A Mosque See

While I was at the Phoenix Convention Center where 10’s of thousands of geeks and nerds are gathering to celebrate real diversity and community for Phoenix Comic Con…

The uber-uber-Liberal AZ Republic (know as “The Repulsive” by anyone not on the fringe Left) is stoking the embers of another Draw Mohammed fight that the Left hopes ends in violence.

A self-professed patriot (read: Muslim hater (emphasis mine, it was in the original piece)) is planning a rally tomorrow in front of a northwest Phoenix mosque.

All wrapped up in the American flag and the First Amendment, Jon Ritzheimer says he certainly doesn’t want to incite violence.

So naturally, he’s planning a Mohammed Cartoon Contest at his rally, which takes place tomorrow evening, right around the time of the mosque’s weekly prayer service.

Because he really wants to pick a fight and get people injured or killed. He’s a reckless, politically incorrect arsehole, right? 🙂

After all, to the Leftist there are ONLY two kinds of Speech: Their Approved Politically Correct Speech, and “Hate Speech” which is defined as anything that isn’t Approved Politically Correct Speech.

So you either abide by their rules of speech or you’re a “hater”. End of discussion.

Also, Muslim hate Christians, and Leftists hate Christians, so it’s marriage made of strange bedfellows, since the Islamic Radicals they are so worried about would kill them just as easily as a “hater”.

But the left looks past that and focuses on your “hate” not theirs. After all, they are the saintly ones.

“This will be a PEACEFUL protest in front of the Islamic Community Center …,” Ritzheimer wrote on a Facebook page set up for the event, Freedom of Speech Rally Round II. “People are also encouraged to utilize there (sic) second amendment right at this event just in case our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack.”

Don’t you mean much hoped for attack, Jon?

Naw, the Left is the one who wants the attack, so they can go “see, we told ya so!” you’re a hater and you incited these Muslims with YOUR hate Speech!

Gee, I guess we need to order a Gay Cake and Pizza for the Leftists to feel better. 🙂

Everyone is encouraged to bring American Flags and any message that you would like to send to the known acquaintances of the 2 gunmen. This Islamic Community Center is a known place that the 2 terrorist frequented,” Ritzheimer wrote.

It’s also a known place where people of faith worship as they choose. We can do that in America, Jon.

Does that kind offer extended to Christians? Because we all know they HATE gays and they preach it from the pulpit so they are all evil!! 🙂

So I’m guessing a serious discussion about religion and freedom thereof is probably off the table during this rally.

The LEFT would actually engage in such a discussion without the usual holier-than-thou condescending emotive-only childish ad hominems and insults they usually hurl at “haters”? Not to mention going into it believing that anyone who disagrees with them is a “hater” and an “idiot” or “stupid” is always the best basis for a reasoned debate.

While it’s considered an insult to draw images of the Islamic prophet, I would certainly defend Ritzheimer’s right to do so if he was really making a stand for free speech. But this isn’t about free speech. It’s about provoking an attack and, of course, promoting Ritzheimer.

There’s a lot that could be said about this guy’s methods. But Usama Shami, speaking to Dana, already said it best, noting that he respects the protesters’ right to free speech.

“Everybody has a right to be a bigot. Everybody has a right to be a racist. Everybody has a right to be an idiot.”

‘Nuff said about “a serious discussion”. The Left is incapable of it.

I’m going back to the Convention Center today to celebrate life, diversity and love. I’m sure the world will not end, but the Left will sure try and make sound like it if you don’t kowtow their every command.

I’ll let the Left go on their quest for more and more bigots to shame into silence in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”.

Oh, and that little thing called Free Speech. All speech, not just what’s approved by the Left.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Last Stand of Liberals- Bigotry

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Charles Krauthammer: Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the 40-year liberal ascendancy that James Carville predicted into a full retreat.

Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities — often lopsided majorities — oppose President Obama’s social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, ObamaCare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a Ground Zero mosque.

What’s a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that pre-empts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument.

The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and SB 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.
As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays — particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the Ground Zero mosque. The intelligentsia are near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration’s pretense that we are at war with nothing more than “violent extremists” of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief.

Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms).

Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” — blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims — a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it, “just downright mean”?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

AMEN!

And as for border security? Nothing to worry about there.

The body of an official investigating the massacre of 72 Central and South American migrants killed in a ranch in the northeastern Mexican state of Tamaulipas was found today dumped beside a nearby road alongside another unidentified victim, according to local media.

No big Deal. It’s racist to SECURE THE DAMN BORDER! 😦

The Reverse Trojan Maneuver

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

While campaigning in Nevada Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told an audience of mostly Hispanic voters: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?”

No, please, Harry, just shut up!  For your own good.

******************************************************************
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man spearheading the Ground Zero Mosque initiative, is about to take a month-long trip through the Middle East sponsored by the U.S. government.

No wonder Mayor Bloomberg and the Democrats don’t want to do anything about a mosque 600ft from Ground Zero!

He’s already an apparatchik and we know how this administration treats it’s apparatchiks.

So you have radical Iman who believe American was complicit in 9/11 and wants Sharia law compliance and does not think Hamas is a terrorist organization (even though in there charter it says multiple time “Kill all the Jews”. Look it up sometime) and that dialogue amongst religions is a wast of time  and is a key figure in the Malaysia-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, which helped sponsor the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

So I guess this fall under if you’re going to bed down with a nest of vipers, better to have your own viper. But this one wants to bite you in the ass too! 😦

“He is a distinguished Muslim cleric,” said State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley. “We do have a program whereby, through our Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau here at the State Department, we send people from Muslim communities here in this country around the world to help people overseas understand our society and the role of religion within our society.”

So to explain how the role of religion works in America you send a radical Muslim cleric who believes in compliance with Sharia law??

Didn’t they just get the memo about the most radical Muslims, the Taliban, killing aid workers for the mere crime of being Christians?

Send a Wolf in Wolf’s clothing to do the Sheep’s Job?

So is Obama trying to say that we can embrace a radical who would destroy us, so that shows our tolerance, please like us and don’t kill us infidels?

Probably, it sounds like liberal logic. My head hurts.

“It is to foster greater understanding and outreach around the world, among… Muslim- majority communities,” said Crowley. “We’ve done this many, many times, with many leading figures… over the past few years.”

But know we know why they lack of outrage, except from the American people on the Ground Zero Mosque. It’s probably a part of this whole deal, a pay off.

And besides, if the normal unwashed peasant masses are against it, that must mean the Political Elites are in on it “for our own good”. 🙂

While there’s no shortage of potentially eloquent ambassadors who could convey to the world the majority sentiment in America, the best man for the job is probably Greg Gutfeld, whose proposal to build a Muslim-friendly gay bar consider[ing] the sensibilities” of one’s neighbors next to the Ground Zero mosque is doing wonders to foster a dialogue about ” (Weekly Standard)

How about a Women’s Center next to that. And Christian Church across the Street (more on that later). Maybe even a Tea Party office too.  🙂

We’re all neighbors after all, and can get along, right… 🙂

Next up:  Sending The American Taliban, John Walker Lind to be Ambassador to Afghanistan.

Gitmo Detainees as ambassadors to the Middle East.

The Son of the pilot of the Enola Gay that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima as Ambassador to Japan.

An anti-Semite Democrat (there are sooo many) be Ambassador to Israel.

It all makes perfect sense doesn’t it! 😦

It’s a Reverse Trojan Horse, when the Trojans let the Greeks built the Horse INSIDE Troy and then act surprised when the soldiers jump out of it and attack them in the middle of the night!

Now that demonstrates our tolerance doesn’t it!  Never look a Gift Horse, even a Trojan one, in the Mouth. 🙂

Like the fabled Trojan Horse, the Cordoba Mosque is touted as an offering of friendship and a chance for us to show our tolerance. But its march toward construction has been marked with deceit, fraud and double standards.

Before Islamofascists turned passenger jets into cruise missiles and toppled the World Trade Center, mosques and Islamic cultural centers dotted America. Not a single Christian church exists in Saudi Arabia. We’ve shown our tolerance. We do not need to show our naivete.

As the New York Post has discovered, one of the parcels the mosque is to be built on is owned by Con Edison, even though Soho Properties told officials and the public it owned all the land. Soho only leases the property. Con Edison mysteriously kept quiet all this time, perhaps at the urging of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for whom the mosque is a high priority.

It’s certainly a higher priority than St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which used to be right across the street from the WTC until it was crushed when Tower 2 and its incinerated inhabitants came crashing down on it.

Plans to rebuild St. Nicholas two blocks from its original location fell apart when Port Authority officials objected to its 24,000-square-foot footprint with a traditional grand dome that they said could not rise higher than the planned WTC memorial. Yet no objection was raised to a 13-story mosque on which no height restrictions were placed.

It’s not as if there are no Islamic centers of worship in New York City. The Islamic Society-Mid-Manhattan is located on 55th Street. There’s the Islamic Cultural Center of New York on Third Avenue and the Assafa Islamic Center on Allen Street in lower Manhattan.

Incredibly, the Landmarks Commission denied landmark status to one of the buildings on the site, the Burlington Coat Factory building, into which crashed the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes. Will the mosque have a plaque marking the spot? We doubt it.

Inside, the mosque won’t be Greek soldiers to lay waste to Troy, but Shariah law and its advocates to wage war on a Western civilization they despise. Mosques have served as recruiting and even training centers for terrorism.

Germany has wisely closed Hamburg’s Taiba mosque, once frequented by some of the Sept. 11 attackers. It was searched by police and shut down because German authorities believed it was again being used as a meeting point for Islamist radicals. Mohamed Atta, as well as fellow 9/11 murderers Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, had studied in Hamburg and frequented the mosque.

Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died when the plane she was in slammed into the WTC’s north tower, wrote in the Washington Post that “a mosque near ground zero will not move this conversation forward.” But “over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith,” a version that cultivated 9/11.

Canadian Muslims Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, who sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen of Aug. 7: “We Muslims know that the idea behind the ground zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel.” Or a 13-story middle finger.

Build the memorial, not the mosque. And about that Christian church in Saudi Arabia. (IBD)

Is that a pig flying by my window? 🙂

Carry me back to old Virginny

The Commonwealth of Virginia is obvious the next target for the Chicago Mob in the White House.

But will they go there? That is the question.

The Commonwealth has enacted an Illegal Immigration strategy that is very similar to Arizona, but with some key differences.

But they have also won Round 1 in the “Up Yours!” Obamacare fight. And they are just the first out of the gate.

The state of Virginia can continue its lawsuit to stop the nation’s new health care law from taking effect, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said he is allowing the suit against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it’s constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product.

“While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and tax — a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce,” Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision.

“The congressional enactment under review — the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision — literally forges new ground and extends (the U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark,” Hudson said.

“Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side’s position, this court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action,” he wrote.

The decision is a small step, but in no way a minor matter to opponents of the health care bill rejected by all congressional Republicans but signed into law by President Obama earlier this year.
“This lawsuit is not about health care, it’s about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land — the Constitution,” said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought the suit. “The government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause.”

“Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has brought forward a specific and narrowly tailored objection to the Act. It warrants a full and thorough hearing in our courts. It is meritorious and constitutionally correct. … I look forward to the full hearing this fall,” said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

Cuccinelli filed the suit almost immediately after the law was signed, arguing that it conflicts with Virginia’s legislation — also passed this year — exempting state residents from the requirement that all Americans be forced into health care coverage. Cuccinelli argued that the law violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause allows the U.S. government to regulate economic activity. But Virginia argued that it’s not economic activity when someone chooses to refrain from participating in commerce.

The U.S. government, which was defending itself through the Health and Human Services Department run by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued that everyone will need medical services at some point in their life and therefore is either a “current or future participation in the health care market,” and therefore subject to taxation.

“We do not leave people to die at the emergency room door — whether they have insurance or not. Those costs — an estimated $43 billion annually — are absorbed by everyone else paying into the health care market including doctors, hospitals and insured patients. Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to address that cost-shifting burdening the interstate market for health care,” argues the brief filed by the Justice Department on behalf of HHS.

“Today’s ruling is merely a procedural decision by the court to allow this case to move forward. We believe there is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. We are confident that the health care reform statute is constitutional and that we will ultimately prevail,” the department said in a statement.

Supporters of the law say the decision Monday is merely procedural, but the law will be proven constitutional when it gets to a hearing on the content.

“This case is really a politically motivated ploy aimed at diverting attention from the many benefits of the new law,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which lobbied in favor of the bill. “The decision today should not distract states and the federal government from focusing on implementing the new law in the most effective way possible. The benefits of the new law are just becoming apparent, and substantially more help is on the way.”

More than a dozen state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit in Florida challenging the federal law, but Virginia’s is the first to reach a courtroom. (FOX)

Missouri voters are expected to pass a measure on Tuesday to forbid the federal government from penalizing individuals for refusing to buy health insurance. But it could be symbolic because federal law typically supersedes state laws.

The federal penalty provision does not take effect until 2014 and the Obama administration has pointed to tax credits, subsidies and other mechanisms to help those who cannot afford to buy insurance. Some 46 million people in the United States lack healthcare coverage.

The Obama administration has countered that the government always has the ability to levy taxes and that the Constitution places the federal government’s powers over the states.

Shut up and sit down, we have supreme executive power and can do anything we want! 🙂

Never before has Congress sought to use its powers under the Commerce Clause to force a private citizen to buy a good or service from another private person or entity.  If Congress can do that in the name of ensuring that everyone has health insurance, what is to stop it from ordering citizens to buy a particular brand of car to ensure that everyone has a car to drive?  The possibilities, and hence the power claimed, are virtually limitless.– Virgina AG Cucchinelli

Naturally, the Ministry of Truth and the Liberals are playing it down as no big deal. Just a “procedural” victory they all say in unison. It’s no big deal.

But the “procedural” partial victory they got in the Arizona case was a full-on party-hardy yippee! victory against the evil racists!

Fascinating… 🙂

The media’s bias and ideology shines through again!

Meanwhile, It’s Mayberry to the Rescue!

The latest ObamaCare ad, curiously out at the same time as this decision, 🙂 has Andy Griffith touting the greatness of Medicare and now ObamaCare and how it’s going to take care of Seniors.

I saw they ad, it thought it was very self-centered, arrogant, and greedy. Which means it’s perfect for Obama.

Factcheck.org:

Would the sheriff of Mayberry mislead you about Medicare? Alas, yes.

In a new TV spot from the Obama administration, actor Andy Griffith, famous for his 1960s portrayal of the top law enforcement official in the fictional town of Mayberry, N.C., touts benefits of the new health care law. Griffith tells his fellow senior citizens, “like always, we’ll have our guaranteed [Medicare] benefits.” But the truth is that the new law is guaranteed to result in benefit cuts for one class of Medicare beneficiaries — those in private Medicare Advantage plans.

The White House released the ad on the 45th anniversary of the Medicare program, and said it would run nationally on cable TV networks. Griffith, whose “Andy Griffith Show” was a TV comedy hit at the time Medicare was first enacted in 1965, explains the “good things” that the new health care law will mean for Medicare beneficiaries.

“This year, like always, we’ll have our guaranteed benefits,” he says. An announcement of the ad on the White House website reinforces that claim, saying: “Under the Affordable Care Act … Seniors guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same.” But the truth is, for millions of seniors, benefits won’t remain the same.

As we wrote most recently last December, about 10 million Medicare Advantage recipients could see their extra benefits reduced by an average of $43 per month, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And more recently, a detailed analysis by the Medicare program’s own chief actuary, Richard Foster, stated in April:

Medicare Actuary Richard Foster: The new provisions will generally reduce MA rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages. We estimate that in 2017, when the MA provisions will be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans will be lower by about 50 percent (from its projected level of 14.8 million under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law).

Even the head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, acknowledges that Medicare Advantage benefits are going to be reduced. “I’m sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice,” the Wall Street Journal quoted her as saying in a July 25 report. “But I think what we have to look at here is what’s fair and what’s important for the strength of the Medicare program long term.”

A Weasel Word

So how can the Obama administration claim that “guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same”? The answer is that the term “guaranteed” is a weasel word — a qualifier that sucks the meaning out of a phrase in the way that weasels supposedly suck the contents out of an egg. It may sound to the casual listener as though this ad is saying that the benefits of all Medicare recipients are guaranteed to stay the same — and that may well be the way the ad’s sponsors wish listeners to hear it. But what the administration is really saying is that only those benefits that are guaranteed in law will remain the same.

There’s even a section in the new law (section 3601) that says: “Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act” (the title that establishes the Medicare program). Section 3602 says even Medicare Advantage recipients won’t suffer any reduction of “any benefits guaranteed by law.”

But here’s the catch: The extra benefits generally offered by Medicare Advantage plans aren’t guaranteed by law. They are offered by private insurance companies as inducements. The companies have been able to offer somewhat more generous packages than traditional, fee-for-service Medicare because the system pays them as much as 40 percent more per patient than it pays for traditional Medicare, according to the chief actuary. The average in 2009 was about 14 percent more, according to the most recent analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, issued in February. But the new law generally eliminates the extra payments in the coming years. Foster, the chief actuary, estimates that federal spending for Medicare Advantage will be reduced by $145 billion over the law’s first decade.

Currently, about 1 in every 4 Medicare beneficiary is enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. For many of them, the words in this ad ring hollow, and the promise that “benefits will remain the same” is just as fictional as the town of Mayberry was when Griffith played the local sheriff.

But Barney Fife wrote the Law and now expects you believe them when they say, it’s for your own good. 🙂

The The American Spectator and American’s For Tax Reform:

The Spectator blog reports on a conference call held this morning by HHS Secretary Sebelius to promote a new report regarding the health law’s impact on Medicare.  Questioned about claims by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ chief actuary that the Medicare reductions in the law “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays and to extend the [Medicare] trust fund” solvency, Secretary Sebelius replied that

There are two different operating methods of looking at this, and the CMS actuary in the report that you cite differs in his strategic opinion from every accounting methodology that’s used for every other program in the federal budget, that has traditionally used for Medicare.  And he has a different interpretation that is not agreed upon by either the Congressional Budget Office or the OMB or traditionally in Congress.

Unfortunately for the Secretary, however, the Congressional Budget Office has on numerous occasions confirmed that any claims the law will improve Medicare’s solvency revolve around notional double-counting under federal budgetary conventions.  A January CBO letter found that “the majority of the [Medicare] trust fund savings…would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits.”  And in a March letter, CBO quantified the amount of that double-counting, estimating that, if the law’s Medicare savings were actually set aside to improve the solvency of the Medicare trust fund (as opposed to being used for other spending), the bill would increase the deficit by $260 billion over its first ten years alone.

In other words, the CBO agrees with the CMS actuary that the same money the same money can’t be used twice – once to expand coverage, and a second time to extend the life of the Medicare trust fund.  The Secretary’s statement that “there are two different operating methods of looking at this,” and that CBO disagrees with the Administration’s own actuaries on the impact of this budgetary double-counting, is demonstrably FALSE.

But don’t worry, the Ministry of Truth is right on top of it. 🙂

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08/03/pkg.tuchman.sanctuary.city.cnn?hpt=C2

President Obama described officials who “demagogue” immigration or take sudden “anti-immigrant” stances as people who want to make a name for themselves and not help solve what he called “a national problem.” (CBS)

But his demagoguery is not worth mentioning. 🙂

“I understand the frustration of people in Arizona,” Mr. Obama said. “But what we can’t do is demagogue the issue, and what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m going to be anti-immigrant, and I’m going try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.’ This is a national problem.”– on CBS “Early Show”

But I end on a Vote of No Confidence  on ICE Director John Morton, from his own people.

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fkfyi.com%2Fcc-common%2Fmlib%2F622%2F08%2F622_1280843100.pdf

or http://kfyi.com/pages/jimsharpe.html

But don’t it’s all for your own good. We are the Washington Elites, we are just better than you unwashed peasant masses.

And now the New York City government elites says it’s ok for there to be a 13-story Islamic Mosque 600 yards from Ground Zero built by a guy who believes in Shiria Law in America.

Doesn’t that just make you feel safer about the government. 🙂