Stories on current events that shake-up America. Published articles and essays from other sources, and by Marc Chamot on current events and the American political scene. Immigration and Economic issues and so forth that affects us all… Welcome!

Thursday, January 7, 2010

U.C. San Diego’s $30.00 APP & GPS Devises, Bring Cross-Borders; Illegal Aliens & Possible Muslim Terrorists, Undetected from Mexico:

U.C. San Diego’s $30.00 APP & GPS Devises, Bring Cross-Borders; Illegal Aliens & Possible Muslim Terrorists, Undetected from Mexico:
By Marc Chamot

I have no problems with technologies and their universities, but if it’s used to promote criminal activities and civil disobediences, and to intentionally break our laws, I have a big problem with it.

According to Ruben Navarette, anyone that want to cross into the United States illegally while keeping track of the location of the nearest water station, all of the surveillance towers and equipments, and border patrol security set-ups, including the distance left to your final destination? There's an app for that.

Unfortunately, I was real hard on Ruben a few months back, see Schwarzenegger: Illegal Immigrants’ Services Cost the State of California & Taxpayers 5 Billion Dollars a Year, a 20.83% of its Deficit Problems: “To those that don’t support amnesty and open borders, columnist Ruben Navarette Jr. can be real persistent and a pretty annoying pest to read.His pro-illegal aliens’ rhetoric’s is mainly carried by some West Coast dailies, from San Diego to San Francisco. He continues on his one man crusade and rants for the legalization and documentations for the million of illegal aliens who are established in the United States.

He was very happy to see the “Governator” recently dispel to the contrary beliefs that Illegal aliens in California are the major causes for the budget deficit grieves. Actually, illegal aliens in California were accused for the $24.3 billion budget deficit.”

Well this time, I wasn’t sure whose article I was reading. I had to do a double take on the author. I was quite surprised to find this Ruben Navarette’s column in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day. He didn’t bring up the terrorism end of it, but I did.

Navarette goes on to say, this argument would be more convincing if the phones weren't encrypted to avoid electronic detection by the Border Patrol, and it's being distributed for FREE right across the border!

I was not only shocked to read this, I not only agree with Mr. Navarette, but I went even further with it. In his piece, the Techie “artivist” helps dial up disobedience, should be alarm bells for all Americans, we must confront, not only the illegal alien’s issue, but the open cross-borders issue, and with this apparatus, it could be future pathways for Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists to sneak into our country and cause havoc on us.

"The device was the brainchild of Ricardo Dominguez, a professor of new media at UC San Diego, who developed the idea along with fellow researchers at the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology."

"Dominguez calls himself an "artivist" - part artist, part activist - and he describes his invention as a humanitarian tool, not a political one. He says that it is meant to save lives and not to promote illegal crossings."

We must also dig into activists universities like U.C. San Diego, and foreign university professors, like Ricardo Dominguez, who create these kinds of anti-American devices to subvert our sovereignty and LAWS.

Here is more on Ruben Navarette’s piece: I have mixed feelings. I would generally approve of instruments that help people survive dangerous situations. But when those people are illegal immigrants who brought their plight upon themselves by opting to enter the United States through a back door, I become less sympathetic.

In fact, I become suspicious and I begin to question whether the makers of the gadget retrofitted with Global Positioning System technology are encouraging unlawful activity. Dominguez has said, the device - which costs about $30 to produce - Dominguez, who plans to distribute the phones to would-be border crossers through church groups and immigrant-advocacy organizations, insists he's doing nothing wrong.

But he has also described himself as engaged in "civil disobedience" and asserted the ability of immigrants to move across borders safely as a "transglobal right." Sorry, professor, you lost me. First, if individuals do have such a right, then why does it supersede the right of sovereign nations to control their borders? On its southern border, Mexico asserts its right to keep out Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Hondurans and anyone else from throughout Latin America.

If Dominguez really believes in a right to cross borders, maybe he should ship some of his GPS devices all the way to Guatemala so people there can use them to sneak into Mexico. Besides, the whole principle of civil disobedience is about breaking an unjust law and accepting the consequences.

If Dominguez really believes he's following in that esteemed tradition, then he's acknowledging that he's breaking the law. What really bothers me is that Dominguez has, in the eternal drama playing out on the U.S.-Mexico border, gone from observer to enabler.

It's one thing to lament illegal immigration into the United States and try to react to it in a firm, honest and compassionate manner while battling hatred, racism and ignorance. It's another to encourage more of it. And why? Out of a sense of ethnic solidarity, an imaginary bond between a Latino academic and Latino immigrants?

Latinos in the United States have it tough enough already. People are always assuming that when it comes to the immigration issue, our loyalties lie on the other side of the border.

I usually dismiss those fears as flashes of paranoia. But this gadget says that those concerns aren't totally unfounded. How unfortunate those well-intentioned humanitarians could lose their own bearings.”

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

California Politicians Want More Federal Bailouts to Close Projected $20.7 Billion Deficit & Chinas’ $586 Billion Stimulus a Success While Ours FAILED

Gross Mismanagements; California Politicians Want More Federal Bailouts to Close Projected $20.7 Billion Deficit & Chinas’ $586 Billion Stimulus a Success While Ours FAILED:
By Marc Chamot

"California’s financial woes are more because California politicians, mainly Democrats, are all beholden to environmentalist, unions, like the SEIU, a unionized state and with unionized local employees, and billion dollars being spent for the benefits of illegal immigrants, and they don’t have the GUTS to say, enough is enough, BASTA already!"

California’s political leaders are looking for Washington, in other words they are looking for more taxpayer bailouts to help close an insurmountable $20.7 billion dollars budget deficit coming up this year.

From Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, they all plan to head into the nation’s capital often to press for the money that they say is owed to the state.

It’s not just cash they want; they also want to change the system that determines the amount of money the federal government contributes to Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program noting the state is lowest in reimbursements in the nation.

Schwarzenegger wants reimbursements for providing public education, including big tuition discounts for undocumented’s in state universities and for the incarcerating illegal immigrants, which are both unfunded federal mandates.

Steinberg says he wants a “dynamic partnership between the feds and the states, led by California, to spend money on infrastructure.” “We’re not looking for a bailout; we’re looking more for an investment, the state needs to fight for their money.”

Even though California has received $8 billion in federal stimulus money, which mostly went to close last year’s budget deficit, it’s all gone. Part of that $8 billion was supposed to last through this year and it has all been spent.

Even though I live in California, in San Francisco for that matter, I will say fat “Heck No” to that idea.

I do not support the bailing out of a state that has no ability to manage its own taxpayer based moneys. I do not approve of the idea of this federal government giving out billions of other state’s moneys to fix a California problem that is mostly due to faults of their own.

The state of California are all environmentalists, unions, cities and state employees owned. The state of California, its unionized municipalities and its employees, are the envy of the nation, they have the nation’s top salaries, and have the very best medical and pension plans that money can buy and the state cannot afford.

California’s problem is that Democratic politicians are beholden politically to the state and local employee’s unions and its employees, and they fear cutting into their lucrative benefits, because they will lose fundraising support and VOTES. So now they want the YOU, the rest of the country to pay for these people’s benefits while allowing environmentalists to destroy its own economy.

This is the real problem:

The problem with illegal immigration that the Governator is talking about, it is the state’s politicos’ own faults; they have allowed the undocumented aliens and their offspring’s to pay far lower university education rates than California’s own proper citizens, the undocumented came out winners while the state came out losers.. These same California politicians have given illegal aliens, billions of dollars in free public education and medical care at Californians’ taxpayer’s expense.

Politicians have also refused to report criminal illegal aliens to the feds for deportations, and look who are California’s sanctuaries cities? Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento all four are California’s largest cities, and they are the ones that have the most concentrations of gangs and undocumented aliens youth crimes.

But instead of being deported, they are serving their sentences in California prisons at taxpayer’s expenses, that the Governator "WANTS YOU," those in Arkansas, and Missouri, Texas and other states to pay for their mistakes!

Even after we read about the failures of our own stimulus, and after California wanting their money too, there’s no doubt that the Obama and the Democrats’ stimulus strategy was a failure.
Even if our stimulus helped a little, it’s nothing compared to China’s stimulus’ success. China’s manufacturing expansion rate exploded, thanks largely to a great stimulus plan that they had put to work. And no, their stimulus didn’t go to greedy corporations like Wall Street and their greedy bankers, it went elsewhere.

Their stimulus went directly into the financing of their infrastructures, $586 billion to be exact. And it wasn’t anything like our biggest loser, the $800 billion dollar mistake that Obama signed last year.

The Chinese government pumped all of these moneys directly to the people, for the creation of jobs, and for the improvement of their infrastructures, bridges, roads and so forth, in return they created a booming economy for themselves, while ours has been declining.

Thanks to our industries leaving this country in droves, and thanks to our inept politicians, we have allowed China to boom at the expense of our worker’s loss of jobs and a disastrous economy for America.

Here is the story: An index of China's manufacturing rose in December, expanding at its fastest rate in 20 months amid heavy government economic stimulus, according to an industry group report.

The state-sanctioned China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing said its monthly purchasing manager’s index rose to 56.6 on a 100-point scale, compared with 55.2 in November. Numbers above 50 show manufacturing activity expanding.

It was the biggest month-to-month expansion since March 2008, when the index rose to 52.4 from 49 in the previous month.

The rising index "shows the situation of China's economy is stable and the recovery has been further consolidated," a government economist, Zhang Liqun, said in a statement issued by the federation.

Beijing's $586 billion stimulus program has helped boost growth by pumping money into the economy through spending on public works projects.

Economic growth rose to 8.9 percent from a year earlier in the quarter ending in September and the World Bank is forecasting 8.4 percent growth for all of 2009.

Jing Ulrich, head of China equities at J.P. Morgan, said in a report that "we expect China's strong economic growth momentum to continue in 2010."

Friday, January 1, 2010

Is Obama ACLUist President? Can Obama Deal With Terrorism & the Nation? All His Policies Show Deep ACLU Influences:

Is Obama ACLUist President? Can Obama Deal With Terrorism & the Nation? All His Policies Show Deep ACLU Influences:
By Marc Chamot

I’m pretty much news junky. Scouring newspapers and the Internet for interesting topics is what I do.

Blogging politics isn’t easy to do. There’s fierce competition from all over the Net. Once in a while, I do come across savvy readers’ opinions, whether in newspapers or comments posted in news website, they are there. Once in a while, there are those that will pique my interest and make me think, “well hey why I didn’t think of that?”

A letter writer to the San Francisco Chronicle’s letter to the editor, in their opinions section, John Chase of Alameda, hit it right on the proverbial nail with this.

System? What system?

"Despite some media's attempt to give the president and his team a good mark on the bomber crisis, in my view it once again demonstrates the inability of the president and his team to act decisively.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano embarrassed herself and the government with her one-day flip-flop: The system worked, the system did not work. Add to that the president's delayed reaction to this kind of crisis. We have an administration full of people who want to discern an issue instead making an assertive decision and live with it. There is too much ACLUist thinking and not enough military-style assertiveness.

The only reason this did not cost the lives of 278 passengers is that a few passengers made that assertive decision and wrestled the Islamic radical to the ground. The system was nowhere to be found." JOHN CHASE Alameda

Yes and yes! That is the problem with President Obama! He wants to run the country and foreign affairs with ACLU philosophy. Obama is an “ACLUist” and his type of governing isn’t working for Americans. What the president lacks is authoritarian and military-style assertiveness, which past presidents have been known to posses.

Every policy that Obama wants to push, from healthcare, immigration, defending the country from terrorist attacks, the trials of Guantanamo detainees in New York, cap and trade, global warming and so on, are all ACLU supported causes.

John Chase is absolutely right with his assertion; this is exactly what this country voted for, an ACLU president.

The trials of Guantanamo detainees in New York mainly, are ACLU pet dream that they’ve been pushing for. And the way we deal with RADICAL Muslims, like in Political Correctness, with the refusals for the FBI and CIA to follow through, e-mails and other sources when they were forewarned about possible terroristic attacks, is vintage ACLU, without a doubt.

But of course, after the near fatal bombing attacks on a plane heading into Detroit, and after the Fort Hood Texas terroristic slaughter of our 13 soldiers, and now President Obama is getting serious about Muslim terrorists. All of this should have been done from day one.

John McCain, Dick Cheney, and other Republicans exploited Obama’s weakness in possible handling of terrorists as president during the campaigns, Americans didn’t fret and voted for him anyway, and those recent incidents have shown that Republicans were right and voters were wrong.

It’s obvious that the ACLU doesn’t have all of the answers, when it comes to safety for Americans in the United States from Muslim extremists. What we really need, is an authoritarian president not an ACLUist! And bingo! John Chase!

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Victory for Taser Victims; YOU Can Sue Police Department & its Officers if Taser Use was Deemed Unjustified:

Victory for Taser Victims; YOU Can Sue Police Department & its Officers if Taser Use was Deemed Unjustified:
By Marc Chamot

A cops’ stun gun credo:

"I have the right to stun you. Anything you say or do can, and I will be forced to zap you on your way to jail. You have the right to a hospital bed after I get done stunning you. If you cannot afford a doctor, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

Okay, okay, police officers have the power to arrest you, they carry handguns and they want to zap you with their stun guns unprovoked too?

There is no one more supportive for law enforcements than Marc Chamot. There’s one problem though. I don’t like the way police officers have been using their Tasers on people lately, especially without probable causes.

California, a legal trendsetting state that usually establishes laws, which are then copied all around the nation, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that victims of unprovoked laser zaps from police officers can SUE the department and the officer.

Court said “let the juries decide these cases!” Yes, this is truly a great ruling and I applaud the Ninth for declaring these new Taser standards on law enforcements.

Police will need reasons to believe that a suspect is dangerous before firing a Taser on them.

They cannot use their stung guns simply because the person is disobeying orders or acting erratically. This judicial standard for police will set the wheels in motion for lawsuits from victims who were inappropriately hit by Taser darts by police across California.

“The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to a police officer or a member of the public by wielding such items like baseball bats, guns, or knives.” In the 3-0 decision, Judge Kim Wardlaw said, “they inflict a painful and frightening blow,” and must be used only when substantial force is necessary and other options are unavailable.

No more being zapped because you moved too darn slow, or just talked back to an officer, and or just being a hot head. I probably would have been a victim when I was younger too; I was a hell of a hot-head then.

We all have flaring tempers here and there, and those days when an unskilled cop pulls one these things on you, for no apparent reason is pretty much over, especially when they end up being behind multi-million dollars lawsuits over their actions.

This ruling was brought about in a legal action by Carl Bryan against Officer Brian McPherson, who pulled him over for not wearing a seatbelt. Angry, Carl Bryan was swearing at himself, shouting gibberish and banging his thighs when Officer McPherson zapped him with his Taser. Bryan suffered some injuries, like having four teeth knocked out, when he fell flat on his face. Bryan was clearly unarmed and did not warrant this type of police assault.

According to Amnesty International, 334 people have died in the U.S. since 2001 after being hit with Tasers. So yes, Tasers are very dangerous and the police need to be justified in using them, period.

Story:
Police need reasons to believe a suspect is dangerous before firing a Taser and can't use their stun gun simply because the person is disobeying orders or acting erratically, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Monday.

The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sets judicial standards for police and for people who claim they were victims of excessive force after police hit them with a Taser dart.
"The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public," Judge Kim Wardlaw said in the 3-0 ruling.

Though stun guns may offer a valuable, nonlethal alternative to deadly force in defusing dangerous situations, Wardlaw said, they inflict a "painful and frightening blow" and must be used only when substantial force is necessary and other options are unavailable.

"It's a significant use of force, not like cuffing someone or using pain compliance or pepper spray," said Eugene Iredale, a lawyer for a San Diego-area man who was Tasered by a police officer who had stopped him for not wearing a seat belt. "It's not to be used promiscuously or lightly."
The ruling allows Iredale's client Carl Bryan to go to trial in his damage suit against Brian McPherson, a policeman in Bryan's hometown of Coronado. McPherson's lawyers were unavailable for comment. Full Story here: Taser ruling sets standards for police, claims

Monday, December 28, 2009

Incompetence’s & Hypocrisies plaguing 2009 Obama Presidency; Janet Napolitano & Obama Administration Fumbling on Muslim Terrorists:

Incompetence’s & Hypocrisies plaguing 2009 Obama Presidency; Janet Napolitano & the Obama Administration Fumbling on Muslim Terrorists:
By Marc Chamot

President Obama and Janet Napolitano need to worry more about Muslim extremists and terrorists, rather than putting American conservatives on terror lists and giving undocumented aliens amnesties.

Incompetence and hypocrisies is plaguing President Obama’s administration. 2009 was a tough year for a president who did not have the experience, or the qualifications to be an American president.

After railing against Sarah Palin’s lack of qualifications to be a vice president during the presidential campaigns, Obama broke this biblical cardinal rule, 3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." Matthew 7:3-5

There is no doubt that incompetences and hypocrisies are showing within the Obama administration, and besides himself, it’s also with his choices of people who run some of this country’s crucial departments.

Beginning with the head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano who is utterly, and unequivocally unqualified for the office as head of Homeland Security.

The attempted Detroit Terror Attacks a few days ago shows her total incompetence’s, and this may have been the last straw that implicates this department as unfit for DUTY, and Janet Napolitano is too incompetent, and too unqualified to manage the security and safety for this country.

Here’s another Muslim terrorism alert fiasco that went unnoticed, where Janet Reno’s departments, the CIA, FBI and others were fully aware of, and were warned by the father of the would be Detroit bomber, that he was a threat for America and Americans. This went largely ignored by the U.S. government, embassies, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab came close to blowing up one of our airliners, over one of our largest cities in the United States.

Only God knows what would have happened if this terrorist succeeded in blowing up the plane during the landing, besides 290 or so on the plane, what kinds of damages to lives would it have done on the ground is unthinkable.

This comes right on the heels of the Fort Hood Muslim extremist and terroristic assaults, which left 13 of our own soldiers dead.

Again Janet Napolitano’s government agencies were asleep at the wheels, and are once again being accused of dropping the ball on intelligences, just like the Nidal Malik Hasan’s massacre of the13 U.S. soldiers in the army base in Texas.

This time around, the father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab of the Nigerian born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had repeatedly warned U.S. officials about his son’s intentions to do harm on Americans; it went largely ignored, just like the Fort Hood Muslim Nidal Hassan situation.

And then recently, this also came up on Janet Napolitano’s watch:

TSA Screening Manual Posted Online
By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief

The Transportation Security Administration has confirmed an ineffectively censored copy of its airport screening procedures manual was posted online. It was taken down after the mistake was discovered but not before the unsophisticated redactions of sensitive material were cleaned up and the uncensored version became widely available on the Internet. AVweb has chosen not to make it available on our site. The TSA told ABC News the manual was an outdated version (June 2008) "improperly posted by the agency to the Federal Business Opportunities Web site wherein redacted material was not properly protected."

The 93-page manual details who, what, when and how often hand searches are done, describes the limitations of its equipment and includes sections on how to deal with diplomats, government officials and law enforcement personnel. It also includes samples of identification used by CIA, Homeland Security, Federal Air Marshals and members of Congress. "This is an appalling and astounding breach of security that terrorists could easily exploit," Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security, told ABC. "The TSA should immediately convene an internal investigation and discipline those responsible.

So the hits are still coming, and it’s without a doubt that we’ve got a REAL IDIOT running the Department of Homeland Security and for this president? You make the call?

Detroit terror attack: US aviation security system failed, Napolitano admits
Janet Napolitano, the US Homeland Security Chief, on Monday admitted that America's aviation security system "did not work" in the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, reversing her claim over the weekend that "the system worked".

Her embarrassing U-turn underlined the government's tepid and confused response to the near-catastrophic incident on board Northwest airlines Flight 253 and came as President Barack Obama prepared to end a three-day silence during his holiday in Hawaii.

"We're now what, 72 hours into this? And the President has not spoken, the Vice President has not spoken the Attorney General has not spoken and Janet Napolitano has now told two different stories in two days," Peter King, a congressman from New York, told Fox News.

On Sunday, Miss Napolitano told CNN that "one thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked" and ABC News that "once the incident occurred, the system worked".
After widespread condemnation of her comments, she told NBC on Monday that she had been quoted "out of context", claiming that she was referring to the system of notifying other flights as well as law enforcement on the ground about the incident soon after it happened.

"Our system did not work in this instance,' she said.”No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way."

Miss Napolitano had also said on CNN that there was "no indication" that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's actions were "part of anything larger", despite reports that he had told the FBI he was linked to al-Qaeda in Yemen and that there were other attackers there who would strike against America.

The Obama administration was increasingly under fire as it struggled to explain how a man on a terrorist watch list who had been reported by his worried father to the US embassy in Nigeria as a potential threat had been able to board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with high explosives on his body.

"I think there's much to investigate here," said Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, signalling that Republicans would seek to exploit the issue.

Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats but is frequently a thorn in their side, sad: "What happened after this man's father called our embassy in Nigeria? What happened to that information? Was there follow-up to try to determine where this suspect was?"

The Obama administration appeared to be trying to blame officials at the US embassy in Abuja with one telling "The Washington Post" that the report filed after Abdulmutallab's father visited here on November 23rd was "very, very thin with minimal information".
Mr Obama has ordered a review of American no-fly lists after it emerged that Abdulmutallab was entered on a broad terrorist watch-list of 500,000 names after his father's visit but remained off a no-fly list of 4,000 names and was therefore still able to fly from Amsterdam to Detroit with a valid US visa.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

This is “Change YOU Can Believe in,” the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Dictatorships in Action; the Undemocratic Back-Room Deals & Bribes:

This is “Change YOU Can Believe in,” the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Dictatorships in Action; the Undemocratic Back-Room Deals & Bribes:
By Marc Chamot

I usually don’t follow or care about Cuban affairs that much. I’ve never been a fan of that mini-dictator, on a worthless island somewhere stuck in the Caribbean.

I never liked Fidel Castro or what he represented. So when anti-American comments are being made from inglorious political hacks in Cuba and from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, I don’t pay any mind to it, it’s never a big deal to listen to.

But, there is always a first time for everything. Recently Cuba’s foreign minister Bruno Rodriguez, called President Barack Obama an “imperial and arrogant LIAR,” for his conduct during the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen.

Bruno Rodriguez goes on to say, at the summit that arrogant Obama, “who does not listen.” He called the summit a “fallacy, a farce,” where backroom-deals and strong arm tactics to foist on the world a deal, that he labeled very undemocratic.

If it weren’t so shameful, it’s so true, in how Bruno Rodriguez depicted President Obama.

The Republicans in the House and Senate have been screaming about these same shenanigans going on with Democrats in Washington, that’s been hitting on deaf ears.

When President Obama promised us, “change YOU can believe in,” it sure became a dictatorship kind of change, but it's not the right kind for America and Americans.

Obama and his Democratic minions and company, i.e. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are a testament to these Obama types, of dirty and secretly held backroom deals, to pass the very unpopular healthcare reforms, and for future other liberal agenda reforms.

Its dirty politics as usual and Americans are seeing right through it, and we are not amused.

Dirty BRIBES and deals were being made to pass a form of Obamacare, with Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors, CROOKED deals that benefitted their states on Obamacare over other states.

And not only that, it’s coming out that Harry Reid is using another anti-democratic tool in congress. On page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads, “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

If President Obama signs this disaster of a bill, no future Senate, House and president will be able to change or modify Section 3403, regardless of whether future Americans or their representatives want to.

All this and much more, including unauthorized revisions Reid passed through the Senate floor without providing the 72 hours, for the public and media to study the contexts of the Senate’s final version.

This is what we’ve now got with these bunches. So in the end, what Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez said about President Obama is pretty much true. This is the “change that you can believe in,” we were promised by Obama. This is what Americans are to expect from these Democrats and this president from here on, how sad.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Angry White Males lashing OUT in 2010; Americans Souring on Democrats; it Might Just be TOO Late:

Angry White Males lashing OUT in 2010; Americans Souring on Democrats; it Might Just be TOO Late:
By Marc Chamot

Is the Democratic Party a disaster in the making? These are compilations of news stories that came out a few days ago.
The real truths is that we're all screwed as of now.
The news isn’t good for Democrats right now. President Obama’s new poll numbers by Rasmussen have him rated lowest, for a first year president.

BUT, these Democrats don't care if they lose, as long as their DREAM liberal agendas go through. We're pretty much sunk as it is, because they do have the majority, even the more conservative Blue Dogs are in on it.

The bottom line folks, people don’t want a corrupt special interests laden politicians and bankrupt country. As I’ve said before, keep on pushing your gluttonous, greedy and costly agendas on us we'll wipe you out Democrats, unfortunately it will be too late for most Americans.

Wait till immigration, and amnesty debates begins next year. It may boil over for most folks around the country. It seems that the Democrats are so agenda driven that they are using their majorities in the house and senate no matter what our wills are.

I warned you all, two years ago, what would happen to us, if this country voted for a Democrat president, with a house and senate majority. And you’re now seeing the tragic results and they cannot be stopped either.

It’s going to take a majority in 2010 and a new president in 2012 to UNDUE all of these nightmarish things that they are doing now, if they can.

All I can say, is I told you so, sadly. Oh well, it's live and learn, I guess.

"Reporting from Washington - Anger among independent voters about the economy and the direction the nation is taking offer Republicans a significant opportunity to reclaim power in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, according to the results of the bipartisan Battleground Poll released today." See Poll: Dissatisfaction could spell trouble for Democrats in 2010 (Below)

2010 could be 'year of the angry white male' redux
Voters are in a sour mood, which could lead to trouble for incumbents in Congress and statehouses in 2010, bipartisan pollsters say. Will it be a repeat of the 'Republican revolution' of 1994?
By Dave Cook Staff writer posted December 16, 2009

A new Battleground Poll shows that “voters tend to describe themselves as angry, pessimistic, anxious, and depressed,” says Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners, a political strategy firm that works for Democratic candidates.

Ms. Lake and Republican pollster Ed Goeas jointly oversee the Battleground Poll.
Things may get worse for office holders after Christmas, as voters deal with holiday bills and with the effects of layoffs that often come just before the end of the year.

“Whatever mood the voters are in right now, they are likely to be in a particularly ornery mood toward every elected official by January,” Lake says. “And one of the more interesting places they may take this out is less at the federal election [level] and more at the governorships. You may see a record number of governorships change party.”
Democrats in trouble?
With Democrats holding control of both houses of Congress, angry voters could spell trouble for the party in 2010 elections, argues Mr. Goeas, CEO of the Tarrance Group.
“There is a potential for [2010] being a 1994 year of the angry white male,” Goeas says. That year, Democrats lost 54 seats and Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

Battleground Poll data shows independent voters now rank 13 percentage points higher than Democrats [77 percent versus 64 percent] in saying they are likely to vote in the next election. “So the pool of angry independents is larger than what you normally see in an off election year…. It is certainly something that is going to be problematic for the Democrats,” Goeas says.
Pollsters Goeas and Lake were guests at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast for reporters on Wednesday. The George Washington University Battleground Poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters nationwide Dec. 6 to 9. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Who Americans trust on the economy
On the issue of turning the economy around, voters still favor Democrats in Congress over Republicans by a margin of 44 percent to 40 percent. But the Democrats’ lead has been slipping.
"We haven’t proven to the voters that we are spending money to create jobs for them. And that is the test,” Lake says. “And we have about an economic quarter to do it in. And either we are going to show that [economic recovery spending] is going to produce results on Main Street in the economy or voters are really going to conclude this is just too much spending for too little results.”

Republican pollster Goeas thinks voters will focus more and more on the issue of federal spending as the economy improves. “The good news for Republicans is we lead” on who voters trust to handle wasteful spending by 44 to 32 percent, he says.
Goeas also notes that a second wave of voter concern on taxes normally follows a focus on spending. And Republicans also lead on the issue of holding down taxes.

The Tea Party threat
A new Rasmussen Poll found Tea Party candidates outpaced Republicans 23 percent to 18 percent in a generic congressional race. Goeas noted that the polling method used in getting this result tends to over count voters with especially intense feelings.

The Tea Party is "a very vocal group out there that have a very good point in terms of what is happening ... but at the end of the day they are going to have to choose between who is the enemy,” Goeas says. “My advice has been ... 'We agree with you, hey let's go get ‘em' as opposed to trying to control them, trying to lead them, trying to be part of them. At the end of the day, it is going to come down to a choice between two” main parties.

Americans Souring on Democrats
Public's Malaise and Insecurity Translate Into Significant Shift in Political Landscape since Start of the Obama Era
By PETER WALLSTEN
Associated Press

President Obama makes a statement on health care after meeting with Senators on Tuesday. From left: Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd; Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus; the president; and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Support for the Democratic Party is slumping amid a wave of public discontent, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The findings underscore how dramatically the political landscape has changed during the Obama administration's first year. In January, voters were optimistic about the future, the new president enjoyed soaring approval ratings, and congressional leaders were set to swiftly pass his ambitious agenda.

In December's survey, for the first time, less than half of Americans approved of the job Barack Obama is doing, marking a steeper first-year fall for this president than his recent predecessors.
Also for the first time this year, the electorate is split when asked which party they would like to see in charge after the 2010 elections. For months, a clear plurality favored Democratic control.
The survey suggests that public discontent with Mr. Obama and his party is being driven by an unusually grim view of the country's status and future prospects.

A majority of Americans believe the U.S. is in decline. And a plurality now say the U.S. will be surpassed by China in 20 years as the top power—a striking finding, considering most Americans long believed their own country was the undisputed heavyweight champion.

Democrats' problems seem in part linked to their ambitious health-care plan, billed as the signature achievement of Mr. Obama's first year. Now, for the first time, more people say they would prefer Congress do nothing on health care than those who want to see the overhaul enacted.
"For Democrats, the red flags are flying at full mast," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "What we don't know for certain is: Have we reached a bottoming-out point?"

The biggest worry for Democrats is that the findings could set the stage for gains by Republican candidates in next year's elections. Support from independents for the president and his party continues to dwindle. In addition, voters intending to back Republicans expressed far more interest in the 2010 races than those planning to vote for Democrats.

But public displeasure with Democrats is not translating directly into warmth for Republicans. Twenty-eight percent of voters expressed positive feelings about the GOP -- a number that has remained constant through the Democrats' decline over the summer and fall. Only 5% said their feelings toward the Republicans were "very positive."

And in one arena, Afghanistan, Mr. Obama appeared to have some success in winning support for his planned troop surge. Liberals remain largely opposed to the strategy, but in fewer numbers compared with before Mr. Obama made his case in a speech at West Point. Overall, by 44% to 41%, a plurality believes his strategy is the right approach.

Still, the survey paints a decidedly gloomy picture for Democrats, who appear to be bearing the brunt of public unease over joblessness and Washington's economic policies. Thirty-five percent of voters said they felt positively about the Democratic Party, a 14-point slide since February.
"Overall, it's just a depressing time right now," said Mike Ashmore, 23 years old, of Lansdale, Pa., an independent who supported Mr. Obama last year but now complains about the president's lack of action on jobs. "A lot of my friends are either employed and hate it, or are unemployed," Mr. Ashmore said.

Julie Edwards, 52, an aircraft technician for Boeing Co. in Mesa, Ariz., said she voted Democratic in the past two elections but is not sure how she will vote next time. She wonders why Wall Street firms were bailed out when average Americans need help. "We can bail out Wall Street, but everybody else has to suffer in spades for it," she said.

Democratic leaders, while bracing for losses next year, have argued that unlike the 1994 elections, in which Republicans gained 54 seats and retook the House majority, Democrats would survive 2010 in part because they are taking steps to avoid that possibility. Republicans must gain 41 seats to take control.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that she "fully intends to be in the majority" after November 2010, and she was now shifting to "campaign mode" to help candidates. Party officials are leaning on a number of longtime colleagues to fight for their seats rather than retire.

The Journal/NBC survey found Ms. Pelosi's presence on the campaign trail could do more harm than good. Fifty-two percent said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who agreed with the speaker almost all the time, compared with 42% who felt that way about candidates siding with Republican leaders.

For Mr. Obama, who has relied on his personal popularity to retain the political clout he needs to enact his legislative agenda, the survey points to troubling signs.

A majority for the first time now disapproves of his handling of the economy. And the public's personal affection for the president, a consistent strong suit, has begun to fray. Fifty percent now feel positively about him, six points lower than in October and an 18-point drop since his early weeks in office.

Democrats' troubles can be attributed in part to changing feelings among some core supporters. A third of voters 34 and under, a group that turned out heavily for Democrats last year, feel negatively toward the Democratic Party. And just 38% of Hispanics feel positively, down sharply from the 60% in February.

For all of the Democrats' challenges, they can be thankful that they do not have to try to reverse Americans' feelings about golfer Tiger Woods. In the wake of revelations about his extramarital affairs, just 5% feel positive about Mr. Woods. The survey, which was conducted Dec. 11-14, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.
Poll: Dissatisfaction could spell trouble for Democrats in 2010
As President Obama's supporters grow listless and independents grow irritated, Republicans have a greater opportunity to dominate midterm elections, according to findings of the Battleground Poll.
By Mark Silva
December 16, 2009 9:27 a.m.

Reporting from Washington - Anger among independent voters about the economy and the direction the nation is taking offer Republicans a significant opportunity to reclaim power in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, according to the results of the bipartisan Battleground Poll released today.

A lack of passion among President Obama's core supporters and an absence of confidence that the administration's policies and congressional spending are producing sorely needed new jobs also pose a serious challenge to the president's party in 2010.Those are among the findings of a long-established team of Republican and Democratic pollsters, sponsored by George Washington University, which has measured the president's public job-approval rating at a low point for any first-year president in December.

"What a difference a year makes," said Christopher Arterton, dean of the graduate school of political management at GWU.The president's job-approval rating has slipped to 49%, Republican pollster Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake say. And the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of the president's performance, 41%, outweighs the 37% who strongly approve.

Disapproval of the job that Congress is doing has risen to 68%, "an all-time high," and 77% among independent voters.The problem for the president's party, the pollsters say, is that the most passionate supporters of the Democratic president appear less likely to turn out to vote in congressional elections next year.

And the most angry of the independent voters -- a swing-voting bloc that supported Obama in 2008 -- appear heavily motivated to vote against Democrats."There is a potential for this being the 1994 of the angry white male," said Goeas, pointing to the pivotal year during President Clinton's first term when Republicans gained control of the House.
Because of a struggling economy with widespread job losses, Goeas said, "the pool of angry independents is larger than what you normally see in an off-year election year. It is certainly something that is going to be problematic for the Democrats. . . .

"I've come to the conclusion on independents . . . that what really drives them is, they dislike both parties, and they dislike the party in power more," said Goeas, a seasoned Republican pollster at the Tarrance Group, speaking at a breakfast with reporters to present the findings of the newest Battleground Poll.

The poll, conducted Dec. 6 to 9, surveyed 1,000 registered voters. It carries a possible margin of error of plus or minus 3.1%The challenge for Obama's party, the pollsters say, is presenting policies during the first few months of 2010 that clearly offer the promise of new jobs in an economy in which unemployment has reached 10%.

"It's still the economy," Lake said. "If you ask people how they are feeling about the economy, people are very anxious. . . ."The one most important thing is that Democrats still are winning the vote among people who are most concerned about the economy," said Lake, longtime Democratic pollster at Lake Research Partners.

"The No. 1 thing the Democrats have to do is prove they really have a jobs program and an economic program that is going to sell on Main Street."The economy and jobs rank as the most important issue that Congress should work on among 40% of those surveyed. The cost of healthcare ranks as the top issue among just 15%.

The survey also reveals a "disconnect" between what most voters would like to see in healthcare -- controlling the cost of medical care -- and what they view as the president's priority: insuring the uninsured.

"Only 28% said their priorities match Obama's priorities, and 64% said they do not," Goeas said. "There's a disconnect."Most voters surveyed, 56%, say the country is on the wrong track, with 34% seeing the nation going in the right direction.

In a "generic" contest between an unnamed Democratic candidate and an unnamed Republican candidate for Congress, 42% of those surveyed said they would support the Republican; 40% opted for the Democrat.Among those swing-voting independents: 40% said they would select the Republican; 19%, the Democrat.

The voters most likely to support Republican candidates for Congress are more likely to vote next year, according to the survey.

More than three-quarters of Republicans and independents surveyed said they were extremely likely to vote, with fewer than two-thirds of Democrats extremely likely to vote, including 58% of African American voters surveyed.

The Democratic Party's problem is twofold, Lake said: "the intensity of the anger among the independents and the lack of intensity among the 'Obama surge' voters" who helped elect the president.

Although Obama remains personally popular, the poll shows, his policies have proved less so.Disapproval of the president's job performance is "driven not by the personality of the president, but the policies of the president," Goaes said.

"Obama has done more to improve the image of the Republican Party than anything that we've been able to do for years."Goeas also predicts that, even as the economy improves, deficit spending will become a bigger political problem for the Democrats.

The question of deficit spending translates readily to taxes, he said, and Republicans hold a 55-28 percentage-point advantage on the question of holding down taxes.Regaining control of the Senate will prove more difficult for the Republicans, Goeas said, and the challenge in reclaiming control of the House will hinge on how many incumbents retire next year and how well the GOP recruits new candidates.

The challenge for Democrats, Lake said, is translating all of the spending underway into the promise of new jobs."Spending is rising in people's attention," she said. "If people thought a million jobs were being created by the spending, they wouldn't care about what the spending is.

We haven't proven to voters that we are spending money to create jobs for them. Any challenge for Democrats is to turn those bills" into jobs.The president's party still has an opportunity to regain voter support before the midterm elections, Lake maintains."I think we have quite a bit of control over our destiny," Lake said.

"We have the ability to really aggressively talk about jobs," the ability to get a healthcare overhaul passed, the ability to address immigration reform and the ability to bring troops home from Iraq."We better seize control of our destiny," the Democrat said. "Now we need to present some plans, we need to implement them, we need to set a direction."The Battleground Survey polled 1,000 registered, likely voters.

Alain Chamot? Oh My, Oh My, My Half-Brother is A Card Carrying Liberal! What a Shocker!

The Obama Deception:

This BLOG Supports CANDIDATES that think for Americans FIRST. You, the candidate will get posted here and get my VOTE; only if you take care of our porous border, RID America of Criminal Illegal Aliens, No Amnesty, and Keeping American Jobs in America and improving our diminishing wages. Reducing our trade deficit with China and helping our dwindling economy and our middle class.