbor was a nurse for Humphrey in his final year. My mom was friends with Rudy Perpich and attended his inauguration. My family visited Don Fraser's place on the St Croix.

I've also been a member of the union when working in Health care. So I grew up thinking that Unions were a good thing.

And as an adult, I've lived the life of my husband and children; members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. I've watched my family experience genuine racism and on occasion, was affected by it as well, although we've never allowed it to stop us from enjoying our lives.

But I no longer respect Unions, and in truth, the biggest source of racism that we as a family have encountered has, hands down, been from the liberal left; people that purport, either sincerely or as a means to other ends, to be the minorities "benefactor."

Lord, save us from Democrat do-gooders. They do so much more harm than good.

So, now that we are on the subject of degrading and dehumanizing leftist policy, let's talk about the Unions.

Here - look at this statement off of SEIU's website

"We are the Service Employees International Union, an organization of 2.2 million members united by the belief in the dignity and worth of workers and the services they provide and dedicated to improving the lives of workers and their families and creating a more just and humane society."

Oh, that sounds all nice and pretty. UFCW says something similar:

"UFCW members are from many backgrounds and walks of life, but come together as the UFCW for the shared goal of achieving the American Dream. The UFCW is about workers helping workers improve working and living standards. When we unite for better wages, benefits, and working conditions, we help protect and improve the livelihoods of all workers. The UFCW is one union with one voice. We are committed to changing the places where we work and the communities where we live so that all workers have the opportunity to reach the American Dream."

Okay - Unions began as bargaining agents for employees for the sole purpose of obtaining humane working conditions, right? WHEN did they become - when did they obtain the AUTHORITY to be - standard bearers for not just the service I provide on the job, but for my life, the lives of my family, and ...for society as a whole?

Further, does SEIU have periodic referendums enabling all 2.2 million members to communicate their beliefs, so that they can be assured that they are, indeed, united in those beliefs? What about the approximately 1/2 million people that are forced to be members and pay dues to the Union? Are they united in the same beliefs as the Union as well?

Nevertheless, I concede that there are many who are content with their representation. I was reading one happy union worker's comments online -

"Unions are good in the following way.

"Their was one time when they called me into work, then when I got their, they told me they didn't need me anymore. I called the Union and got paid for 4 hours, and I didn't even work. I got paid 4 hours and didn't even have to do anything. Their was also a time when they made me go home 1 hour early and I didn't want to, I called union and got paid for it. Their were a few times when they were late for giving me break, called the Union and they made sure that they give me my breaks on time. Their was also time when they had me do physically labor, which was outside my job description, called union and they never made me do that again. My question is, why are unions so bad, they are always on the workers side and always look out for are best intrest."

So...this guy is happy to be paid for not doing anything, and happy that his employer couldn't ask him to do physical labor, and happy that no matter what's going on in the shop, he'll get his break on time. This really sounds like a great worker; someone I'd definitely want to have on my payroll. He's sure living the American Dream.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't be using sarcasm. In truth, the letter sounds like it was written by someone that's never matured past the age of a spoiled teenager angry that mom interrupted his video game to get him to take out the trash.

And while Mr. Happy is singing Union praises ...we're watching the late great city of Detroit wither and die because the unions have run it into the ground. What is it about simple economics that so many can't understand? How long are Unions going to continue to give millions of workers the impression that they have the right to demand ever increasing wages and benefits as well as a right to not work and still get paid? Until the entire economy collapses?

This is a clear example of leftist policy doing more harm than good. But there is more.

There are stories of SEIU making pacts with corporations, at the expense of workers, in order to expand the strength and membership of SEIU.

Quoting from an article in the San Francscio Weekly;

"The secret deal worked out between SEIU bosses and nursing home owners denies union members the right to speak out, strike, or protect patients."

"It has involved trading away workers' free-speech rights, selling out their ability to improve working conditions, and relinquishing their capability to improve pay and benefits, in order to expand the SEIU's and Stern's own power."

Seems that the purpose of SEIU is no longer for the good of the worker. It's purpose is to perpetuate itself. SEIU exists in order to exist. Kind of like the BIA.

When did this entity, created to help the oppressed worker, become the Oppressor of the worker?

And more. From everything I have seen of SEIU over the last couple years, from

• Thugs beating a guy at a town-hall meeting, to
• Andy Stern snuggling up to Obama and money, to
• the video of Andy chirping "Workers of the World, Unite," and "[W]e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work we use the persuasion of power,” to
• SEIU and other Unions trying to force themselves upon unwilling home-care givers in Illinois

...and from all the stories we've grown up with about Jimmie Hoffa and other criminals running this massive con on the Blue collar worker; I have come to the conclusion that if I ever need help with a working situation, I certainly don't need criminals to work it out for me. I can do it myself.

And if I can't, I'd rather scrape by, working a small hobby farm to feed my kids - as we once did fifteen years ago - than to give money to these charlatans. There is no way I will ever pay dues to another Union, even though I am returning to the nursing profession this year - and I will strongly advise my children to never join a union either. (After all - contrary to the belief of so many on the left - being a tribal member doesn't mean one is ineptly dependent on others forever.)

All the lies, manipulations and threats ... keeping the workers under their thumb.

What's with these Liberals, these elites, who go through their life thinking they really do have the right to control the rest of us? While it's true that they might temporarily have the opportunity and power, they most certainly do not have the right.

And now, the SEIU and UFCW have the audacity to threaten to boycott Arizona because of a new law set in place to protect citizens of Arizona from increasing violence.

Oh - that's right. Farmers and ranchers aren't unionized. As a result, rather than enjoy the dignity and worth that SEIU workers are said to enjoy, or feeling the pleasure and peace of the promised "more just and humane society," they are to be treated as unimportant and unvalued collateral in SEIU's continued climb for power and perpetuity.

I guess drug cartels don't phase SEIU much. The differences between SEIU and an organized gang are slight.

What I am wondering is - when and how can we start Boycotting Unions? Where in our Constitution does it say that we are mandated to give money to thugs in return for their strong-arming of employers?

If you are as curious as I as to how to get these monkeys off our backs, visit the website of National Right to Work.

I looked at the site for the first time this week, after having heard about it from a friend. I wanted to make sure that the state I am living in won't mandate me to join a Union when I go back to work. About half the states currently have Right to Work (RTW) laws that allow a person to decline Union membership. Workers in the remaining states need help fighting for that right. We can start to Boycott SEIU and UFCW right now - if people will help get that legislation passed in all 50 states.


To Support Arizona in their decision to protect their citizens, and encourage all States to enforce Federal law, visit 'Boycott the Boycotters'


To complain to the two of the Unions that are committed to Boycotting Arizona:

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (800-424-8592)
International Office -1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036

United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) (202-223-3111)
International Office - 1775 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006-1598
.

I am an Arizonan Now!!

.
Arizona State Governor Jan Brewer held a news conference with Sarah Palin Saturday, May 15, 2010, to defend Arizona families and the new Arizona law that addresses illegal immigration.

The law, which takes effect until July 29, has got about a third of the country hysterical. They seem to think there is something wrong or even unconstitutional about the law although it is merely a reflection of current federal law and requires police, when stopping a person for something else, to enforce the federal law. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

Despite claims that this law is about racial profiling, it is no more about racial profiling than the federal law is. This is about Crime. Arizona has been suffering with a huge upsurge in drug crime and violence related to lack of border control. Now, we can admit that the crime exists and a large amount of it originates over the border, or we can be idiots and pretend nothing is wrong. Kind of like - hmmm....being certain that angry young Muslim men that say they hate America and believe in Jihad aren't allowed to board planes or play with fertilizer.

Brewer said, citing the amount of drug smuggling and human trafficking going on,

"Our purpose today is to help the rest of the nation understand the crisis which confronts our state."

Many of us do understand that and stand with them. The Arizona law is fair, just, and needed. What's interesting is how many of the angry detractors haven't seemed to take time to understand that. For many, it has been attack first, ask questions later. Attorney General Holder, for example, after condemning the law, now admits that he hadn't even read it.

But are these all angry people simply misunderstanding the law? I believe there are a number of liberal politicians and activists who know full well that the law is fair and necessary, but are riling their liberal base, including Latinos, into outrage for political purposes.

See - even our child-like President Obama has made jokes about Arizona and the law. He gave an appearance of being unaware of the federal law in which the Arizona law was based, but I think he knows full well what the law is. After all, wasn't he trained as an attorney and didn't he once claim to have taught law?

As Governor Brewer wisely noted,

"Our president apparently considers it a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal political convenience."

After all, most of America is very angry at the Liberals right now and wants them out of office (along with all RINO's amongst them). The Liberals need to rally their base and any independents they can gather against the conservatives. Further, they count on the Latino vote to help them and the more Latinos in the country, the better. Especially in states where the left has pushed election laws to register new voters right at the polls with no real proof of residency, and in cities where ACORN and similar leftist groups can do the most damage.

It is for this reason that many of us are now angry at the Mayors of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and other cities as well, for their attempts to boycott Arizona. Who do they think they are? I, for one, will not be visiting any place in California until the officials in that state grow up and cease trying to hurt the people of Arizona.

Arriving by train, plane, bus and car, I have enjoyed LA, Disneyland, Santa Monica Pier, J. Paul Getty Museum, Hollywood Blvd, Universal Studios, the San Diego Zoo, Alcatraz, Fisherman's wharf, San Jose, the Sequoia forests and simply the beaches and camp grounds over the years. I don't care if I never see any of that again if it means feeding into California's craziness.

Understand this - this is not about racism. There are plenty of people of Latino heritage that don't like living under the threat of violence any more than anyone else does. Many are legal U.S. citizens. Phoenix has become the kidnap capitol of the Nation and it is primarily Latino families that are targeted.

You wouldn't know this from listening to the left, but there are even American Latinos that vote conservative.



Further, I don't see the Mayor of San Francisco or the Mayor of LA saying, "but lets still do business with Latino owned businesses in Arizona." No, they are hurting everyone, no matter the heritage.

So...are they are only supporting the illegal immigrants, and not legal visa holders and Latino U.S. citizens?

I am joining others at Boycott the Boycotters in Support of Arizona and its families.

At 'Boycott the Boycotters,' a list of those threatening to hurt Arizona is under development. Please help it develop, and let the site know if you have another one to add. Join us in Boycotting those entities until they cease their attack on Arizona and its people: ALL its people, no matter their heritage.

As Sarah Palin said on Saturday,

"It's time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say, 'We're all Arizonans now' and in clear unison we say, 'Mr. President: Do your job. Secure our border.'"

I pray the current administration in DC will do its job, even if it means the losing some votes in November. I pray they will do something honorable and right for once - not self-serving.

Visit the Independent Indian Press
.

New online magazine: Independent Indian - Independent Thinking

Roland Morris and Bill Lawrence, both members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, weren't afraid to say what they thought and felt, even if tribal government didn't like it, and even if they were threatened because of it. Both believed that current federal Indian policy and the reservation system were hurting people more than helping them.

Both believed that men needed to get away from the mentality of depending on the government to take care of their families. That didn't go over to well with those that controlled the reservations, or the liberals that owned them. The Montana Human Rights Network, supposed supporter of the downtrodden, came out with a publication calling Morris an "anti-Indian Indian." Heaven forbid anyone suggest that things aren't right in Indian Country.

Bill passed away two months ago, and Roland passed away 6 years ago. But the lessons they've taught us live on. Read More:

Independent Indian - Independent Thinking

Public School Uses Girl's team to Make Political Statement

.
The Highland Park High school in Illinois won't let it's girls varsity basketball team go compete in a tournament this coming December because its Superintendent's office doesn't like Arizona's politics.

The Supe's office is doing this despite the fact that the team has had a championship season, won their first conference title in 26 years, and had been selling cookies for months to raise money for it.

District 113 Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson gave some lame excuses to the Chicago Tribune, first claiming that Arizona is off-limits because they aren't sure how the new immigration law will be enforced.

Right - well, if that were the case, why wouldn't a mature school administrator simply call the Arizona Governor's office and ask?

Anyone that knows the least bit about doing research, (which we hope the school Supe's office would be up on) would know that accessing state legislation and speaking to state officials is really not hard to do. If one were to take the few steps necessary, one would find out that the supposedly horrid immigration law signed last month in Arizona amounts to nothing more than a mandate that federal law be enforced. If the school officials don't like the federal law, why not simply address their concerns to Congress, and let the kids go play basketball?

Well, Hebson said the "turmoil" in Arizona is no place for students of Highland Park High School.

Right...but...the same school officials approved a student trip to China, where dozens of children have been slashed or hacked to death in four separate incidents in the last two months. The school also doesn't appear to have qualms about the students living in Illinois, which for decades has been home of some of America's worst crime families, or going a few miles south into Chicago, the city everyone in America has come to understand as being the most corrupt in the nation, (next to DC, of course)
- By The Way, weren't state legislators just the other day calling for the National Guard to come and patrol Chicago because it has become so extremely dangerous?

Well...Ms. Hebson says,"We would want to ensure that all of our students had the opportunity to be included and be safe and be able to enjoy the experience. We wouldn't necessarily be able to guarantee that."

Make...me...puke. The safety of the team?? What - do they think the police are running around bullying everyone in Arizona? Of course they don't think that - the Supe's office is just throwing that out as an excuse.

News site Chicagoist.com asked if there are undocumented players on the team, or if anyone associated with the team is in the country illegally. Hebson responded to them that she did not know. However, parents say that there are no players on the team that are illegal immigrants.

The final, and worst, excuse Hebson tried to give the Chicago Tribune was that the trip "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values."

What is that supposed to mean? The Principal doesn't believe Federal laws should be enforced? No, not that?
Well...what are the beliefs? Does everyone in that public school have the same beliefs and values? Does this public school have some sort of political vision statement that everyone is aware of and every school decision is measured up to?

Well, even if this public school administration does have such an illegal political vision statement, apparently the team members and their parents do not.

Parent Michael Evans told Fox News, “The school has sent children to China, they’ve sent children to South America, they’ve sent children to the Czech Republic, but somehow Arizona is more unsafe for them than those places. The beliefs and values of China are apparently aligned since they approved that trip,” he added.

Yes, as much as these administrators might believe that they control all thoughts and values in their 80% white, 80% liberal, but (according to them) "diverse" school, the fact is that both liberals AND conservatives do co-exist within its walls. As much as they would like to constrain dissent and intolerantly keep the school as cookie cutter in thought as possible, they have some renegades amongst them.

Yes, while admitting out loud that one is a conservative in this affluently blue Chicago suburb might be akin to a shameful admission that one was gay or pregnant in years gone by, rebellion still finds way to rear it's ugly head. Parents are saying that regardless of how one feels about the new law, it's not the school's place to make such decisions based on politics.

“I’m not sure whose values and what values and what beliefs they’re talking about," Evans said. "We were just going to Arizona to play basketball and our daughters were very disappointed to find out the trip had been canceled.” Evans added that if for some reason a player was worried about safety, she could always choose to stay home without forcing the whole team to.

As the Chicagoist.com noted, "forcing a boycott as a political statement upon students who might disagree with the stance - especially without giving them a choice in the matter - will only ...[do] more harm than good.

So let me get this straight..in the last week, we've had a Principal sending kids home for wearing American flags on their T-shirts while other students were free to wear Mexican Flags; Principals suspending little girls for eating candy, and now this...a Superintendent office deciding for everyone that a misguided, senseless, and hugely hurtful political statement needs to be made.

Is there any wonder why more and more people are pulling their kids out and homeschooling?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/12/hoop-dreams-shattered-arizona-safety-fears/
http://chicagoist.com/2010/05/12/highland_park_high_kicks_hornets_ne.php

Truth Meter: Obama's Feigned Concern over the Dangers of ipods

.
In a May 9 commencement speech to graduates at Hampton University, Hampton, Virginia, President Obama claimed that modern technology and social media are "putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."

Great! Many HOPE that to be true, as both our country and democracy have been needing a new pressure - a pressure that would cause people to wake up and "smell the coffee" (as one of my old teachers would have put it).  Our democracy has been spiraling out of control with Democrats and Republicans both having made decisions that put us on a financial train wreck.  Modern technology and social media bring pressure by providing a level of transparency and public discourse never before possible in history.  Many thank God for it.

Not so President Obama, although he made great use of modern technology and social media throughout his 2008 campaign.  He told the graduates on Sunday,

"...meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter."

Let's stop here. Truth meter?  Obama is going to lecture US about truth?  Does he sincerely believe that most of America still thinks he's honest? 

He goes on,

"And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations - none of which I know how to work - (laughter) - information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy."

WHAT?
- OK, first, he’s talking about a Truth meter, and inferring that that Truth is important…and then goes ahead and lies about his use of this horrid technology. CNN.com’s SciTech blog, John D. Sutter writes that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama told Rolling Stone his iPod contained songs by Bob Dylan, Jay-Z and cellist Yo-Yo Ma. He also told the AP he has all Michael Jackson music “on my iPod.” He’s even given the Queen Elizabeth an Ipod (With…can you believe this?… his speeches programmed in. Talk about arrogant…) And his administration uses social media to push their agenda constantly. His Press Secretary made a big show of starting to use Twitter.


- Second...most of us feel that yes, indeed, modern technology HAS been a huge tool for empowerment and emancipation!  Call Twitter, Blogs and other non-traditional media what you want, but I and many others are GRATEFUL for the ability to get news without having to depend on NBC, ABC or CBS. 

- But third ...wait, most of what he mentioned in the above list ARE ...primarily tools used for...entertainment, right? Not information?  So...what's he talking about?  Tools for entertainment aren't putting pressure on the democracy...are they?   Wait...there's an ipod in England loaded with his speeches....right; an entertainment ipod which contains distracting information that doesn't rank that high on the truth meter... exists.

No, this feigned concern over the dangers of ipods, etc. was a farce.  He campaigned using social media, and his administration continues to use it heavily. This wasn’t about the dangers of modern technology. This wasn't about the dangers of modern technology.  This was about the lamest attempt to quash dissent ever recorded.  Obama can control a few of the major news sources, but he hasn't been able to control what we text, tweet, and blog each other.  And that's what he hates, just as much as he hates the Tea Party.  Some think that this was his first volley in an attempt to control the Internet and dissenting news media.  If it was, it was a very weak and ineffective volley.  Needless to say, any attempt to circumvent the constitution and prevent people from freely communicating would only anger the public further, and they would continue to communicate by any means possible.

He might have wanted to give the appearance that he was trying to "warn" America's youth about the dangers of new technology, but for many of us, the actual warning we received is that he's trying - ineffectively - to dampen trust in the myriad news sources that he can't control.

Obama Swipes at Media, Says 'Information' Onslaught Pressuring 'Democracy'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/10/obama-targets-ipods-video-games-commencement-address/
.

Wait! Hold off on that Blast Fax to Congress!

.
Fax Services have suddenly sprung up in the last few months, flashing Conservative buzz words words and Marketing to Tea Party angst.

Be Careful!  Sites that offer to help you fax to Congress might not be what they seem!  A site can claim all kinds of things about a bill...but if they aren't showing you the actual language of the legislation...be sure to do your own homework and look it up!!

I saw one blast fax site today that said a bill was partisan, BUT when I did my own work and looked it up - it was actually bi-partisan.

Also, the site says that the bill "exempts Organized Labor -- UNIONS, particularly, SEIU and IBEW -- from the same controls put on their corporate equivalents."

When the legislation wording actually says;

‘‘(F) COVERED ORGANIZATION DEFINED.—
       In this paragraph, the term ‘covered organization’ means any of the following:

‘‘(i) Any corporation which is subject to section 316(a).
‘‘(ii) Any labor organization (as defined in section 316).
‘‘(iii) Any organization described in paragraph (4), (5), or (6) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.
‘‘(iv) Any political organization under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, other than a political committee under this Act.

The Legislation also explains:

(2) The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on January 21, 2010, reverses established jurisprudence and sound policy to greatly increase the dangers of undue special interest influence over the democratic process. That decision has opened the floodgates for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums from their general treasury accounts to influence the outcome of elections.

(3) Congress must take action to ensure that the American public has all the information necessary to exercise its free speech and voting rights, and must otherwise take narrowly-tailored steps to regulate independent expenditures and electioneering communications in elections.

The summary also says -

H.R. 5175 does not play political favorites. It is intended to even the political playing field so that all politically active groups—corporations, labor unions, 527 and social welfare and trade organizations—abide by the same rules candidates and parties abide by.

and

...The DISCLOSE Act seeks to ensure that foreign countries cannot elect our leaders or influence out policy. Corporations that foreign controlled are banned from spending in U.S. elections.

So - I'm not saying that I know everything about this bill.  It's 84 pages long - it sounds like it might be a good bill, but I haven't finished looking at it yet.  I also don't know anything about this particular faxer; they might be entirely sincere - and they might have found wording that I haven't found yet.

All I am saying is ...be careful!  For one thing - if a site doesn't fully disclose who THEY are, there is a big reason to be cautious.  And if they don't show you the actual text of the legislation they are addressing, and just want you to take their word that they've paraphrased it truthfully, be cautious.

People can hurt us from the left OR the right.  There are scammers out there. Some are just out there to make a buck and don't have any honest political leanings one way or the other.  Or there might be someone from the left, trying to frustrate and stress people to the point of giving up.

Just be careful - do your research.  And keep asking questions to the people and/or politicians you trust.
.

New Web Magazine Publishes Writings of Conservative Indians

From New Web Magazine - The Independent Indian Press:


Both Roland Morris Sr. and Bill Lawrence, Minnesota Chippewa heroes of Truth and independent thought, have passed on. The Native American Press / Ojibwe News has printed its final edition. But their legacy and what they taught us lives on.

We will not be silenced or controlled. We are not owned by Tribal Government. We have a voice, and we will use it.

This site is open to the writings of Tribal Members and those that love them for the purpose of standing up for Conservative Values, the US Constitution and freedom from over-reaching government.

Current Federal Indian policy does not work to the benefit of the individual tribal members and their families; it works to the benefit of the tribal and federal government. It works to the benefit of those in power.

In fact, Federal Indian Policy not only does not benefit tribal members, but it works to their detriment. The evidence is in the ever increasing amount of alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, mental health issues, child abuse and neglect, and suicides within Indian Country. Things aren’t getting better, they’ve been getting worse. It’s time it was admitted. The emperor has no clothes.

As Roland Morris once said, being treated a child is the worst thing that can happen to a man. As adults and citizens of the United States, there is no reason why we need be considered wards of the federal government or chattel for the tribal government. We want to live with all the rights and responsibilities of every other American citizen.

No more pretending that we aren’t capable. No more treating us like 2nd class citizens. No more taking control and “jurisdiction” over our children, as if parents who have moved on don’t know what is best for them.

No more forcing us to live in a socialist system, where assets are controlled by government rather than families. America is up in arms over the Socialism Obama is forcing on everyone – but we’ve been forced to live with it for years.

No more allowing tribal government to deny those living on reservations Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Assembly. No more living under a system of Nepotism and Cronyism.

No more living without a separation of powers within tribal government...

...Further, financial dependence on outsiders must end. Governments have developed a circular need for social service funding, as it is the one area where they are assured outside funds. However, in focusing on getting money for social programs, the governments haven’t been giving economic growth and development any attention. There needs to be a decrease in the primary focus of program and service delivery, and an increase in focus on long-term, strategic goals that develop solutions and reduce financial dependence. With that in mind, workforce dependence on government jobs will also lessen. Reservations are top-heavy in government jobs; the natural outgrowth of a focus on program and social service funding.

(Does anyone see similarity’s between the current tribal government system and the system President Obama is trying to bestow on us? Can we get a “hello!” recognition as to how and why Obama’s agenda must be stopped, and what must changed on the reservations?)

For Read More of what they are talking about - Visit Independent Indian Press

Arnold, Forget the Angry Mob; Watch out for Angry Moms

,
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told Greta Van Susteren on Tuesday that he expects the tea party to "twinkle and disappear" as the economy improves.

Is he kidding? He obviously has no clue how people really feel and why. Will an improved economy change how we feel the The National Debt? Obamacare? How about the way Obamacare was forced on us? The corruption rampant in Congress? The buying and selling of votes? The attitude the politically elite have had toward average Americans? The way the Obama administration have treated us? Excuse me?

What Gov. Schwarzenegger is exhibiting here is exactly the callous and tone deaf attitude that we are so angry about!

Gov. Schwarzenegger doesn't understand because he is not part of it, and he is not part of it... because he doesn't understand.

Schwarzenegger derided the tea party during the Van Susteren, complaining about what he thinks is lack of momentum and solutions.

He said, "People meet. They talk about it. What can we change? How? And it's all healthy and it's all good. But I'm just saying they're not going anywhere with it because nobody is coming up and saying, Here's our candidate, here's our solution, here's what we're going to do, and have a whole policy debate over the various different issues. So this is why I think, in the end, when the economy comes back, I think that the tea party will disappear again. It will, you know, twinkle and disappear, and that will be it. So that's exactly what I feel about it."

Again, he's obviously not listening. The Tea Party has suggested solutions on many various issues and has backed several candidates. And momentum? What do you call the feverish pitch with which the Tea Party has grown over the last year? What grass roots movement has he watched grow as quickly as this one, pulling such a diverse group of people from all over the country?

What he really doesn't like, as evidenced in his confusion over why there is no policy platform, is the organizational structure of the Tea Party - or lack thereof. He assumes that because it doesn't look or function like a conventional political party, it must not be a real movement and can't work.

Well. we'll see about that. The reason there isn't a set platform is because the Tea Party's are all individual, local bodies. They don't want anyone from afar defining them. The reason for the grass root, local, loose organizational model is a direct result of the anger people are feeling toward the out-of-control and unaccountable leadership we've had from the Democrats and Republicans. Call it a knee jerk reaction.

And of course that very same leadership isn't going to understand that. They want everything to continue as it had been - where they expect to get automatically reelected no matter how much they cheated and lied to their constituents. They don't want us standing up and telling them "No," and they most definitely don't want to lose control of our votes. They want us to get back into our separate Democrat / Republican corners and stay there. But we've been resilient to their efforts to mock and divide us. Therefore, they fear the Tea Party, and want to see it fail.

Yes, there will be a change. That's the whole point of the Tea Party. Our country has reached the point where we have to go one direction or the other. Fortunately, it will probably change in a good direction as it appears that most Americans want to return to a Constitutional Republic.

It's just so sad that a third of America is still trying to control everyone else with the kinds of remarks and accusations they've bandied about; Not just Gov. Schwarzenegger, but the reigning leadership in DC, calling us a "Mob", and accusing us of being violent and racist. Funny, we didn't see Nancy Pelosi crying about the violence from leftist protesters in Arizona this last week. Or Bill Clinton, warning those protesters to behave themselves. In fact, I don't think either of them said anything.

Of course they didn't. Our out-of-control Political leaders tend to think that Liberal protesters are always justified in carrying through with their angst.

But conservative protesters better not even have a tinge of emotion in their voices. The conservatives are the ones that really scare them, even though the Tea Partiers have been anything but violent.

I think maybe our leaders have seen too many Hollywood movies - the ones that portray rural conservatives as idiots, racists, and murderers. That's Hollywood for you. Maybe our leaders should try to get to know some of us. They might find out Hollywood was wrong.

But ...I suppose it's to be expected; in any historical situation, there is always a group that, for their own selfish reasons, opposes what is right and good. There's no getting away from it.

I pray, in the name of Jesus, that we, the Tea Partiers, will stay strong - as well as nonviolent. I pray that we will be able to continue with the current structure of local control, open to all who want to join in support of constitutional law, as well as continuing to be mature in our communication with those we disagree with.

I pray for the healing of our country, and a return to the standards, morals, and ethics that once made it strong. I pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

The Manhattan Declaration                  Independent Indian Press
The Mount Vernon Statement .
.