October 26, 2012
The South Central LA Tea Party (SCLA TP) and your country need your help!
SCLA TP is recruiting a few good patriots who are willing to make calls to get out the vote on behalf of Romney-Ryan and for tea party backed California Assembly candidates. We're also informing voters about key propositions on the November ballot. If you’d like to help, we can get you set up in a matter of minutes to make calls from your home or office! All you need is a phone and computer with Internet access to get started. The time you volunteer to help these candidates could impact the future of our state and nation. All we’re asking for is a few hours or more of your time between now and November 6!
Those interested please email info@bondaction.org and indicate that you wish to help with "Phone Banking" and someone will respond to your request.
Thank you in advance for your help.
South Central LA Tea Party
Healani's Posts (8)
Sort by
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/video-reveals-honor-killing-inside-morsis-egypt/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/18/mitt_please_read_and_memorize
The Washington Post hits Obama
Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal,
timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has
a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor
saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper
makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At
last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda
are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him
by our liberal media.
By Matt Patterson
(columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal,
timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has
a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor
saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper
makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At
last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda
are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him
by our liberal media.
By Matt Patterson
(columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful
military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his
presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher
who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life,
actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all
and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if
they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama
was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of
his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles . Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing
to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own
incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never
been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act
responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither
the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you
understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of
racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about
themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the
contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles . Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing
to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own
incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never
been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act
responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither
the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you
understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current
erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone
otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
On December 3, 2011, in the dead of night, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. On that day, the Bill of Rights was shattered in the interest of the “War on Terror.” He also wrote a signing statement saying that “my administration will not detain American Citizens” and was very hesitant to sign the bill into law.
A few days ago, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals placed Section 1021 of the NDAA back into effect.
The NDAA is typically a mundane bill that appropriates funding for the military for the current year. However, Section 1021 (b) (2) in the 2012 NDAA allows anyone, including American citizens, to be detained indefinitely by the military…no trial, no charges, no day in court.
When the NDAA was signed into law, I, along with many others, took notice and took action. Tangerine Bolen (founder of Revolution Truth), Journalist Chris Hedges, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Professor Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Kai Wargalla, and Alexa O’Brien filed a lawsuit against the NDAA within 30 days of its signing. They would become known as the “Freedom 7” and were immediately launched into the spotlight.In May, Federal Judge Katherine Forrest, in the strongest ruling for civil liberties since 9-11, agreed with the plaintiffs and declared the NDAA unconstitutional placing an temporary injunction on the law. In her ruling, she specifically stated: “This measure has a chilling impact on First Amendment rights.” In that same ruling, she specifically stated that her ruling applied to and protected the general public:
As set forth above, this Court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the strong constitutional rights are protected.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the strong public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein.
As I wrote in “Government Defies Federal Judge on NDAA,” the government response was swift. In a 10 page Motion for Reconsideration, the government stated:
The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.
This Motion directly defied Judge Forrest’s ruling, which clearly applied to the public, and her response was just as swift. She told the government lawyers “to put it bluntly” her order most definitely applied to the public. This should have been the end of it, but the government appealed the ruling…setting the stage for what was to come.
On Wednesday, September 12, Judge Forrest once again took a stand for civil liberties by ruling that the temporary injunction against the enforcement of the NDAA’s detention provisions is now permanent. Much like after her preliminary injunction, the internet rejoiced. That evening, “People Against the NDAA” put out a press release stating:
Based on her earlier temporary injunction, this ruling was expected. However, it is not time to celebrate. Based on the Obama Administration’s previous action an Appeal or a Motion for Reconsideration will likely be filed. The administration has also not said whether or not it is enforcing the NDAA, according to a letter from lawsuit organizer Tangerine Bolen. The case will then go to an appeal court.
Sure enough, within 24 hours, the Obama Administration appealed the ruling. The Administration’s lawyers said that this injunction could cause “irreparable harm” to the national security of the United States and the war on terrorism. This appeal flies in the face of the President’s signing statement, his statements to reporters, and the Constitution.
On top of the appeal, on Monday, Judge Raymond Lohier of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of Judge Katherine Forrest’s injunction against the NDAA. On the 28th of September, the Court will hear arguments on whether to make that stay permanent or not.
Since May, Judge Forrest had prevented the NDAA from being used anywhere in the world. Now, the NDAA is back in full effect, and you can be indefinitely detained without a trial or a day in court. Thanks to the Obama Administration, America is again the battlefield.
Happy Constitution Week!
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/50-forbidden-words-in-school-get-2nd-look/
