Obama and Gaddafi: Old Pals I would hate to be his Good friend!!

Obama and Gaddafi: 

Some have expressed amazement at how much quicker Obama was to condemn America's unsavory ally Hosni Mubarak than the far more unsavory enemy Muammar Gaddafi, who has killed Americans in terror attacks. After all, Gaddafi has used the military to suppress resistance far more brutally than Mubarak, who even in extremis only resorted to rough-em-up tactics comparable to those employed by the SEIU. But others are aware than Qaddafi and Obama are old friends. In September 2009, WaPo reported on a Gaddafi speech at the United Nations:

[W]hen it came to America's 44th president, Gaddafi offered only warm words, calling him "our son" and "our Obama," and saying, "The election of Obama is the beginning of change."

"We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president," Gaddafi said during a rambling, 95-minute speech during which he read from notes, exhausted at least one of his interpreters, threw the U.N. schedule into disarray, and put much of his audience to sleep.

Replace the notes with a teleprompter and you can see why they hit it off.

Another reason is that they have close friends in common. In 1984 Jeremiah Wright — Obama's spiritual mentor for over 20 years — traveled to Libya to kiss Gaddafi's ring as part of an anti-American propaganda junket that also included radical pal Louis Farrakhan.

If America's foreign policy appears to make no sense whatsoever, just keep in mind that people like this are running the country now.

Libya truly is a foreign policy disaster

October 26, 2011

Libya truly is a foreign policy disaster

Dr. Judith WellerCumberland Times-News

Out of Moammar’s tyrannical frying pan and soon into Muhammed’s totalitarian Islamic fire.

Our adventures in Libya are another foreign policy disaster for Obama. Many are cheering the death of Gadhafi and hailing his death as a foreign policy success. But if you dig deeper and look at the Middle East as a whole, anyone can see that it is in reality a disaster of great magnitude.

Our adventures in Libya cost the taxpayer $1.1 billion. We ended up having to do most of the intelligence gathering missions as our NATO allies lack the technical expertise for modern warfare. We have the drones, the GPS packages for smart bombs and the mid-air refueling capacity. The U.S. supplied all that! No NATO campaign is possible without the U.S. And in the end Libya required “boots on the ground” to win — granted those were Libyan boots but they would still be sitting in Benghazi without lots of foreign assistance, supplies, money and training. The Libyan military was hardly up to the standards of Quds Force or Syria’s elite army.

In the end Gadhafi’s death will hurt our foreign policy — something Obama and Clinton do not understand. In 2006 after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi an-nounced that Libya would surrender its weapons of mass destruction and submit to international inspections. He was hailed and welcomed back to the community of nations. He was received in Britain by Tony Blair and in the U.S. by Obama.

Since February, a series of uprising known as the Arab Spring broke out in the Middle East. Gadhafi moves to crush a handful of Islamist rebels in Benghazi. France and Britain, who buy oil from Libya, rushed to call for Intervention under a fig leaf supplied by the U.N. It was not in our national security interest but Obama let the U.S. get sucked into a war which he said on March 18 would last “days not weeks.” It lasted eight months and it turned out to be a lot harder than anyone thought.

But the real importance is the lessons other leaders have learned from U.S. Libyan War. The main lesson is: Never give up your WMD or the U.S. will bomb you and kill you. So anyone who thinks that Iran or North Korea will give up WMD is truly naïve. Those countries saw what happened when one leader gave up his WMD and they will not let it happen to them. Our negotiations over WMD with Iran and North Korea or Pakistan are DOA — dead on arrival.

Also, since NATO exceeded the terms of the U.N. mandate, Russia and China will be exercising their veto in the Security Council to ensure NATO never against gets U.N. authority to carry out regime change under the fig leaf of “responsibility to protect.”

Our Arab allies watched us throw our ally of 35 years, Hosni Mubarak, “under the bus.” What did we get for not supporting Mubarak or at least granting him asylum in the U.S.? We got Iranian warships sailing through Suez and into the Mediterranean — something never allowed by Mubarak. The barrier on Gaza was ripped down in support of Hamas. It is looking more and more as if we will either get a military dictatorship or an Islamist government in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group, looks set to gain power in those countries where our allies have been booted out.

They will not be friendly to the U.S.

What is happening is an unparalleled set of diplomatic failures in the Middle East under Obama which will hurt this country for decades to come.

Dr. Judith Weller

Bo, the Portuguese water dog for President

Leaders of men he may be but when it comes to inspiring the loyalty of their canine constituents, the president often fall short.


Mr Millan, who has built a strong following for his television series on taming even the fiercest of Fidos, has offered his own approval rating for President Obama and it is not impressive. When it comes to the relationship between the Prez and his dog, Bo, the title of Commander-in-Chief should be conferred upon the one with four legs not two.


This, apparently, is all to do with Mr Millan’s belief that dogs should always follow their owners when they are on the lead and not the other way around. Bo, a Portuguese water dog, seemingly sees things differently. He is a puller.


“I’ve seen them day one, and definitely day one was not a good scene,” Mr Millan, who is doing the rounds to sell a book, told an interviewer on CBS TV. “The dog, Bo, was in front of the President of the United States.

Obama taxpayer funded battleground state listening tour/campaign bus tour –FAIL.

Obama has lost 14 percentage points in the Gallup poll in the last three months. With the economy continuing to list and unemployment hovering around 9%, it is not difficult to imagine the slide continuing.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that [only --Ed.] 19% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -26 (see trends).

This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama. The previous low was -24 reached yesterday and also in September 2010. Additionally, the level of Strong Approval matches the lowest yet recorded. By way of comparison, President Bush had ratings near the end of his second term in the minus 30s.

In 31 months of Barack Obama’s presidency, according to the Treasury and CBS News, the US has added $4 trillion to its national debt.  That approaches the presidential record set by George W. Bush of $4.9 trillion, but there’s a catch to that.  Bush set that record in two terms — in 96 months:

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.
It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.

Let’s cast this by month rather than by year.  Bush added an average of $51 billion a month to the national debt.  In his 31 months in office, Obama has added to the national debt at an average monthly rate of $129 billion.  That is 152% more per month than Obama’s predecessor.

Mark Knoller lists Obama’s excuses for the debt buildup on his watch, which not surprisingly all get blamed on Bush:

• “Two wars we didn’t pay for”

• “A prescription drug program for seniors…we didn’t pay for.”

• “Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for.”

Well, there are big problems with these excuses, chief among them that none of this explains the sharp difference between the rate of debt under Bush and under Obama.  After all, the wars all started early in Bush’s tenure.  So too did the tax cuts and the Medicare Part D program.  Yet not only did deficit spending remain under control throughout almost all of the Bush years, deficit spending actually declined in Bush’s second term until the economic collapse occurred.

So what changed?  We’re spending more on entitlements, for one thing, but not that much more.  Byron York argues that while conservatives are rightly focused on entitlements to solve the long-term structural deficit, the rapid short-term increase in deficit spending is the result of a Democratic spending spree:

There’s no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion.

In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.

That’s an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue in a very short time. Put them together, and that’s how you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit.

But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington’s current spending problem lies elsewhere. …

Spending for Social Security and Medicare did go up in this period — $162 billion and $119 billion, respectively — but by incremental and predictable amounts that weren’t big problems in previous years. “We’re getting older one year at a time, and health care costs grow at 7 or 8 percent a year,” says Holtz-Eakin. If Social Security and Medicare were the sole source of the current deficit, it would be a lot smaller than it is.

The bottom line is that with baby boomers aging, entitlements will one day be a major budget problem. But today’s deficit crisis is not one of entitlements. It was created by out-of-control spending on everything other than entitlements. The recent debt-ceiling agreement is supposed to put the brakes on that kind of spending, but leaders have so far been maddeningly vague on how they’ll do it.

Finally, let’s recall that Congress passes budgets, not the President.  The proper measure of deficits and debt should be allocated on the basis of Congressional control as well as control of the White House.

  Ten months ago, when Obama blasted through the $3 trillion debt mark, I calculated the true allocation of debt along those lines:

First, let’s break down the last 10 years of the Bush/Obama era by control of Congress, starting on January 1, 2001.  The starting point for the national debt was $5.662 trillion.  On January 6, 2007, when Democrats took over, Republicans in total control had added $3.011 trillion in debt in six years, just slightly less than Obama has added since taking office less than two years ago.  Since taking control of Congress less than four years ago, Democrats have added $4.992 trillionto the national debt.

Perhaps it would be more fair to look at the entirety of Republican control of the House, which lasted 12 years and bridged the Clinton and Bush administrations.  In that entire span, Republican budgets added $3.873 trillion to the national debt.  That is not only far below what Democrats have added in just one-third of the time, it’s also far below the Obama administration’s own projections of how much they will add to the national debt in just one term.

We can also do the same calculations by fiscal year, from October 1 to September 30 each year, matching the budgets. Using that guide, we find the following scenarios:

• Republicans in control for 12 years: Added $4.034 trillion (avg $336.17 billion per year)
• Republicans in control during Bush era: Added $3.201 trillion (avg $533.5 billion per year)
• Democrats in control of Congress during Bush/Obama era:  Added $4.603 trillion (avg 1.48 trillion per year)

Now, with an extra $1 trillion in ten months, we can change that last line to $5.6 trillion for Democrats in less than 4 years.  It’s an astonishing explosion of federal spending, much of it in the increased regulation that’s strangling job growth.  It’s no coincidence, after all, that this massive expansion in federal size and power accompanies an extended economic slump and a refusal of investors to put their capital to work.

The Pigfords, Farmers, and waste, fraud, and abuse

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

Pigford vs. Glickman
"In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997."

The case was entitled "Pigford vs. Glickman" and in 1999, the black farmers won their case.

The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.

But then on February 23, 2010, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment: In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to "Pigford ".

The amount was a staggering...... $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs - 400 black farmers had now swollen, in a class action suit, to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America ..

There was only one teensy problem:

The United States of America doesn't have 86,000 black farmers!!!!

According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007 Census census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697.

Hmmm... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816 black farmers!!
Oops!!

Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 86,000 claims??

And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion??

Well, folks, you'll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the "Rural Development Leadership Network", but whose family recei ved the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action - Shirley Sherrod.
Oops again!!

Yes, folks it appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the history of the United States - - a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission.

And it gets even more interesting...
Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud.

As it turns out, the original judgment of "Pigford vs. Glickman" in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.
But....in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds.

The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama..

Because this law was passed in dead silence, and because the woman responsible fo r spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide recession to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.

But Andy Breitbart knew. And on Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod - - and Obama + his cronies - - stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment.

As for Ms. Sherrod?? Well, she's discovering too late that her cry of 'racism' to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself and the huge corruption.
Sherrod has vanished from public view.

Obama Signs Bill To Pay Black and Native Farmers

But the perpetrator of that law passed in dead silence leading to unlawful claims & corruption..... is still trying to fool all of US.

Go to Google and read for yourself "Pigford vs. Glickman", or "Pigford Obama".

As some have said, "The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."

http://mydd.com/users/nancy-scola/posts/pigford-black-farmers-and-obama

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/10/obama-carries-on-the-pigford-fraud/

..... there are many more ....

Shirley Sherrod, Said ex-USDA worker: "White House forced me to resign over fabricated racial controversy"

• 

BY ALIYAH SHAHID

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

One strike and she was out.
A black employee who resigned from the Agriculture Department on Monday said the White House forced her out after remarks that she says have sparked a fabricated racial controversy.
Shirley Sherrod, the former Georgia director of Rural Development, said she received a phone call from the USDA's deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook on Monday while she was in a car. Cook told her that the White House wanted her to call it quits.
"They called me twice," Sherrod told the Associated Press. "The last time they asked me to pull over the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry and that's what I did."

The Black (by the way why is negro used some times, African, African-American some time, and Black now?)  Farmers Side! Why haven't we heard more about this??

 The U.S. Senate has been criticized for dragging its feet on compensation for black farmers based on the famous Pigford discrimination case. The case was supposedly settled by an alliance between black farmers and Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture. The Obama administration has promised an extra $1.25 billion to settle the claims of the lawsuit.

Although a settlement had been reached, the Senate failed to move forward with the authorization to release the funds. That has led to a tremendous amount of frustration on the part of black farmers, who've been patiently waiting for the first black president and his colleagues to make amends for the discrimination they've suffered for decades.
t’s about time. After decades of legal wrangling and several stalled attempts in the Senate, a payout of $4.5 billion has been approved to settle longstanding claims of government discrimination against black and Native American farmers.
On Friday, the Senate approved $1.5 billion to settle claims with black farmers in the Pigford II case. That decision was followed by the upper chamber approving a separate amount of $3.4 billion to settle with aggrieved Native American farmers who alleged that the Department of Interior had badly mismanaged money accounts.
Senator Harry Reid is already claiming this as one of his big lame duck victories.
“Black farmer and Native American trust account holders had to wait a long time for justice, but now it will finally be served,” Reid said in a statement according to The Hill. “I am hearted that Democrats and Republicans were able to come together to deliver the settlement that these men and women deserve for the discrimination and mismanagement they faced in the past.”
The payout has been a long time coming. Black farmers had accused the government in a lawsuit of favoring white farmers for loans. That case was settled way back in 1999, and the deal was, and remains, among the largest civil rights settlements in history. But it’s taken over a decade — and nine failed attempts before the Senate — for lawmakers to actually approve the funds and begin the long process of paying the debt.
The money was finally approved as part of an extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
In an interview on Essence.com, Dr. John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association talked about how the Shirley Sherrod fiasco actually helped bring attention to the case.

It gave validation to what we had been saying for years—how the USDA had mistreated Black farmers, and also Black employees. We still have an employee problem at USDA. She’s an example of that because we have nearly 80,000 Black farmers that said they were discriminated against, and no one’s been fired. Yet they fired this woman on the spot because they thought she’d mistreated a White farmer. I call that a triple standard. We have a long way to go with the Department of Agriculture. The fact is, there’s a terrible distrust between the Black farmers and the USDA—they treated us worse than the dirt on the ground—and that’s not going to go away tomorrow. But paying the farmers will certainly put us a step further in the healing process.

Jefferson Keel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, spoke to NPR on Monday about the ordeal.
“It’s been such a long time coming and such a painful process,” Keel said on “Tell Me More.” “We’re just happy that we’re finally at a point where we can work with Congress and I’m happy to say that Congress has finally moved these things forward.”

Shirley Sherrod's Disappearing Act: Not So Fast

By: Tom Blumer | 07/20/10 3:00 AM

My oh my, that happened quickly. Perhaps too quickly.
Until yesterday, Shirley Sherrod was Georgia Director of Rural Development for the USDA. Earlier in the day at Big Government, Andrew Breitbart put up a video that exposed Ms. Sherrod as someone all too willing to discriminate based on race.
Within hours of the video's release, USDA Director Tom Vilsack announced Sherrod's resignation, and in the process issued an exceptionally strong condemnation ("We are appalled by her actions ... Her actions were shameful ... she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man").
The NAACP, at whose Freedom Fund Banquet Sherrod spoke of her discriminatory posture, and at which the audience seemed to indicate approval of her outlook, followed a short time later, virtually echoing Vilsack.
So I guess we're supposed to forget about Shirley Sherrod from this point forward.
Not just yet. Luckily, she's not going away quietly, and is complaining about Fox News and the Tea Party causing her dismissal. Keep it up, ma’am, because you and the USDA both deserve further scrutiny.
Ms. Sherrod's previous background, the circumstances surrounding her hiring, and the USDA's agenda may all play a part in explaining her sudden departure from the agency. These matters have not received much scrutiny to this point.
An announcement of Ms. Sherrod's July 2009 appointment to her USDA position at ruraldevelopment.org gives off quite a few clues:

RDLN Graduate and Board Vice Chair Shirley Sherrod was appointed Georgia Director for Rural Development by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on July 25. Only days earlier, she learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families (see below) has won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack.

What?
The news that follows at the link, which appears to pre-date the announcement of Ms. Sherrod's appointment, provides further details:

Minority Farm Settlement

Justice Achieved - Congratulations to Shirley and Charles Sherrod!

We have wonderful news regarding the case of New Communities, Inc., the land trust that Shirley and Charles Sherrod established, with other black farm families in the 1960's. At the time, with holdings of almost 6,000 acres, this was the largest tract of black-owned land in the country.

... Over the years, USDA refused to provide loans for farming or irrigation and would not allow New Communities to restructure its loans. Gradually, the group had to fight just to hold on to the land and finally had to wind down operations.

... The cash (settlement) award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. ... New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

The Pigford matter goes back a long way, and to say the least has a checkered history, as this May 27, 2010 item at Agri-Pulse demonstrates (bolds are mine):

As part of a April 14, 1999 class action case settlement, commonly known as the Pigford case, U.S. taxpayers have already provided over $1 billion in cash, non-credit awards and debt relief to almost 16,000 black farmers who claimed that they were discriminated against by USDA officials as they “farmed or attempted to farm.” In addition, USDA’s Farm Service Agency spent over $166 million on salaries and expenses on this case from 1999-2009, according to agency records.

Members of Congress may approve another $1.15 billion this week to settle cases from what some estimate may be an additional 80,000 African-Americans who have also claimed to have been discriminated against by USDA staff.

... Settling this case is clearly a priority for the White House and USDA. Secretary Vilsack described the funding agreement reached between the Administration and advocates for black farmers early this year as “an important milestone in putting these discriminatory claims behind us for good and in achieving finality for this group of farmers with longstanding grievances."

However, confronted with the skyrocketing federal deficit, more officials are taking a critical look at the billion dollars spent thus far and wondering when these discrimination cases will ever end. Already, the number of people who have been paid and are still seeking payment will likely exceed the 26,785 black farmers who were considered to even be operating back in 1997, according to USDA. That’s the year the case initially began as Pigford v. (then Agriculture Secretary) Glickman and sources predicted that, at most, 3,000 might qualify.

At least one source who is extremely familiar with the issue and who asked to remain anonymous because of potential retribution, says there are a number of legitimate cases who have long been denied their payments and will benefit from the additional funding. But many more appear to have been solicited in an attempt to “game” the Pigford system.

Here are just a few questions about Ms. Sherrod that deserve answers:

• Was Ms. Sherrod's USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization's settlement?
• How much "debt forgiveness" is involved in USDA's settlement with New Communities?
• Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in "pain and suffering" payments -- amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?
• Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Here are a few bigger-picture questions:

• Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?
• Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?
• Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?

The media and the blogosphere shouldn't be so quick to forget about Shirley Sherrod.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/examiner-opinion-zone/shirley-sherrod039s-disappearing-act-not-so-fast#ixzz1SPHw5rqb

Arizona did the right thing!! USA BANKRUPT

 Bankruptcy  101...why Arizona did the right thing!! 

It's easy to dismiss individual programs that benefit non-citizens until they're put together and this picture emerges.. Someone did a lot of research to put together all of this data. Often these programs are buried within other programs making them difficult to find.  

A Real Eye Opener 

WHY is the USA BANKRUPT? 

Informative, and mind boggling! 

You think the war in Iraq was costing us to much?

Read this: 

We have been hammered with the propaganda that it was the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. 

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS. 

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.

I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following  facts... 

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. 

Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8  <http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8>

 2. $22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. 

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML <http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML>  

3.$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. 

Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML <http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML>  

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent  on primary
and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

 Verify at: http://transcrip ts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt....0.HTML>  

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. 

Verify at http://transcrip ts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt...01.HTML>

 6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.  

Verify at: 

http://transcrip ts.cnn..com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML
<http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML>  

 7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. 

Verify at: http://transcrip ts.CNN..com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML> 

 8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal Aliens for Welfare & social  services by the American taxpayers. 

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML <http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML> 

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. 

Verify at: http://transcrip ts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI <http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/PDF/deportationPDF>  

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin. 

Verify at: http://www/. <http://www/...rense.com/general75/niht.htm>  rense.com/general75/niht.htm <http://www/...rense.com/general75/niht.htm>  

 14. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration:  Nearly One million sex crimes committed  by Illegal Immigrants In The United States. 

Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml>; 

 The total cost is a whopping 

$338.3 BILLION DOLLARS 

A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME, HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS 

$338,300,000,000.00 WHICH  WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE  THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF  THIS COUNTRY.
Now for a drop in the bucket that you do not have  to to Snope.  The U.S. State Dept. spent $55,000,000.00 for wood stoves for other third world countries.
The U.S. is to fund $50 million over five years to provide clean cooking stoves to developing countries. Clinton says it’s in order to reduce deaths from smoke inhalation and fight climate change.
Led by the United Nations Foundation, the alliance aims to have 100 million homes using clean stoves and fuels by 2020. “Our long term goal is to have universal adoption all over the world,” said Clinton.
The new alliance gathers U.S. government agencies with the United Nations Foundation, Germany, Norway, Peru the World Health Organization and corporate backers including Morgan Stanley and Shell.
This isn't the first time Clinton has pushed for market standards in industry. While Senator in 2007, Hillary Clinton pushed for new energy standards phasing out incandescent light bulbs. Reports now claim that measure has forced American jobs to go overseas.

http://www.mrctv.org/public/checker.aspx?v=hdkUkU8zDk

$823,200 out of a $12,000,000.00 grant to a UCLA college was spent to teach African men how to wash their genitals after sex.  Yes ladies NOT BEFORE ……. AFTER.  

Paying for this from Stimulus Funds probably is truth in advertising. I bet the field researcher found it highly stimulating.
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex. The genitalia-washing program is part of a larger $12-million UCLA study examining how to better encourage Africans to undergo voluntary HIV testing and counseling – however, only the penis-washing study received money from the 2009 economic stimulus law. The washing portion of the study is set to end in 2011...
Because AIDS researchers have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision, the UCLA study proposes to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow...
The study’s lead investigator Dr. Thomas J. Coates was the fourth highest-funded researcher in the country in 2002 and is currently conducting HIV research on three continents. CNSNews.com asked both Coates and NIMH the following question: “The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad -- who make $52,000 per year -- that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?”

Coates, who was unavailable for comment, directed CNSNews.com to ask grant-related questions of his assistant, Darya Freedman, who did not respond. The NIMH also declined to respond to CNSNews.com’s question.  If Clinton wants to wash African men’s genitals I have no problem with it I just don’t want to pay for it.

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=12567&AwardType=Grants
You put your right hand in,
You take your right hand out,
You put your right hand in
Then you shake it all about…..

What about the “jobs created” part of the stimulus? Think of all the penis washing jobs that could be created. Does a person need teaching credentials to do this job? Would Barney even be qualified? Or could he by pass the educational requirements with “life experience” credits?
Are  we THAT Stupid? 

YES, FOR LETTING THOSE  IN THE U.S. CONGRESS  GET AWAY WITH LETTING  THIS HAPPEN

YEAR AFTER  YEAR!!!!!  

If this doesn't bother you, then just  delete the message..  If, on the other  hand, it does raise
the hair on the back  of your neck, I hope you forward it to every  legal resident in the
United States ..

Obama Birth Thinking Critically

WHY WILL CONGRESS DO NOTHING ABOUT CREEPING SHARIA, OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?

by One Pissed-off Vietnam Vet

Are Muslims receiving preferential treatment in the U.S. because Obama occupies the Whtte House?

How many Muslims has Obama brought to America via executive orders?
Where has our national culture gone?

(Jul. 17, 2011) — So this guy says “I wouldn’t vote for a Republican if my life depended upon it. I’d vote for a two-headed Democrat first.” And this other guy says, “Don’t you get it? Doesn’t mean a hill of beans, they all belong to the same private club that’s run by the Federal Reserve.” Look, it doesn’t have to be this way, understand? What we got here now, Chicago politics on a national level? Afraid so, but we can fix it, we gotta fix it, ‘cause if we don’t, we’re toast.

Why are we toast? Why are we sliding down the precipice to a footnote? And, tell me, where is the rock that people like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi crawled out from under, to scheme to make the descendants of slaves slaves themselves, forcing dependency upon them in the form of welfare, thereby assuring their vote for the government handout unabated, continuing from generation to generation, paid for by the sweat of working Americans who paid into the kitty that Congress so aptly steals from? Where is this rock that these politicians hide under when questioned about Obama’s eligibility?

Look, I’m sorry, but you can live your life any way you want, but as soon as it touches the life of my children, and me, and my neighbors, and my country, I’m coming after you. You think you have the right of free speech? You think that it’s okay to say “Death to Israel” and that I’m just going to sit back and let you have your “free speech?“ You think you can say anything you want and expect no repercussions, then you’re in line for a rude awakening. If you’re my next-door neighbor and think that it’s “free speech” to hold up a banner that says “ISLAM WILL RULE THE WORLD,” then I will explain the facts of life to you, and you don’t get to talk back, because, by your blatant stupidity, you just forfeited any rights you may have thought you had.

I’m personally giving notice that the members of Congress better get with the program in telling the truth, and you government law-enforcement types reading this, if you’d done your jobs in the first place I wouldn’t be writing about illegals and Sharia and eligibility issues, now would I, or any number of like-minded patriots.  So what’s your sorry excuse, “Just following orders?” You make me sick.

I’m just one of millions of Americans who have had it up to here, and you know what? In the end, the truth always comes out on top. Take your best shot, but I’m for keeps.. Just remember One Pissed-off Vietnam Vet. If you hate America, you better start running. If you don’t have the legal papers to be in my country, run. If you have been hiding the facts from the American people, run. If you are a Muslim, you better run. If you are a Muslim in the United States Military, quit while you still can. And if you are currently serving in Congress, speak up, or run, because if you don’t, we’re going to turn over every rock until we find you, then you’ll know you should’ve run.

Obama stimulus funded 'guns-to-drug-lords' plan

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors" -Plato


 Obama stimulus funded 'guns-to-drug-lords' plan Just a day after U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., called for Attorney General Eric Holder's removal, alleging a White House connection to the "Project Gunrunner" that allowed weapons to be delivered to Mexican drug lords, confirmation has come that the program originated at the highest levels of the Obama administration.

The link is the $10 million in taxpayer dollars designated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for Project Gunrunner in Obama's 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, otherwise known as the Stimulus Bill.

Someone in Congress knew about Gunrunner, and Obama signed funding for it into law

 “Only time “gun” or “firearm” appears is in the part that give $10,000,000 to the ATF for Project Gunrunner. That was H.R. 495, asking for 15,000,000 for Gunrunner”.
H.R. 495 that I mentioned never made it out of committee, but it looks as it was to specifically fund Gunrunner.
Instead portions of it were rolled into the stimulus package a month later. That text found in H.R.1 is:
For an additional amount for ‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’, $40,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.
Notice that’s $40,000,000 for Southern border enforcement, $10,000,000 of which specifically for Project Gunrunner. What does $10 million pay for here? It didn’t hire any new agents.

So Obama didn’t know anything about this, but he signed $10,000,000 in funding for the program. This thing would stink on a dung pile. It’s time for indictments.

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) began a pilot program in Laredo, Texas in 2005 with the intention to interdict the flow of weapons from the Southwest border into Mexico. As an aside, since the majority of arms traffic across the U.S. border into Mexico is being driven by drug trade, it was believe that the program would also help to stem the flow of drugs from Mexico into the United States.
Project Gunrunner, as it was dubbed, was directed at Mexican cartels and involved numerous U.S. government agencies as well as the government of Mexico.  Cooperatively, the eTrace firearms tracking system, intended to allow law enforcement in the U.S. to trace firearms movements both domestically and internationally became a key component to the program.
By early 2008, Project Gunrunner had expanded rapidly in border states and into nine U.S. consulates in Mexico. What started as a weapons tracking program became a profitable arms sales business.  $2 million in revenue was garnered through the Merida Initiative, which was hidden in a war supplemental bill.  The Merida Initiative was a program to create a partnership between U.S. law enforcement organizations and Mexican law enforcement. The Department of Justice Inspector General began to question the growth in the programs when payrolls exploded from 25 employees to more than 200 by 2009.
Under the Obama administration ATF received an additional $21.9 million to expand Project Gunrunner, half of which was hidden in the 2009 Obama Stimulus Bill.  Nearly $12 million more was requested in fiscal year 2011 appropriations.
Project Gunrunner went nearly undetected through the latter half of the Bush administration, but the program began to unravel when Mexican gangs murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last December.  After Terry’s murder, ATF agents and officials stepped forward to expose the sale of hundreds of high-powered rifles and pistols to Mexican drug cartels, despite protests from private gun shops being drawn into the sordid affair.  These are the same private business often taken to task by the Obama administration for selling weapons to criminals, while they were selling them to the worst-of-the-worst.

WASHINGTON — The tainted "Operation Fast and Furious" has dealt the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms its worst blow since the agency's botched 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco that left four ATF agents dead.

With federal agents testifying against their commanders, members of Congress calling for the top man's ouster and accusations that ATF is fudging its gun smuggling numbers, the political fallout itself has become fast and furious.

The operation, conducted jointly with agents from ATF, FBI, DEA and other agencies was aimed at reaching beyond the low-level "straw purchasers" of weapons and building a complex case against Mexican traffickers and their weapons brokers.

Firearms reach cartels

But the weapons purchased in gun stores in and around Phoenix, as many as 2,500, got away from ATF surveillance and eventually reached the cartels in Mexico. Two of them were recovered in December at the site in Southern Arizona where smugglers killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

At his news conference Wednesday, President Barack Obama said letting guns go to Mexico "would not be an appropriate step by the ATF, and we've got to find out how that happened. ... As soon as the investigation is completed, appropriate actions will be taken."

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, have been demanding answers from Department of Justice officials.

ATF defenders, some of them retired agents, say the problem of guns from U.S. sources winding up in Mexico is a border-wide phenomenon, and Fast and Furious is just an operation gone wrong in a sea of other cases that ended in convictions.

"The problem of guns from the U.S. ending up in Mexico goes well beyond Fast and Furious, and it was there well before Fast and Furious got started," said Michael Bouchard, the ATF's assistant director for field operations from 2004 until his retirement in 2007.

The operation yielded an indictment in January that named 20 defendants, all low-level purchasers. The indictment identified purchases of 681 guns, including 589 AK-47s.

The political uproar is just the latest battle line in the long war over gun rights versus gun control. Issa and Grassley are widely considered folk heroes to gun-rights advocates who fear liberal Democrats using U.S. guns in Mexico as fodder for more firearms restrictions.

"We've been involved in this issue ever since various folks - the president of Mexico (Felipe Calderon) and President Obama - accused firearms dealers operating legally under the Second Amendment of being the source of violence in Mexico,“ said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. "They're the ones advocating more gun control as a means of addressing the problem across the border."

Today, Democrats are sponsoring a forum focused on stopping the weapons flow through gun law "improvements."

Senators Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., issued a report earlier this month, "Halting U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico" that called for reinstatement of the assault weapons ban and an ATF-proposed requirement that firearms dealers report multiple purchases of assault-type weapons to the agency. They based the report on ATF data claiming 20,504 of 29,284 guns recovered in Mexico in 2009 and 2010 and submitted for tracing were U.S. sourced firearms.

That's 70 percent of the total 29,284 guns traced those years.

Ongoing investigations

According to ATF, 1,573 defendants faced charges related to firearms trafficking from 2006 to 2010 under Project Gunrunner, the ATF's five-year effort to combat weapons trafficking to Mexico. The agency has 4,600 on-going Gunrunner investigations in border jurisdictions, an ATF spokesman said.

Gun rights advocates who say ATF data is suspect point out that officials last year said 90 percent of guns traced from Mexico originated in the U.S., then downgraded it to 70 percent this year. Grassley wrote to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson challenging the 70 percent calculation.

"Unfortunately, this information paints a grossly inaccurate picture of the situation," he said, citing ATF figures he has showing only a quarter of weapons were traceable to the U.S.

A Hearst Newspapers survey last month of 44 gun prosecutions in Texas, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oklahoma and New Mexico pinpointed a total of 1,600 U.S.-purchased guns by brand name that were recovered in Mexico or intercepted en route.