Friday, July 25, 2014

President Barack Obama's human trafficking efforts become FedEx-ing

The number of children crossing the U.S. border alone has doubled since last year. More than three-quarters of unaccompanied minors are from mostly poor and violent towns in three countries: El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Children from Mexico, once the largest group, now make up less than a quarter of the total. Graphic Credit: New York Times

President Barack Obama's Human Trafficking Efforts Become FedEx-ing

Immigration of human beings into the United States use to be a semi-orderly process.

A high level of respect for our borders and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law by other humans not born in this country was an assumed standard. Further, laws were passed by Congress to address special situations where labor needs, education access, and political upheaval could be addressed with the assumption always being that our citizens elected to office would perform their Oath Of Office and enforce the laws to the best of their ability.

Over the last decade, this respect and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law has degraded to the point where our Executive Branch no longer enforces the existing laws on immigration but have sought to foment a form of (through assumption and formal agreement) multiple government human trafficking. Mexico, in response to President Obama's 2012 Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals - DACA (Dream Act) proclamation of executive fiat, has opened up and fast-tracked the approval of Visa's allowing ANYBODY 72 hours to pass from their southern border to the southern border of the United States. Further, Mexico has been working directly with "feeder governments" (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, etc.) on agreements that would aid in a seamless streamlining of the Visa process to allow more people to leave their countries and pass through North to the United States.

For the Executive Branch's part in this, the President has instructed all main border patrol management locations be moved back from the border by about 40 miles, and have them pick-up people they determine to be undocumented and perform a form of "catch and release" by having those processed sign a promise to appear for a case hearing on their immigration status. Some of these people that are processed are even given transportation to a destination of their choice within the United States, at taxpayer expense, where these people disappear into the country and never show up for their hearing of determination on their immigration status.

This expansion into not respecting our borders and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law has now been taken up by the Executive Branch of the United States backed by many in both houses of Congress. Lawlessness on immigration policy and established law is beginning to rule the day.

Rule by Executive proclamation and Congressional inactivity is becoming our de facto process for a path to citizenship for people who just happen to show up and set up shop in our country.

It is as if someone on the street found out where you live, finds and unlocked sliding door, and just make themselves residents in your living room ... eat out of your kitchen from a refrigerator you stock, bathe in the bathrooms that you clean and tend, take away your job for less pay, and expect you to keep the roof over their head.

President Barack Obama's human trafficking efforts through proposed Executive proclamation have, as defined, become a process of setting a formal in-country processing center for FedEx-ing non-citizens into the United States.

President Obama will sit down Friday with the presidents of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala - the three countries that have been the greatest source of children illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Image Credit: FOX News via mediamatters.org

This excerpted and edited from the New York Times -

U.S. Considering Refugee Status for Hondurans
By FRANCES ROBLES and MICHAEL D. SHEAR - NYT - JULY 24, 2014

Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.

If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.
----
By moving decisions on refugee claims to Honduras, the plan aims to slow the rush of minors crossing into the United States illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, which has overwhelmed the border this year. More than 45,000 unaccompanied minors from those three nations have arrived since Oct. 1, straining federal resources to the point that some agencies will exhaust their budgets by next month, the secretary of Homeland Security has said.
----
Administration officials stressed that no decision had been made to move forward, saying the idea was one of many being discussed by officials at the White House and the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.
----
The proposal, prepared by several federal agencies, says the pilot program under consideration would cost up to $47 million over two years, assuming 5,000 applied and about 1,750 people were accepted. If successful, it would be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador as well. It is unclear how the administration determined those estimates, given that since Oct. 1 more than 16,500 unaccompanied children traveled to the United States from Honduras alone.

Children would be interviewed by American immigration employees trained to deal with minors, and a resettlement center would be set up in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, with assistance from international organizations like the International Organization for Migration.

The plan would be similar to a recent bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who proposed increasing the number of refugee visas to the three Central American countries by 5,000 each.
----
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls on immigration, said that the proposal would increase, not stem, the flood of migrants from Central America trying to get into the United States.

“It’s clearly a bad idea,” Mr. Krikorian said. “Orders of magnitude more people will apply for refugee status if they can just do it from their home countries.”

He added that the proposal would allow people to claim to be refugees from their countries with “nothing more than a bus ride to the consulate. We’re talking about, down the road, an enormous additional flow of people from those countries.”
----
Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

The only category that would seem to apply is “social group,” experts said, but there is disagreement on what that means. Some contend that children could count as a group, but others say the refugee requirements are stricter, and would not apply to people fleeing general crime and violence.

“What is a social group?” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of migration policies for the Migration Policy Institute’s New York office. “This is going to create a huge deal of debate. You will see a lot of law developing on it.”
----
When a similar plan was adopted in Haiti, as a way to keep people from taking to the high seas, he said, it was ultimately criticized because Haitians already in the United States did not receive help. “It ended up being counterproductive to the goal,” Mr. Appleby said.

Stacie Blake, the director of government relations for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, an advocacy group, said the processing of potential refugees in Central America could be handled by the United States or by the United Nations, which makes refugee determinations in many other countries. She said some of the people designated as refugees in Honduras could end up in countries other than the United States.

“It’s a way to help folks avoid life-threatening escapes and journeys,” Ms. Blake said. “It’s a good idea. It’s a tested idea.”
----
On Friday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador at the White House in an effort to urge the Central American leaders to do more to help stem the flow of children fleeing their countries for the United States.
----
Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the flow of migration to the United States. Administration officials said they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval, as long as it did not increase the total number of refugees coming into the country.
[Reference Here]

So the agencies of this United States government, under this re-definition of refugee status, will be setting up shops in the form of refugee processing centers in targeted countries on which refugees are deemed, then shipped (presumably by plane) into the United States - Welcome to the age of "FedEx-ing" our immigration system through Executive Branch proclamation.

Do not be surprised to hear, before this 44th President leaves office - ending Carter's Second Term, that President Barack Obama P-A-R-D-O-N-S all people breaking the law by being here in the United States illegally ... and grants them full citizenship through Executive Order.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Just Who ... Is President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama (L) will meet with Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Palm Springs next month. Image Credit: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

Just Who ... Is President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama will host King Abdullah II of Jordan for talks in Southern California next month, according to reports.

The White House says the Feb. 14 meeting will take place at the Sunnylands estate near Palm Springs, the Associated Press reported.

Fresh off of performing in front of Congress and the nation by delivering his fourth State of the Union address reporting on his deeds, the 44th President still insists that he is the person who has the ideas to bring our country back to the great power it once was. This position comes as Barack Obama enters his sixth year of implementing policies that expand government into the lives of all citizens which has created the worst United States economy since the Great Depression.

Just who is President Barack Obama?

The following Audio/Video is an interview and exploration of this very question by Mark Levin of Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the book, "The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor."


(ht: Daily Rushbo)

For decades, many liberals and progressives defended and shielded communists (as “The Communist” shows)—either because they approved of what communist dictatorships did, or because they believed so strongly in communism’s professed ideals that they were willing to overlook the crimes committed in its name. Kengor’s book is timely, because the main issue for today’s progressives is similar: Are the ideals professed in Barack Obama’s rhetoric noble ... even though his policies against economic success have retarded economic recovery?

Will the ghost of Frank Marshall Davis, whose life Paul Kengor has so masterfully reconstructed in “The Communist,” continue to haunt America through his ideological godson, the president?

Mark Levin is the perfect person to interview Dr. Paul Kengor, author of, "The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor" to find out just who ... is fulfilling Carter's Second Term through its second stint.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

The 44th President's 2002 Speech On Waging War, With Syria Update

President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the White House briefing room in Washington, Monday, Aug. 20, 2012. Image Credit: AP via Washington Wire

The 44th President's 2002 Speech On Waging War, With Syria Update

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care. 

This version has been UPDATED with strike throughs / updated inserts to reflect our current historical perspective now nearly eleven (11) years later.
 
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz / Samantha Power and Susan Rice and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove / David Axelrod to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein / Bashar Assad. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam / Bashar poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
(ht: npr.org)
ENDS

Welcome to the world firmly rooted in the policies initiated during the 39th Presidency with the added element of gross hypocrisy and child-king megalomaniac-like assertions.

EXAMPLE:

Yesterday, The 44th President, Barack Obama, said the following during a press conference held while he visited with Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt.

This excerpted and edited from the New York Times - 

Obama Says ‘World Set a Red Line’ on Chemical Arms
By PETER BAKER - September 4, 2013 

I didn’t set a red line,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference here in Stockholm. “The world set a red line.”

He added, “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”

[Reference Here]

But this does not comport with the facts of statements The 44th President made a little over one year ago when he said:

This excerpted and edited from The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire -

Flashback: ‘Red Line’ in Syria — What Obama Said in 2012 Remarks
Washington Wire - September 4, 2013

Q (Chuck Todd, NBC News) Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safe keeping of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons are safe?

I also want to follow up on an answer you just gave to Nancy.  You said that one of the reasons you wanted to see Mitt Romney‘s tax returns was you want to see if everybody is playing by the same set of rules.  That actually goes to the question she asked, which is this implication, do you think there’s something Mitt Romney is not telling us in his tax returns that indicates he’s not playing by the same set of rules?

THE PRESIDENT:  No.  There’s a difference between playing by the same sets of rules and doing something illegal.  And in no way have we suggested the latter.  But the first disclosure, the one year of tax returns that he disclosed indicated that he used Swiss bank accounts, for example.  Well, that may be perfectly legal, but I suspect if you ask the average American, do you have one and is that part of how you manage your tax obligations, they would say no.  They would find that relevant information, particularly when we’re going into a time where we know we’re going to have to make tough choices both about spending and about taxes.

So I think the idea that this is somehow exceptional, that there should be a rationale or a justification for doing more than the very bare minimum has it backwards.  I mean, the assumption should be you do what previous presidential candidates did, dating back for decades.  And Governor Romney’s own dad says, well, the reason I put out 10 or 12 years is because any single year might not tell you the whole story.  And everybody has, I think, followed that custom ever since.

The American people have assumed that if you want to be President of the United States, that your life is an open book   when it comes to things like your finances.  I’m not asking him to disclose every detail of his medical records — although we normally do that as well — (laughter.)  You know?  I mean, this isn’t sort of overly personal here, guys.  This is pretty standard stuff.  I don’t think we’re being mean by asking him to do what every other presidential candidate has done — right?  It’s what the American people expect.

On Syria, obviously this is a very tough issue.  I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down.  So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people.  The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition.  But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.

What we’ve said is, number one, we want to make sure we’re providing humanitarian assistance, and we’ve done that to the tune of $82 million, I believe, so far.  And we’ll probably end up doing a little more because we want to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are fleeing the mayhem, that they don’t end up creating — or being in a terrible situation, or also destabilizing some of Syria’s neighbors.

The second thing we’ve done is we said that we would provide, in consultation with the international community, some assistance to the opposition in thinking about how would a political transition take place, and what are the principles that should be upheld in terms of looking out for minority rights and human rights.  And that consultation is taking place.

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation.  But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical.  That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.  It concerns us.  We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.

Q  (Todd)  So you’re confident it’s somehow under — it’s safe?

THE PRESIDENT:  In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident.  What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully.  We have put together a range of contingency plans.  We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.  That would change my calculations significantly.

All right, thank you, everybody.

[Reference Here]

No statements were ever made linking action toward Syria and decades old accords that sit at the United Nations and no United States Congressional leader or World leader, other than this 44th President, ever evoked the term of RED LINE as it relates to actions concerning Syrian unrest.

Welcome to Carter's Second Term ... but it is way more dangerous and corrupt than we expected. Oh, and the damage to the economy due to Government spending and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act/ObamaCare has yet to get underway in earnest.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Of Citizenship, Law-Making, And Mass Data Collection/Storage


Most preferred by data-mined citizens – “pathway to the shadows.” Image Credit: :R.e.a.s.o.n: via Flicker

Of Citizenship, Law-Making, And Mass Data Collection/Storage

So much is going on with our Government and our culture during this extend version of Carter's Second Term - the 44th Presidency of the United States.

The progressives (Democrats & RINOs) have everything so turned upside down that they think it is a good idea to bring people - who have decided, on their own, to live here in the United States without proper permission (illegal aliens) - "out of the shadows" by offering them a "pathway to citizenship" in a distorted process of law-making.

At the same time, these very same progressives (Democrats & RINOs) think it is perfectly proper, in the name of protecting us citizens from world-wide terrorism, to dragnet and store all of our privately developed data from our phone calls, to banking transactions, to communications activity on the internet, thereby making all 330+ million of us citizens ... suspected terrorists.

To all of this ... most actual/legal citizens of the United States would love to request from our progressively led Government, a "pathway to the shadows" so that we can get on with our freedom-loving lives - the sooner the better!
(ht: Rush Limbaugh)

Friday, June 7, 2013

Democrat Political Party Leadership On Invasive Keystroke Surveillance


If you thought the National Security Agency's collection of Verizon phone-call data was bad, wait until you hear about the seven-year-old, previously undisclosed classified government program that works with nine very major U.S. Internet companies to secretly scrape your online life and has become "the most prolific contributor" to President Obama's daily intelligence report and is "increasingly" important to the NSA. Caption Credit & Image Credit: theatlanticwire.com

Democrat Political Party Leadership On Invasive Keystroke Surveillance

At what point in time does having the ability to have a private life cease to be viable in a Bill-Of-Rights, Rule-Of-Law, Constitutionally protected society?

The answer can be found when a Government becomes so big and fearful of its citizens that it violates the trust between the institutions of Government and the citizens these institutions were established to serve on behalf of the citizens.

Yesterday, a United Kingdom news service, The Daily Guardian, issued a second in a series of information articles about the United States Government’s information gathering programs run by the National Security Agency and other government institutions under the mission of curbing terrorism.

The first information based article highlighted that Verizon was turning over, wholesale, all phone call information it had on its hundreds of millions calls per day, to the NSA for the Government to use however it saw fit to use. The information included phone numbers, time of call, location of both phones on the call, duration, an other key digital data that was associated with the call in a practice that has been termed by some as a DRAGNET.

The information in the second article in as many days from the UK’s Guardian (where are the American news services on this exposure and investigation of this information?) highlights that this Democrat Political Party led Government was also collecting EVERY KEYSTROKE a person types on the internet in order to communicate the who, what, when, where, and why they are.

This excerpted and edited from The Guardian -

NSA snooping on massive amounts of personal data from major U.S. Internet companies
By Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian – Thursday, June 6, 2013


The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.

Some of the world’s largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan “Your privacy is our priority” – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.

It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.

Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks.
(Reference Here)

T R U E   C O L O R S !!

The Bush Administration first found folks to be suspicious of … then asked for phone record information about these individuals … and followed the trail.

The Democrat Political Party led Obama Administration uses this post 9/11 law – the Patriot Act – to cast a net on ALL individuals, assuming that ALL of us are potential terrorists. 

After using information to target Obama Administration questioners through the power of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), does anyone believe that this broad net information would be used for your personal good??? – THIS is why the United States HAS a Constitution and a Bill-Of-Rights backed with a Rule-Of-Law.

Senator Barack Obama ran for President saying that the Bush Administration practice was un-American and that his government would do away with these snooping practices – in practice, however, he lied to each and everyone of us and is collecting information on each and everyone of us – WITHOUT DUE CAUSE OR SUSPICION!

President Barack Obama’s T R U E   C O L O R S !!!


**Article first published as Democrat Political Party Leadership on Invasive Keystroke Surveillance on Technorati**

Sunday, May 19, 2013

The IRS Scandal Is Improper And Illegal Political Competition

Image Credit: WPSD-TV

 The IRS Scandal Is Improper And Illegal Political Competition

Democrats, who are famous for making a bunch of noise about Fairness, Equal Access, Voter Suppression, and Racial Discrimination ... "REDLINED" all requests by tax-exempt organizations that appeared to be aligned against a progressive political agenda.

Many organizations were headed up by conservative Black, Hispanic, Female and Religious organizers, who wanted to educate potential voters and inform them of the consequences of tyranny (the kind they were being confronted with in their application process), and be able to bring fairness in the process of public discourse.

This is by any measure, far worse than what had actually happened in the activities that created "Watergate" and what the activities were suppose to achieve - political competition and the garnering of information overcome by mission creep.

In the case of Watergate, a small group of people who were supporting the re-election efforts of Richard M. Nixon, in order to get direct information from the Democrat Political Party, broke into the offices of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972, and the Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement in this effort.

Many speculate that this scandal gave our nation the Carter Administration.

What is now just coming to light is a culture of political competition and the garnering of personal information overcome by mission creep headed up by the management forces of the Executive Branch and key Democrat Senate and House of Representative leaders. The level of involvement in this culture marshals the immense power and legal consequence strength of most all of the human activity management forces of Government embodied in the processes of Bureaucracy (Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and etc.). We now have a Government that is not designed as "for the people and by the people" as the Constitution creates and instructs, but a Government aligned to protect Progressive political agendas and policies against those who believe in the Constitution of the United States, the Bill-Of-Rights, and the Rule-Of-Law.

What we have today is a whole Government, with all of its information gathering and legal power, aligned to support re-election efforts of any Democrat Political Party candidate as opposed to a simple effort by a few people involved in political competition and the garnering of information overcome by mission creep.

The IRS scandal is improper and illegal political competition and is far worse than what the the Republican Political Party subjected citizens to through the efforts put forth in Watergate (one political party's management office versus a cross-over into citizenry political thought and activity management) in the pursuit of power and political competition.

Those funny Democrats!!

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Reasons 91-100 Of Hewitt's 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012

It is time for a 45th Presidency - To this end, Hugh Hewitt has come up with 100 reasons to vote for Mitt Romney or against Barack Obama and these series of posts will highlight ten (or so) points to consider for your vote to have a 45th President elected come November 6, 2012. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks

Reasons 91-100 Of Hewitt's 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012

On Monday, September 24, 2012, Constitutional and environmental issues Lawyer/Professor, nationally syndicated afternoon issues talk show host, Hugh Hewitt delivered a tour de force presentation for three hours on the reasons why we need a change in executive leadership in the United States. This change can happen with our vote for president in the 2012 elections which early voting has already started in many states, but will officially take place November 6, 2012.

*** Hewitt's reasons 91-100 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

This edition explores reasons 91-100 which highlight: The Obama Administration has increased the budgets of all of the departments of Government by 20% while our economy only grows under 2% with the policies that they have enacted. Barack Obama promised to cut government programs and in four years this Administration has not been able to find just one department out of existance. The EPA's expansion of new regulations on business, especially carbon-based energy has cost this country and increased the cost of energy by 100% since Obama took office. Unemployment has remained above 8% for ovsr 42 months straight ... thi in the face of nearly 2 Trillion dollars between the Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills that passed in 2009 with Obama's insistance that he needed to spend this money to cap unemployment at 6% or less. Mitt Romney has stated that he will slash the size of the Federal Government and address entitlement reform. The Government spends way too much due to its size against the taxes it brings in. It is a spending problem, not a taxation problem. Mitt Romney has committed to restoring our Naval strength by maintaining a fleet of 340 ships. Lastly, Mitt Romney will address the economic aggression and foul play of China.

In a presentation which Hugh Hewitt titled 100 reasons why you should vote for Mitt Romney and against Barack Obama, Hugh proceeded point by point with full explanation and in no particular order 100 specific reasons Mitt Romney would make a better president to lead our country mixed in with the specific reasons why Barack Obama has not been a successful leader in the more than 1,000 days he has been president.

Since a three hour presentation of dense information may be a little hard to chew on in one session, here is one of ten postings that breaks up the 100 reasons in approximately 10 reason apiece chunks that can be savored and digested upon which one can become fully informed before making a freedom and country saving vote in this most important election.

Previously Published Audio Links:

*** Hewitt's reasons 1-10 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 11-20 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 21-30 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 31-40 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 41-50 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 51-61 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 62-70 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 71-80 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 81-90 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

This excerpted and edited from HughHewitt.com -

100 Reason To Vote For Mitt Romney Or Against Barack Obama
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:12 PM


After yet another dispiriting Browns' performance yesterday, I decided to redeem the day by listing 100 reasons to either vote for Mitt Romney or against Barack Obama. I turned that list into a three hour monologue on today's show -- the first such in 12 years of radio.

It wasn't hard to do. Not hard at all. Which is why I think Romney will win going away. The president is a failure, on every level and by every measurement. Americans don't endorse failure.
[Reference Here]

As the "Chicago Way" Democrat Political Party is fond of saying ... "Vote Early, and Vote Often" ... but most importantly, vote informed and reviewing all of Hewitt's 100 reasons to vote for Romney and against Obama 2012 may at least allow one to open up a discussion with themselves, and others, as to what issues might be the most important in this upcoming 2012 election.