Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, baby Maya Soetoro, and 9 year old Barry Soetoro.
This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: Islam
Nationality: Indonesian
How did this little INDONESIAN Muslim child - Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around
the issue of nationality to become President of the United States of America ?
PART 2:
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group
"Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college
transcripts from Occidental College ..
The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a
foreign student from Indonesia while an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California . The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for this scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document provides the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking -
that he is NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States - necessary to be President of these
United States . Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya , here we see that there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship..
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation
of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.
Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.
Is Barack Obama the most anti-Catholic American president in living memory?
I don’t mean, of course, that he has openly attacked the Church (though it was noted that, at his inauguration as president, contrary to normal practice there was among the clergy invited to attend not one single Catholic, though he made a point of inviting the controversial — because openly and actively homosexual — Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican) bishop, Gene Robinson).
What I mean, though, is that across the whole spectrum of contemporary moral issues, he is passionately committed to a series of views which run directly contrary to those of the Church. All this has caused at least one Catholic bishop (there are probably others) to call him anti-Catholic.
As a Senator, he supported sex education, to be provided by Planned Parenthood, to children of five years old. He consistently voted for abortion, including partial birth abortion. He voted (twice) against Bills prohibiting public funding of abortions; he voted in favour of expanding embryonic stem cell research; he voted against notifying parents of minors who had undergone out-of-state abortions; he voted for a proposal to vote $100,000,000 for the funding of sex-education and contraceptives (including abortifacients) for teenagers; he opposed the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” on the Senate floor and in 2003 killed the bill in committee. This would have outlawed “live birth abortion,” where labor is induced and an infant is delivered prematurely and then allowed to die.
In the US, Catholics, of course, have noted all this, though their reaction to it has been inconsistent to say the least. In April 2009, the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame scandalously conferred on him an honorary degree. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis protested, and demanded that the invitation be withdrawn. His letter, to the president of Notre Dame, Fr John Jenkins (a Catholic priest, if you please) was a real stonker:
“Dear Father Jenkins:
“I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.
“I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.
“It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.
“I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.
“Sincerely yours,
“The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis”
Obama now has the institution of marriage in his sights. He last year issued a “proclamation” (which you can read on the White House website) on the occasion of the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month”, indicating his intention to “give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act….”, and his conviction that “An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.”
The Defense of Marriage Act was, ironically, signed into law by another Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Under the law no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered to be a marriage in another state; it defines marriage clearly as a legal union between one man and one woman. It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities: Obama has no chance of getting it repealed. So he is now doing what he can to undermine it. This is where things get complicated for a limey who doesn’t quite understand the convolutions of the American legal system. According to the CNS,
“In a Feb. 23 statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said that although the administration has defended the 1996 law [i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act] in some federal courts, it will not continue to do so in cases pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike in the previous cases, said Holder, the 2nd Circuit ‘has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated’.”
This, apparently, is enough to impede the Act’s operation, enough, at least, seriously to alarm the American Catholic Bishops: here’s CNS again:
The U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges ahead “represents an abdication” of its “constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”
“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman,” the office said in a statement issued Feb. 23 after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
That’s how things stand. How much effect in practice will Obama’s initiative actually have? Maybe someone who understands American jurisprudence better than I do can explain. At the very least, as the American bishops say, refusal to support the law is “a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”
What next? The fact is that on this side of the pond, as well as in the US, President Obama needs watching. He may have been weakened in the Congress: but a President of the United States always has considerable power, to do evil as well as to do good. He is much more popular in many European countries than he is in the States: and he is not without his influence here. A man who is admired and respected as much as he has been, and in many places still is, can do harm through his words and deeds, even where he has no direct power.
I think he ought to be admired and respected very much less than he is.
A number of well-known spokesmen on the left have voiced reservations, not only about the Republican decision to have members of Congress — both Republicans and Democrats — read the Constitution aloud at the opening of the latest session of Congress, but also about Americans’ veneration of the Constitution.
Three examples:
1) In a recent appearance on MSNBC, Washington Post staff writer Ezra Klein said: “The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person.”
2) Joy Behar asked her guests on CNN’s Headline News, “Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand?”
3) Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) complained that “they are reading it [the Constitution] like a sacred text.”
What troubles Mr. Klein, Ms. Behar, and Congressman Nadler?
The answer is that for leftism — though not necessarily for every individual who considers himself a leftist — there are no sacred texts. The two major examples are the Constitution and the Bible.
One cannot understand the Left without understanding this. The demotion of the sacred in general and of sacred texts specifically is at the center of leftist thinking.
The reason is that elevating any standard, any religion, any text to the level of the sacred means that it is above any individual. Therefore, what any one individual or even society believes is of secondary importance to that which is deemed sacred. If, to cite the most obvious example, the Bible is sacred, then I have to revere it more than I revere my own feelings in assessing what is right and wrong.
But for the Left, what is right and wrong is determined by every individual’s feelings, not by anything above the individual.
This is a major reason why the Left, since Karl Marx, has been so opposed to Judeo-Christian religion. For Judaism and Christianity, God and the Bible are above the self. Indeed, Western civilization was built on the idea that the individual and society are morally accountable to God and to the moral demands of that book. That was the view, incidentally, of every one of the Founders, including deists such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
This is entirely unacceptable to the Left. As Marx and Engels said, “Man is God and God is man.” Therefore, society must rid itself of the sacred, i.e., God and the Bible. Then each of us (or the society or the party or the judiciary) takes the place of God and the Bible.
Morality is then no longer a God-given objective fact; it becomes a human-created subjective opinion. And one no longer needs to consult an external source to know right and wrong, only one’s heart. We are then no longer accountable to God for transgressions, only to ourselves. That is why, when there is God-talk on the Left, it is usually about “the God that is within each of us,” not a God external to, let alone above, us, as Judaism and Christianity have always taught.
This explains the belief that is universally held on the Left that the Constitution is an “evolving text,” meaning that it says what anyone (on the Left) wants it to say. Conservatives, on the other hand, do not share this view. They do not believe the Constitution has something to say about everything they believe in. While the Left sees the right to abortion in the Constitution (because the Left believes in the right to abortion), those who oppose abortion do not believe that the Constitution prohibits abortion. They believe that the Constitution is silent on the issue. Precisely because the Right does believe the Constitution is to be treated as sacred, it does not claim that whatever it supports is in the Constitution or that whatever it opposes is unconstitutional.
There are humble individuals and arrogant individuals on the right and on the left. But there is no arrogance like leftist arrogance. If you hold a leftist position, you know that you are smarter, wiser, and more moral not only than conservatives, but more so than the Bible, more so than the Constitution, indeed often more so than everyone who lived before you.
Same-sex marriage is a perfect example. The fact that neither Moses nor the Hebrew Prophets, nor Jesus nor the Buddha nor any great secular humanist thinker, ever advocated defining marriage as between members of the same sex does not cause the Left to rethink its advocacy of same-sex marriage; it only proves to them how morally superior they are to Moses, Jesus, the Prophets, and everyone else who lived before them.
That is why we must to treat the Constitution as a sacred text. Because the bottom line is this: If it is not regarded as sacred, it is nothing more than what anyone believes about any social issue. Which is precisely what the Left wants it to be — providing, of course, that the “anyone” is a liberal.
For the Left, there are no sacred texts. There are only sacred (liberal) feelings.
The Humane Society endorsed Obama in 2008, but maybe the president knows this is becoming safer political territory on which to tread, because less than two weeks ago the president of the Humane Society said he’s open to Vick one day being allowed to own dogs again.
From Sports Grid:
Obama, it seems, is squarely in the “credit Vick for making good on another chance” camp. King said last night that Obama called Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie and commended him for giving Vick the second chance many ex-prisoners never receive. King reiterated that report in a later tweet:
Yes, Obama called Eagle owner Jeffrey Lurie to praise the Eagles for giving Vick a chance. Said too many prisoners never get fair 2d chance.
This is supposedly a “pat on the back” for an owner open to second chances, but here’s a wildly rhetorical question: Would this call have been made if Vick had been having a lousy season? I mean, should the success or failure of a second chance be judged solely by QB rating? Heck, would the call have been made if Lurie wasn’t such a big Democrat/Obama supporter? The “second chance” that might be at the back of Obama’s mind is the 2012 election.
In any case, I have an uneasy suspicion that this could culminate in a shamelessly publicized (of course) “Alpo summit” at the White House to which Bo, if he’s smart, will send his regrets. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
On December 27th, 2010 at 11:03 am, jamesgreenidge said:
Like ANY sports figure in question for “date rape” or drugs or animal abuse, their high saddle butts would be kicked out of sports and anywhere indefinitely. One strike is three. No wonder kids think they can get away with murder.
James Greenidge
Queens NY’
I thought that bho was going to be focused like a laser on jobs. Vick the puppy killer should not be getting bho’s attention. What’s next, a POTUS pardon?
Waits 3-4 months to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Waits 3-4 months to do diddly-squat about the gulf oil spill.
Within a 3-4 DAYS he makes a statement about a psychopath getting rehired.
We can see where his priorities lie.
On December 27th, 2010 at 11:21 am, orlandocajun said:
On December 27th, 2010 at 11:12 am, robhic said:
And, politically incorrect as this might be,would the call have been made if Vick was white? (there, I said it!)
Methinks not…
If the Philly black panthers were hooded rednecks, would they have been prosecuted?
Mesure
“would the call have been made if Vick was white?
Mesurenot
We’re the racists though…
On December 27th, 2010 at 11:35 am, GladzKravtz said:
the president of the Humane Society said he’s open to Vick one day being allowed to own dogs again.
Hope the Humane Society changes their stand to say he’s only good for donating to animals, not caring for them.
Wonder what Best Friends Animal Sanctuary thinks about this. They, and others went to court to save the Vick dogs from being put down. Since then they’ve rehabilitated and in the very least saved them.
To be judgmental:
Vick, OJ, Micheal Jackson – treated the same way by many who only see one thing.
On December 27th, 2010 at 11:53 am, hawkeye54 said:
their high saddle butts would be kicked out of sports and anywhere indefinitely. One strike is threeunlimited. No wonder kids think they can get away with murder.
FIFY. Well, as long as the athlete is high profile and highly profitable, there is virtually no limit.
On December 27th, 2010 at 11:56 am, right_on said:
Obama feels a sort of comradery with Michael Vick…they have both profitted from getting down and dirty in the pits! Vick sicced his dogs on others, and Obama has done the same.
So, in a way, Obama is asking the public for a second chance, offering up Vick as an example of what happens when one gets that chance.
Ain’t gonna happen, pal!
On December 27th, 2010 at 11:57 am, Pasadena Phil said:
Doesn’t Obama have more important things to do? He insults our allies, apologies to our enemies and spends the rest of his time groveling at the feet of sports and entertainment celebrities. You get the idea that he would consider getting his own TV show a promotion. Maybe Oprah can hand him her old show as she pursues her new venture The Oprah Network (pay attention Michelle O: TON)
I heard Dr Laura say this a while ago- something like: “If you show compassion to the criminal, you are lacking compassion for the victim(s).”
Something most liberals just don’t get.
On December 27th, 2010 at 12:41 pm, vickisoup said:
There are plenty of registered sex offenders who’d make great offensive lineman. How ’bout we let bygones be bygones and get some of them into these high-paying positions? I mean, everyone deserves a fair second chance, right?
/sarc off
I hate it that BHO gets away with this stuff.
On December 27th, 2010 at 1:20 pm, tanksoldier said:
Vick served his time. His crime had nothing to do with football.
You don’t have to like him, and his team IS keeping him on a rather short leash as it were, but there’s no reason to prevent the man from practicing his profession.
Vick MAY be one of the few prison actually helped. He’s certainly a more focused player now, and his work ethic has improved tremendously.
He’s bankrupt, he’s a pariah and he MAY have finally gotten his head on straight.
On December 27th, 2010 at 11:12 am, robhic said:
And, politically incorrect as this might be,would the call have been made if Vick was white? (there, I said it!)
Methinks not…
Beat me to it Robhic.. and the answer to your question is…. absolutley not.
On December 27th, 2010 at 1:34 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:
tanksoldier said: His crime had nothing to do with football.
I agree with everything you said except that. It would be like saying ‘drinking alcohol in excess’ has nothing to do with driving a car. It did involve illegal gaming which, in general, does affect the NFL because it’s all under the same illegal ‘roof’.
I don’t have a problem with Mike Vick. It’s Obama. Mike Vick made a guilty plea, went to prison for about 2 years and paid a huge fine. Financially, he was ruined and he lost 2 years of a short football life. So he did his time and has a right to earn his living.
What bothers me is Obama’s need to inject himself into every issue on the planet. He declared himself an expert on the Cambridge, Ma. police department and decided the issue needed his divine intervention. He declared himself the moral arbiter of whether there should be a mosque at Ground Zero. He decided there should be one, in his mind ending the debate. He shows up at NFL games, college BB games, makes phone calls to steal the limelight after the UConn ladies break a record, there is no end to his hogging the spotlight. And in Obama’s mind, his intervention in earthly matters is akin to heavenly intervention. And this is a man that on Sunday, the New York Times, via liberal prof Dalleck, said was so humble and modest that he did not need the spotlight.
The idea that we’re supposed to “forgive” Vick and “Wipe the slate clean” because he served 21 months is absurd. Yes, he served his time but that doesn’t undo his past actions. No one is under any legal or moral obligation to pretend Vick isn’t a scumbag.
Mike Vick has been a model citizen since his release from prison. Rex Ryan, in contrast… well, I don’t even want to think about Rex’s and his wife’s warped minds.
Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus have written to President Obama asking him to correct a speech he gave in Indonesia incorrectly replacing the nation's motto of "In God We Trust" with "E pluribus unum."
The letter also cites a series of situations in which Obama has failed to include the reference to the "Creator" when quoting the Declaration of Independence. WND has reported on numerous situations where the president quotations have left out references to God or the Creator. Classic book on USA's Christian heritage: New edition of 100-year-old treasure reveals nation's true religious history
In the newest development, U.S. Rep. J. Randy Forbes of Virginia and 42 bipartisan members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus have dispatched a letter over Obama's statement to a Jakarta audience that "E Pluribus unum" is the national motto.
Actually, it's "In God We Trust."
"For the president of the United States to incorrectly state something as foundational as our national motto in another country is unacceptable," said Forbes. "The president is the primary representative of our nation to the world, and whether mistake or intention, his actions cast aside an integral part of American society."
He said, "President Reagan once warned that 'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.'"
It was during Obama's expedition to the Far East when he went to Jakarta on Nov. 10. Speaking at the University of Indonesia, Obama said:
I believe that the history of both America and Indonesia should give us hope. It is a story written into our national mottos. In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum – out of many, one. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika – unity in diversity. We are two nations, which have traveled different paths. Yet our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag. And we are now building on that shared humanity – through young people who will study in each other's schools; through the entrepreneurs forging ties that can lead to greater prosperity; and through our embrace of fundamental democratic values and human aspirations.
The letter explains that "In God We Trust" has been foundational throughout the history of the United States, from presidential proclamations to engravings in both House and Senate chambers. In 1956, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law establishing "In God We Trust" as the official national motto of the United States.
White House text of Obama stating national motto is "E pluribus unum"
"'E pluribus unum' is not our national motto," the letter, dated yesterday, said. "As members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, a bipartisan group of members of the United States House of Representatives, we are dedicated to preserving America's religious heritage and protecting our religious liberty." Those who signed the document are listed at the bottom of this post.
The letter also noted that on Oct. 18 during a fundraiser Obama omitted the "Creator" from a reference to the Declaration of Independence.
"Once may be a mistake. But twice is a pattern. These omissions and inaccuracies are a part of a larger pattern we are seeing with the president where he is inaccurately reflecting America and undercutting important parts of our nation's history," said Forbes. "Trust in God is embedded in the fabric of society and history in the United States.
"If we allow these threads to be pulled, we will begin to unravel the very freedoms that birthed America," he said.
It was martial arts champion, actor and WND columnist Chuck Norris who noted Obama actually has omitted "Creator" seven times in just the past few months:
His research lists the following:
On Oct. 21, 2010, at a rally for Sen. Murray in Seattle, Wash.:
"None of us would be here if it weren't for that extraordinary leap of faith that had been taken. Thirteen colonies deciding to start a revolution based on an idea that had never been tried before – a government of and by and for the people. A government based on the simple proposition that all men are created equal. That we're endowed with certain inalienable rights."
On Oct. 18, 2010, at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dinner in Rockville, Md.:
"It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"
On Oct. 17, 2010 at a reception for Gov. Ted Strickland in Chagrin Fall, Ohio.:
"The idea of America has never been easy. The notion of 13 colonies coming together and overthrowing the greatest empire in the world, and then drafting a document that says, we find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights – that's hard."
On Sept. 22, 2010, at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dinner in New York, N.Y.:
"And what was sustaining us was that sense that – that North Star, that sense that, you know what, if we stay true to our values, if we believe that all people are created equal and everybody is endowed with certain inalienable rights and we're going to make those words live, and we're going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class,…"
On Sept. 15, 2010, at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd annual awards gala in Washington, D.C.:
"But over the centuries, what eventually bound us together – what made us all Americans – was not a matter of blood, it wasn't a matter of birth. It was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
On Sept. 11, 2010, at the Pentagon Memorial in Arlington, Va.:
"For our cause is just. Our spirit is strong. Our resolve is unwavering. Like generations before us, let us come together today and all days to affirm certain inalienable rights, to affirm life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
On Sept. 10, 2010, at the president's press conference at the White House:
"With respect to the mosque in New York, I think I've been pretty clear on my position here, and that is, is that this country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal; that they have certain inalienable rights – one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely."
When WND's correspondent at the White House, Les Kinsolving, raised the question about the omissions, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester, but I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence." In a second commentary on the subject, Chuck Norris continued, "The truth is, if you want an accurate religious history of America, you're no longer going to get it from our president, our progressive society or secular schools, at least not without unbiased trained teachers or the induction of a religious curriculum that hasn't tampered and twisted history."
At the time the declaration was adopted, however, the concept of all being created "equal" was a rare idea.
The Declaration states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Original wording from Declaration of Independence
One of the incidents is on tape, with the reference appearing shortly past the 22-minute mark:
On the Gunny G blog, there was outrage.
"I'm surprised this has not created a stir – perhaps lost in the election results," he wrote.
And at American Thinker, which was among those bringing the incident to national attention, Jason McNew reported on the "long pause" Obama inserted after saying, "created equal."
The report cites him scowling and blinking.
"For once, he may actually have opted to not read something that was on the teleprompter," the commentary said. "It looks like he is disgusted and decided it would be better not to read what the preamble actually says."
"President Obama, if our Creator is not the purveyor of our rights, then who is? The government?" the commentary questioned.
Those who signed the document are:
Reps. J. Randy Forbes of Virginia
Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
Paul Broun of Georgia
Steve King of Iowa
John Shadegg of Arizona
Louie Gohmert of Texas
Donald Manzullo of Illinois
John Boozman of Arkansas
Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania
David Reichert of Washington
Gregg Harper of Mississippi
Jason Chaffetz of Utah
Robert Aderholt of Alabama
Jim Jordan of Ohio
Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania
Steve Austria of Ohio
Jeff Miller of Florida
Mike Pence of Indiana
Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington
Scott Garrett of New Jersey,
Joe Wilson of South Carolina
Doug Lamborn of Colorado
John Kline of Minnesota
Phil Roe of Tennessee
Peter Roskam of Illinois
John Carter of Texas
K. Michael Conaway of Texas
W. Todd Akin of Missouri
Zach Wamp of Tennessee
Randy Neugebauer of Texas
Todd Tiahrt of Kansas
Robert Wittman of Virginia
Vernon Ehlers of Michigan
Tom Price of Georgia
Spencer Bachus of Alabama
Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland
Mike Rogers of Alabama
Virginia Foxx of North Carolina
Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan
Trent Franks of Arizona
Phil Gingrey of Georgia
Michele Bachmann of Minnesota
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com No country has better airport security than Israel — and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts.
Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? "Security" may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures.
Can you remember a time when a cabinet member in a free America boasted of having his "foot on the neck" of some business or when the president of the United States threatened on television to put his foot on another part of some citizens' anatomy?
Yet this and more has happened in the current administration, which is not yet two years old. One cabinet member warned that there would be "zero tolerance" for "misinformation" when an insurance company said the obvious, that the mandates of ObamaCare would raise costs and therefore premiums. Zero tolerance for exercising the First Amendment right of free speech?
More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke warned about the dangers of new people with new power. This administration, only halfway through its term, has demonstrated that in many ways. What other administration has had an attorney general call the Americans P "cowards"? And refuse to call terrorists Islamic? What other administration has had a secretary of homeland security warn law enforcement officials of security threats from people who are anti-abortion, for federalism or are returning military veterans?
If anything good comes out of the airport "security" outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people. Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama's long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger's hand in their crotch.
As for the excuse of "security," this is one of the least security-minded administrations we have had. When hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries were captured crossing the border from Mexico — and then released on their own recognizance within the U.S., that tells you all you need to know about this administration's concern for security.
When captured terrorists who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention or the U.S. Constitution are nevertheless put on trial in American civilian courts by the Obama Justice Department, that too tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are about national security.
The rules of criminal justice in American courts were not designed for trying terrorists. For one thing, revealing the evidence against them can reveal how our intelligence services got wind of them in the first place, and thereby endanger the lives of people who helped us nab them. Not many people in other countries, or perhaps even in this country, are going to help us stop terrorists if their role is revealed and their families exposed to revenge by the terrorists' bloodthirsty comrades.
What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter — and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.
Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned "profiling" into a bugaboo. They would rather have electronic scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for some questioning. Will America be undermined from within by an administration obsessed with political correctness and intoxicated with the adolescent thrill of exercising its new-found powers? Stay tuned.
James Greenidge
Queens NY’
Methinks not…
Waits 3-4 months to do diddly-squat about the gulf oil spill.
Within a 3-4 DAYS he makes a statement about a psychopath getting rehired.
We can see where his priorities lie.
Mesure
“would the call have been made if Vick was white?
Mesurenot
We’re the racists though…
Wonder what Best Friends Animal Sanctuary thinks about this. They, and others went to court to save the Vick dogs from being put down. Since then they’ve rehabilitated and in the very least saved them.
To be judgmental:
Vick, OJ, Micheal Jackson – treated the same way by many who only see one thing.
What’s to forgive?
So, in a way, Obama is asking the public for a second chance, offering up Vick as an example of what happens when one gets that chance.
Ain’t gonna happen, pal!
http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2010/12/26/marines-son-sticks-his-tongue-out-president
L
Something most liberals just don’t get.
/sarc off
I hate it that BHO gets away with this stuff.
You don’t have to like him, and his team IS keeping him on a rather short leash as it were, but there’s no reason to prevent the man from practicing his profession.
Vick MAY be one of the few prison actually helped. He’s certainly a more focused player now, and his work ethic has improved tremendously.
He’s bankrupt, he’s a pariah and he MAY have finally gotten his head on straight.
And, politically incorrect as this might be,would the call have been made if Vick was white? (there, I said it!)
Methinks not…
Beat me to it Robhic.. and the answer to your question is…. absolutley not.
What bothers me is Obama’s need to inject himself into every issue on the planet. He declared himself an expert on the Cambridge, Ma. police department and decided the issue needed his divine intervention. He declared himself the moral arbiter of whether there should be a mosque at Ground Zero. He decided there should be one, in his mind ending the debate. He shows up at NFL games, college BB games, makes phone calls to steal the limelight after the UConn ladies break a record, there is no end to his hogging the spotlight. And in Obama’s mind, his intervention in earthly matters is akin to heavenly intervention. And this is a man that on Sunday, the New York Times, via liberal prof Dalleck, said was so humble and modest that he did not need the spotlight.
that’s me–transparent.