Obama: “I’m a little bit country” in what is a transparent political shift

From CNSNews.

In what is obviously a political move, TheOne has announced the creation of a “Rural Council” because “Strong rural communities are key to a stronger America.”

To top it off, he’s appointing the former Governor of IOWA (Tom Vilsak) to head the council.  Yes, that’s right – IOWA, a pivotal swing state. All this to win over the “bitter clinger” vote.

Amazing how stupid he thinks fly-over country folks are, that none of us would figure this out?

What we have now is a psychiatist-in-chief;  something none of us want, wanted or voted for:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said [in San Francisco, April 2008.]

“And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not,” said Obama. “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Excuse me Mr.PRESIDENT but you have us all wrong. We cling to our guns because we’re afraid you’re going to come take them away. And we cling to our Bibles and religion because it’s all we have that can always be counted on. Not to mention, it’s constantly under attack from people like you and those marxists you surround yourself with.

It’s too late now for you to try and come court us. Or to try and psychoanalyze us. We really are smarter than  those yo-yos who worship you are.

Read also at BigGovernment

Obama’s India dilemma – turban or no

I love this picture. . . whoever he is.

News that President Obama may skip a visit to the Golden Temple, the holy shrine to millions of Sikhs on his upcoming trip to India, is a sign of the confused times in which we find ourselves.

Part of the requirement for entering the Golden Temple — a sprawling and serene complex of polished marble that is the spiritual center of the Sikh religion — is that men must cover their heads. Their head-covering has to include a knot because tying carries a spiritual significance.
President Obama may reportedly skip the visit to avoid covering his head and being confused as “a Muslim”! A recent poll found that 20 percent of Americans still believe that Obama, a Christian, is actually Muslim.

(My Note: I’m not going to link to this story because I don’t want a bunch of leftist trolls coming over here. You can find and read it at the Huffington Post, by Joe Esposito.  And I guess if you listen to NPR, you already know this story. I heard about it over the weekend from a friend who does listen to NPR.)

(CNSNews.com) – Reports that President Obama has decided not to visit a historic Sikh temple during his visit to India next month are sure to upset adherents of one of the world’s largest religions.

President Obama has been invited to visit the world’s biggest democracy by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh – who happens also to be India’s first Sikh prime minister.

Reports from India attribute the White House decision to call off a planned visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar to concerns that the head covering Obama would be expected to wear at the shrine might revive suspicions in the U.S. that the president is a Muslim.

Ironically, the fact that Sikhs are at times mistaken for Muslims was one of the reasons Sikh leaders in the U.S. welcomed the news that Obama would visit the site.

Read more here. And do read this story, please.

When I was in London a couple years ago, I met a really nice Sikh man who owned a tourist shop. He was more than happy to explain his turban and its religious significance. These folks are nothing like muslims but are often mistaken for them, by Americans.

The most telling question of the year: Pelosi on Jesus’ right to life (w/video)

And she ducked it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, publicly stated earlier this year that she had a duty to pursue policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, the “Word made Flesh.” But at a press briefing last week, when reminded of this statement, Pelosi declined to say when Jesus got the right to life.

“Whenever it was,” said Pelosi, “we bow our heads when we talk about it in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/03/pelosi-won%e2%80%99t-say-when-jesus-got-the-right-to-life/#ixzz0vfi1C1Vz

Video on the CNSNews page also which is worth a watch.

She had no problem discussing “The Word” being made flesh last spring, though. Up until the CNSNews reporter sticks it to here in a recent press conference.You might notice too that she never mentions the name of Jesus or invokes God in her little phoney monologue.

What fake reverence and total hypocrisy of this woman.  I cannot believe that her constituents don’t see these same character flaws that we see. But then, look at Rep. Stark and his history.

She is disgusting to watch.

(I love Father Jonathan and never miss him on Fox if I can help it.)

The last 2 minutes of this video, Laura Ingraham discusses Pelosi and her meeting with the Pope and her Catholicism:

This is a very interesting question that I think many Catholics don’t want to face. Did Jesus have a right to life at conception? If you believe that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary (what we Catholics call the Immaculate Conception) then you have to believe that all life begins at conception – not at some arbitrary date in the gestation of the not-yet-born.

Science is improving and making great strides every year. That arbitrary date of a “viable fetus” will change in the future. Babies will be viable earlier and earlier outside the uterus.

These are moral questions that have to be confronted by the individual and not by the government.

Border Sheriff’s website – they need our support

Click here.

The Obama Regime has declared war on Arizona. Don’t think that you – in Montana or Iowa or any other of the 49 states- will be safe from this happening to you.

I do have to disagree with Sheriff Babeu when he says the government has become the enemy. It’s just the reverse. WE have become the enemy of the state now. They are coming after any state that disagrees with their agenda and this should be a wake up alarm for every one in this country. Descent will be met with an iron fist or a “boot on the neck.”

Read on, please:

(CNSNews.com) – Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.

Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.

“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.

Babeu and Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County Ariz., spoke by phone with CNSNews.com last week about the May 17 ACLU class-action lawsuit, which charges the law uses racial profiling and named the county attorneys and sheriffs in all 15 Arizona counties as defendants. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on July 6, charging the Arizona law preempted the federal government’s sole right to enforce immigration law.

“If the president would do his job and secure the border; send 3,000 armed soldiers to the Arizona border and stop the illegal immigration and the drug smuggling and the violence, we wouldn’t even be in this position and where we’re forced to take matters into our own hands,” Babeu said.
Dever said the federal government’s failure to secure the border and its current thwarting of Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration within its borders has implications for the entire country.

“The bigger picture is while what’s going on in Arizona is critically important, what comes out of this and happens here will affect our entire nation in terms of our ability to protect our citizenry from a very serious homeland security threat,” Dever said. “People who are coming across the border in my county aren’t staying there. They’re going everywhere USA and a lot of them are bad, bad people.”

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about 250,000 people were detained in Arizona in the last 12 months for being in the country illegally. Babeu said that that number only reflects the number of people detained and that thousands more enter the country illegally each year.

The CBP also reports that 17 percent of those detained already have a criminal record in the United States.

Both Babeu and Dever said they want to remain involved in the legal battle over the law, which many experts predict will end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dever has hired an independent attorney to represent him in the ACLU case and his attorney has already filed a motion of intervention in the DOJ lawsuit so the “(Dever) will have a seat at the table.”

A Web site also has been launched by the non-profit, Iowa-based Legacy Foundation to raise money for the Babeu’s and Dever’s legal defense.

Both men said they believe the outcome of the case has national significance.“For us, this is a public safety matter and a national security threat,” Babeu said.

Quote of the Day – Eric Holder

“(W)e have restored the department’s Civil Rights Division to its proper place as the conscience of our nation and our country’s pre-eminent civil rights law enforcement agency,” Holder said.

“The communities that we serve must see that the federal government is really committed to the impartial and aggressive enforcement of our nation’s laws, and these communities must know that we will do all that we can to enforce the law that protect our civil rights with the same vigor that we enforce the laws that protect our public safety.”
…
Despite those comments, Holder dismissed default judgments that the Bush Justice Department had filed against Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson [famed billy club wielding Black Panthers in following YouTube video] in January 2009. CNSNews.com

Democrat Buzzwords – Angry Voters and Sarah Palin

NEWS FLASH!!!

The democrats are going to use Palin to try and incite mistrust and fear among this year’s voters. Kerry is already invoking her name in the Coakley/Brown race even though she has not campaigned in Massachusetts with or for Brown.

“I’m no stranger to hard fought campaigns, but what we’ve seen in the past few days is way over the line and reminiscent of the dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin‘s 2008 campaign rallies,” Kerry said in Boston.

Where are the followup questions to this? Like for instance, what dangerous atmosphere? Who and how many Palin supporters were arrested for intimidation, bullying or sign burnings – all of which Kerry is stating has gone on against the Coakley camp? Give us some names and some concrete instances, Senator Kerry, of this same thing happening in Massachusetts.

And here comes the A-word that we will be hearing so much about in this year’s elections:

At a Coakley campaign rally on Jan. 15, Kerry admitted “there is anger out there,” both in Massachusetts and across the nation.

“It’s justified anger,” Kerry said. “It’s understandable anger. People have lost their jobs. Many people have had their life savings wiped away. People have seen homes taken out fro under them in countless numbers across our nation. And there’s a fear and an anxiety out there. Let me tell you, let’s not forget where that anger ought to be directed.”

According to Kerry, the anger should be directed at Republicans – “at the people and the principles and the policies and the party that threw out the regulators; that opened the floodgates of greed, that invited in the worst economic times in this country’s history – and I believe turned its back on fairness and common sense in this country.”

Hope and Change has been shelved because – well – it hasn’t worked out.

Let’s don’t be misled. They have a plan and it’s starting to materialize in Massachusetts.

The plan now is to tap into or create the perception of voter anger. They will make you believe that the American people are righteously angry at the Republicans. The Republicans have said NO because what the opposition is doing is simply wrong and blatantly unConstitutional. Right thinking people are not angry about that. In fact, we will be proud to be the party of NO.

The American people are angry but the dems won’t accept being the epicenter of that emotion. When the elections come in November, and they get fired, I bet they still won’t figure out that it’s their fault they are unemployed.

Read more at CNSNews

CNSNews.com – Sen. Landrieu Declines to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance

The only thing she says that makes any sense is that she’ll let the congressional lawyers figure that out.

Isn’t she just brilliant?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “CNSNews.com – Sen. Landrieu Declines …“, posted with vodpod

Will Rush be history in less than 3 years?

Mark Lloyd

While serving as a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, [Mark] Lloyd called for the government to reduce the number of broadcast outlets a company own as a means of reducing the number of radio stations carrying conservative programs. He wrore that “no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.”

Lloyd also said that no one entity should own “more than four commercial stations in large markets (a radio market with 45 or more commercial stations).”

Currently, an entity may own no more than eight stations in a large market. Lloyd’s recommendation, were it to become policy, could force station owners carrying programs such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin to sell their stations. CNSNews.com

This man is dangerous. Well, hell  knock me alongside the head – the whole administration is dangerous – what am I thinking?

Not only is Lloyd calling for the censoring of conservative radio hosts, but he’s lowering the bar at how many stations a private business can own.  Obviously, a consumer driven market means nothing to this guy. Or he’s not smart enough to understand the basic economics of it.

Or maybe the real true answer is that he understands this all too well and it scares him.

How did we get all these communists in power at one time? Where is Joseph McCarthy now? Don’t answer those questions… like you, I already know.