Thursday, June 30, 2011

Obama 'defiance' of Constitution earns impeachment call 'What use are elections if the executive branch rules by decree?'


While they're getting the impeachment started, how about cutting off funding for Homeland Security and the Justice Department until Napolitnao and Holder are sacked?

from World Net Daily
By Bob Unruh
June 30th, 2011

An organization that represents the 75 percent of American citizens who want more control over illegal immigration is calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama over his involvement in the transfer of weapons to Mexican drug lords and his efforts to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.
"President Obama is no longer the legitimate president of the United States," said William Gheen, president ofAmericans for Legal Immigration PAC,in calling for the action today.
"By arming drug and human smugglers with assault weapons that have been used to kill American and Mexican citizens and police forces, and by ordering amnesty for illegal aliens which has been rejected by both the Congress and the American public more than eight times, Obama has committed a form of treason against the United States and must be removed from office by Congress," he said.


Read more:

Saturday, June 25, 2011

"I AM A MUSLIM," OBAMA TELLS EGYPTIAN FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT


from Atlas Shrugs

by Pamela Geller
June 12, 2010


ISLAMIC COUP ON THE WHITE HOUSE

Ahmed_Aboul_Gheit_with_Obamas 
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama pose for a photo during a reception at the Metropolitan Museum in New Yorkwith Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and H.E. Laila Kamal El Din Salah
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, in which President Obama told him that he was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.
Finally, during the week of 14-18th of January 2010, just on the eve of my winter tour to the US, Rachel picked up a Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the "Round Table Show" that he had had a one on one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare), that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel. (more here)
This is according to Israel Today here. Here is the passage from the May 2010 issue of "Israel Today." It is on page 3 in an article titled "Obama, a 'Strategic Catastrophe,'" by Aviel Schneider:
The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV. 
That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official governmentdocuments and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.
“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.” The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”

to continue article 

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Washington State Cuts Education For American Children, Ignores Immigration Dimension


Not defending our borders is treason.---rng

from Progressive Prospective and vdare.com


By Randall Burns


I was recently part of a rather long line of parents waiting, some overnight, to secure their children a place in school next year.
The State of Washington, where I live, is having severe financial problems. Significant educational cuts are looming. Programs like the"Parent Partnership" school where I send my children—it’s a variety of alternative school in which exceptional parental involvement is expected—are expecting cuts of 20%.
Meanwhile, Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire—a former teacher who literally burst into tears when announcing cuts to education— has just announced she is not running for re-election. She seems likely to fail upward into the Obama Administration.
Why is our school, with some of the highest science test scores in Washington State (and one of the few such schools that obtains these scores without requiring an entrance exam for students) having its budget cut? Why is a program that serves students with medical problems that make attending school five days per week difficult (one of my daughter’s friends has cerebral palsy, another disabling migraine) being targeted? WWhy is a school with exceptional behavior standards targeted? What is it that led to the huge budget deficits—and looming cuts—in Washington State?
Those questions are complex. However, about 3-4% of the of overall K-12 spending in Washington State goes to funding education for illegal immigrants and the US born “anchor baby” children of illegal immigrants. (Note that these figures do not include the cost of educating children of temporary workers—say, the H-1b indentured workers shipped in by Intel and Microsoft to eliminate the need for US engineers—and the children associated with increases in legal immigration since the 60's.) But, although education funding dominates the politics of this “red” state, the immigration dimension is never mentioned.
The unskilled foreign workers commonly employed by orchards andagribusiness in Eastern Washington simply do not pay enough taxes to pay for the government services they use. But that really isn't the full measure of the fiscal impact of immigration. Immigration tends to move US wages towards world market wages. It would be possible to replace virtually all American workers with equivalently skilled workers from India or China for about 13% of present wages. Obviously, this reduces the tax base.
Immigrants rarely bring substantial capital to the US. Thus, the only increase in tax revenues results from increase in overall economic activity and increases in property values.  However, we don't even necessarily see an increase in economic activity proportionate to immigration-driven population growth. Jobs growth simply hasn't kept up with immigration in recent decades. US citizens have been systematically moved into unemployment, early retirement, disability receipt or the black/gray markets—and many who do have jobs have worse ones than they did years earlier.
Lower-end and mid-range housing prices largely reflect the purchasingpower of workers. Yes, there were increases in property values. But thebulk of increase in personal wealth since the expansion of immigration in late the 1960s has been captured by the small fraction of very wealthy Americans—those most able to used political maneuvers to isolate themselves from tax increases.
Thus public funding available per American citizen student has decreased, as has disposable income among middle class families.
Although the wealth of the top one percent of US society has risen greatly the last 30 years, it isn't like the wealthy investors have really done anything to create wealth as a group. I believe all increases of assets of those with net worth over $5 million per family the last 45 years can be explained completely by “trickle-up” effects associated with the combination of:
  1. transfer of the value of citizenship via mass immigration(and decrease of differences in US wages compared to world market wages) from the broad-based populations into the pockets of the wealthy
So we are faced in Washington State with severe cuts in education driven to a significant extent by the need to respond to failed federal immigration policies that are themselves driven by donations from thevery wealthy; and by religious tribalism.
The education spending cuts in Washington State are, of course, politically skewed. They tend to avoid impacting the children of immigrants and the wages of teachers, members of unions that Democrat politicians depend upon so heavily.
Alternative schools are less likely than average to employ teacher union members, or to educate children of immigrants. Parent-partnership schools in particular are also more likely to educate either the children of socially conservative Republicans (think Christian home-schoolers) or leftists dissatisfied with the Democratic Party (think Nader/Kucinichsupporters) than the general population. Both groups are vulnerable to the ire of a union-bossed Democratic legislature—where the only"opposition" is usually conventional Republicans principally concerned with cutting taxes to enrich the wealthy.
Personally, as a progressive, I support increasing overall educational expenditures. I believe children of both legal and illegal immigrants in the US—and even those recently deported from the U.S, see below—should be well educated.
But the question is: who should pay for it? It is simply unfair to US children that the education of immigrant children should be paid for out of general tax revenues. In Washington State, local governments are largely limited to property tax revenue. Does an influx of lower-paid labor increase the value of property in the school districts where that labor is located? I doubt it. The state government does have additional revenues for education, including a sales tax. About a third of all educationexpenses in Washington State are provided by the state, as opposed to local governments.  Illegal immigration might possibly increase the state’s sales tax revenues, but only marginally.
My conclusion: The employers of immigrants—and those who invest in the employers of immigrants—can and should be required to pay the full cost of whatever immigration they profit from.
That means obtaining whatever extra revenues are necessary to provide a first-class education to these children while they are in the US. In the case of illegal immigrants, those fees would probably need to be especially high. Illegal immigrants generally have more problems of poverty than legal immigrants—and often require educational staff fluent in Spanish or other languages. 

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Nader, Kucinich call Libya action "impeachable" Both say President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by giving green light to intervention in Libya


     That's funny, I could be wrong, but I didn't hear anything like this in the mainstream news. Nader asking for the impeachment of a sitting democratic president?  Amazing!!! 

   -------lee   

 By Peter Finocchiaro

     Outspoken critics on the left are raising hell over the Obama administration's authorization of military force in Libya, calling it "unconstitutional." Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader recently rattled off a list of U.S. military and intelligence directives -- apparently including action in Libya -- that he views as egregious violations of international law and grounds for impeachment:
Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.
     Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich made a similar statement today. In particular, Kucinich castigated Obama for pursuing military intervention in Libya without congressional authorization:

President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said. It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action ... is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone.

     Kucinich's and Nader's arguments against the constitutionality of Obama's authorization of force are based on an interpretation of the War Power Act. Passed by Congress in 1973 -- after a decade-long quagmire in Vietnam -- the legislation requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of any U.S. military attack where national security is not at stake. President Obama submitted such a letter to House Speaker John Boehner today. Beyond that, the Act mandates that the commander in chief seek congressional approval after 60 days of military action.

For more ...