Administration’s inaction criminal and impeachable

Constitution: Obama guilty of treason, must be impeached

By Don Hank

I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona

by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.

I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.

This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.

Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:

 “Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”

The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Further, and more directly:

The administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him, must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.

This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.

It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.

Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.

When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.

Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.

Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.

Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.

The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.

And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.

The government is not about to protect us from invasion without a significant change, and that change starts with education on the grassroots level. No significant steps toward securing our nation will be taken until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.

Revolution USA, repeat history with a twist

by Don Hank

A look back at the French revolution reveals many surprising commonalities with today’s situation in America.

Yet, if the Tea Party Revolution succeeds, it will not be due to a revolutionary mindset as best described by Olavo de Carvalho (my review; full text). It will be the opposite, but with a similar historical lead-up and tactics ( hopefully with less bloodshed).

The main factors in both revolutions are:

Economic

Intellectual

Spiritual

Political

One of the main factors in the French Revolution was an economic one: worldwide famine caused by a weather anomaly. What later came to be known as the Little Ice Age contributed mightily to the timing of the revolution, as detailed by Brian Fagan.

In our case, while there is no famine, there is a shrinking economy, and a looming double-dip recession or even a full-blown depression, as predicted by economist Paul Krugman. Many realize government policy actually caused the initial failure of banks and the consequent economic slide. Most do not.

Regardless of the origin of this current economic malaise, it will eventually parallel the situation in France in 1788/9. Already, the number of unemployment recipients is staggering and is further gnawing at our national treasury, just as the excesses of Louis XV and XVI gnawed at and eventually drained, France’s treasury.

Added to this in France was the intellectual factor, i.e., the wide circulation of the ideas of the enlightenment, which generally called for equality among all people, undermining the notion of divine right of the nobility. In fact, the successful American Revolution added fuel to this equality movement.

But the American Revolution also contributed in a political way to the revolution: In an attempt to vindicate his father’s waste of national funds in the unsuccessful Seven Years War against traditional enemy Britain, Louis XV, Louis XVI, the incompetent king and husband of Marie Antoinette, decided to help the Americans in their war with Britain. Success in that war did not translate into political success for Louis XVI, however, because the aid the French had sent us bankrupted France and further undermined the King’s authority and popularity. Other political factors include the popularity of revolutionary-minded Minister Jacques Neckar and of Maximilien Robespierre. The former’s dismissal gave more fuel to the movement while the latter’s oratory inspired the people to revolt.

It bodes ill for Michelle Obama that her extravagant vacations and leisure life are garnering her the monicker “Michelle Antoinette” – even among Democrats.

It is intriguing that the scenario of the French Revolution is now being turned upside down:

Economically, while most of the ills caused by the government in France were unrelated to the will of the public, the ills in our country were by consent of the governed, who foolishly installed politicians imbued with Keynesian economic ideas. A close look at globalist G.W. Bush, son of globalist George Bush Sr., would have shown us this flaw in his character. Obama, obviously driven by leftwing ideology, could scarcely have been expected to reject the idea of bailouts for banks and businesses, which then could be controlled by the government. This amassing of power in the hands of globalists and Marxists was accomplished by stealth, but it was ultimately the uncritical masses who chose them.

Intellectually, while the ideas that bolstered the French Revolution were strictly leftist revolutionary, the ideas of the Tea Party, promulgated by media personalities and a few politicians, and increasingly, by bloggers and internet activists, are spreading and causing a new kind of movement that could best be called antirevolutionary, if we accept the definition of the Revolution as set down by revolutionaries themselves over the centuries (again, I refer to the masterful work by Olavo de Carvalo).

Spiritually, the French revolution marked an upsurge in the religion of humanism, which has held for centuries, while the tea party revolution marks a turn toward traditional Christian values and beliefs that the French would call “reactionary.” It is no exaggeration to call humanism a religion in this context. The spiritual descendants of Voltaire include Sartre, Camus and a host of artists dedicated to proselytizing for atheistic humanism. A look at French cinema (works like “Jean de Florette,” “The Stranger” and “Madame Bovary,” for example) make this fanatical missionary spirit abundantly clear. Meanwhile, in America, the new heretics, like Jim Wallis and wishy-washy feel-good, “cool” pastors are being rejected for what Americans see as the “real thing,” solid men of God dedicated to the winning of souls from perdition.

Politically, the situation is similar between France then and the US today. The National Assembly in the 1780s had been at loggerheads with the King over issues like equality of taxation (only the commoners were taxed, nobility and clergy were exempted). It was the people against the tyrant at the top. Today we see the will of the people in Arizona, for example, being thwarted by the heavy hand of Obama and an activist court.  In reaction to the general perception of such tyranny, the true patriot tea party candidates (as distinct from the GOP-led imitations) are overthrowing incumbents in many elections. The GOP establishment, even with endorsements from once-popular heavy hitters like Sara Palin and Jan Brewer, is no longer able to sell their wishy-washy candidates at face value. Given the economic climate, the established church is no longer able to sell open borders and amnesty to their parishioners. Even popular icon Ann Coulter can’t pied-piper her followers into accepting a coalition with the homosexual agenda. The establishment is slowly cracking.

Conservatives and libertarians are forming a natural coalition and spreading the ideas of liberty and constitutional government but without the leftwing claptrap.

It is too early to predict anything, but the climate is right for a revolution that is, like the first American Revolution, not a revolution at all but rather a return to common sense, natural law and the God of our fathers.

Arizona, get off the RINO bull before it throws you!

Arizona, get off that RINO bull!

Don Hank

A while back I published an article at Laigle’s Forum in which I referred to Arizona as a liberal state. At least one commentator at the site was disturbed by this, insisting that Arizona is a true-blue blue state and Arizonans are conservative.  

I’m not in the mood for shenanigans so let’s cut through the baloney. If Arizona re-elects McCain and passes over truly conservative JD Hayworth then Arizonans will have proved to be sheep and not the broncos and fighting bulls they tout themselves to be.

Yeah, yeah, I know about the skeletons in JD’s closet. So what? It’s nothing compared to McCain’s OPEN skeleton, namely, his voting record! Guess that doesn’t count any more, eh, “conservative” Arizonans? The voting records of these 2 gents is at the ACU site. One of the last years JD was in Congress, he scored 100 to McCain’s 60, so stop kidding yourselves. And puh-leeze don’t tell me McCain has had a change of heart. You know better.

A recent article in Christian Science Monitor shows that Sarah Palin and Jan Brewer’s endorsements are being taken for what they’re worth: establishment GOP tripe. At this rate, their endorsements could become the kiss of death.

Now it is a tribute to the instincts of the American public at large that they aren’t just lying down and playing dead every time Palin and/or Jan Brewer endorse a candidate. I suspect they may be doing just the opposite and automatically rejecting anyone endorsed by the Bobbsy Twins. True, Jan signed a strong immigration bill. But this is election time, so she doesn’t get many points on that score. Worse, she endorses McCain so she loses a lot of points on that score. (As you can see, I am not out to make friends, just a point that other bloggers and reporters are too wussy to make, and some of them I suspect are in McCain’s pocket. I strongly suspect it, no, strongly smell it, and I haven’t the stomach for it).

The situation in Arizona is different from the nation at large. To give you the short story, many Arizonans like to make people think they are conservative. And they even think of themselves that way. The anti-invasion bill makes them look for all the world like conservatives too.

But I’m not convinced.

You know why? Because these people are the same ones who read only the front label on the food package, the one that says “diet” or “low-fat” such-and-such — terms not subject to strict regulation. But they never read the actual nutritional information on the back of the package because they suspect the product contains a lot of fat and carbs and they don’t want to know. They’re only out to assuage their consciences. The fact is, they’re too lazy to change. They’re only pretending to care about their health and the welfare and happiness of their loved ones. What they really want is to die happy and fat, leaving their families to fend for themselves.

They’re despicable.

If they can’t face the hard truth in this Senatorial election, then I will continue to call AZ a blue state. So will a lot of others. Of course, there are some real conservatives there. Senator Pearce, author of SB 1070, is endorsing JD.

GOP doesn’t automatically mean conservative any more, not by a long shot. And a state that calls itself conservative but votes RINO consistently is just throwing the bull.

And now have a look at what is happening to Arizona’s border region thanks to pro-amnesty activists like John McCain working hard against the will of the people for many many years. It’s sickening, but you know you asked for it, Arizona:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/tc-off-topic/2010/08/20/living-on-the-border-a-look-at-life-in-my-neck-of-the-woods/

Arizona, you CAN’T blow THIS one!

Don Hank

A recent article by Jesse Mathewson tries to show that maybe McCain and Hayworth are both wrong for Arizona. He’s right about McCain. But he uses a now largely discounted scandal and an obscure vote on Singapore free trade to cast doubt on Hayworth.

Now in all fairness, Jesse has written a fair number of articles with genuinely conservative content. However, he has consistently supported an obscure no-experience candidate, Jim Deakin, whose chances to defeat McCain are remote, while Hayworth is fairly well — if precariously — positioned.

Further, Mathewson’s attempt to equate John McCain and J.D. Hayworth is definitely skewed if you consider the ratings of Hayworth and McCain given by the American Conservative Union (ACU).

In 2005, for example, ACU assigned a grade of 65 to McCain and 100 to Hayworth.

In 2005, it was 80 to 100 in favor of Hayworth.

I don’t know about you, but if I were a college admissions officer considering 2 students and one had McCain’s near-failing to lackluster grades and the other had Hayworth’s top notch grades, I would choose Hayworth in a heartbeat.

Of course, there is this other guy Deakin, who may be ok. But how can we know? By what he says he’ll do? Remember how Obama sweet-talked us? Are you ready to vote for an unknown when you have a hard-working tried and proven A student waiting in the wings? And, strangely, Mathewson doesn’t say a word about illegal immigration, the key issue this year. If his candidate has a strong position on it, why doesn’t he say so? It’s his golden opportunity.

JD Hayworth obviates all other alternatives this year. After all, given the state of the polls today, a vote for Deakin is probably a vote for John McCain and we can’t afford another 6 years of waffling and pandering to illegal aliens.

On the other hand, Deakin has a chance to show Arizonans he has real character. By throwing his weight toward JD Hayworth and ridding America of a dangerous RINO once and for all. That in itself could be the start of a brilliant political career.

Hayworth:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2005/2005House.htm

McCain:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2006/2006senate

It’s not a party, it’s World War III

It’s not a party, it’s World War III

Don Hank

We Americans keep forgetting that America is really just a microcosm that reflects a nearly-uniform situation existing throughout the Western world. Not only does the elite extend across party lines in Ameria, but our elite is part of a much bigger World Elite that exhibits the same identical behavior everywhere, the aim being to destroy what is left of Christian conservative culture and replace it with Marxist social chaos. You know numerous examples of how that is done. Just think ACLU.

One of the main weapons used against us is virtually unlimited immigration. Our country is being flooded with illegal immigrants, who are portrayed in the media as victims. In the street and in our economy, we see the opposite: American workers stripped of jobs, hospitals forced to donate a high percentage of services to illegal aliens, federal prisons with disproportionately high alien populations, foreign gangs of juvenile delinquents, cities and states (CA comes to mind) going bankrupt from the enormous burden of services funneled to undocumented aliens who don’t pay their share of taxes.

But this elitist attitude that drives unlimited immigration and the political correctness that forbids us to discuss it honestly, or even uses the courts to oppose laws like that in Arizona aimed at controlling the crime, drugs, economic chaos, soaring unemployment, imminent bankruptcy, etc, is not specific to America.

Things are worse in the UK and Germany, for example. And most of us can recall the Muslim riots in Paris a few years ago. And as a footnote: Panama is also toying with an amnesty for its illegal aliens, mostly Chinese.

Which brings us to a recent report from Germany about a school that has been taken over by Muslims. The remarkable thing about the report is that it was made by a mainstream news outlet in a country where it is all but forbidden to speak openly about the ills of Islam. Things are coming to a head in Europe just as they are here, where Americans in state after state seek legal means to stem our own immigration tide. The elites, who suffered a major setback in the arena of global warming, and had their foolhardy Marxist lending policies turn into a worldwide financial disaster, are now being forced into a corner in the area of immigration as well, as their own media confront a situation that can no longer be ignored.

My translation of the report summary follows (my comments are in brackets):

Fighting in the classroom — German students in the minority

For 45 minutes, ARD [a German TV network] showed the everyday reality in a high school in Essen [in North Rhine-Westphalia]. A daily reality of brutality, a dark parallel world in which Germans are terrorized and Islam sets the tone.

156 students, 70% Muslims. Turks, Lebanese, Kurds. Principal Roswitha Tschueter says: “The violence is coming mostly from the Lebanese students.”

Sebastian (16) is constantly beaten up by fellow students [the author didn’t quite have the nerve to say “Muslim” here]. His mother says: “They even beat him with a chair.”

Hulia (17) converted to Islam. Her Palestinian boyfriend says: “She doesn’t party, doesn’t wear miniskirts. German girls have too much freedom” [true, but if the German society allowed Christians the same freedom of expression as they do Muslims, Christian morals would flourish again. Germany bans home schooling and often removes kids from Bible-believing Christian homes under the pretext that they are creating a “parallel society.” This is nothing but an extension of Hitler’s ban on proselytizing. But it’s not only Germany. Throughout the West, we are taught that Christianity is not to be used to impose any sort of morality. “Church” leaders have soft-pedaled the moral aspects of Jesus’ teachings to the point that today’s “Christians” deny that there is any universally valid moral teaching at all – particularly as relates to sex. In a society where Christian morals are taboo and adolescents start having sex early and with numerous partners – with all the attendant disease and socio-psychological fallout, it is no wonder that Islam looks attractive to many young people in a “Christian” society where morality is in free-fall, seeking a form of order and righteousness. The tragedy is that Christianity has been so hamstrung and sissified by church “leaders,” educators and the media, that it is not seen as an alternative — though it can offer the same order and righteousness but without the violence and coercion of Islam. Thus the only viable alternative is ignored].

A lot of students [Muslim] think: The Germans are sh-t. You don’t make friends with Germans.”

“They call you a nazi if you express yourself,” says one girl.

During Ramadan [when Muslims fast], they spit in the German students’ food.

Muslim girls can only go swimming fully clothed.

One [Muslim] girl, asked what kind of husband she would like to marry, said “one who doesn’t beat me.”

The current regime is the most Islam-friendly one ever. Obama, whose warm feelings for Islam and disdain for Israel, for example, are undisguised, has invited 250,000 Palestinians to resettle in the USA. It is only a start. Judging by the situation in Europe, it is just a matter of time before America is Islamized, unless God intervenes and awakens us from our opiate slumber. And reminds us that this isn’t a party. It’s a war.

Obama lawsuit against Arizona not based on law

Obama’s lawsuit against AZ is not based on law

Don Hank

As a legal/technical translator, I have read and translated my share of legal briefs.

The lawsuit brought by the Obama administration against AZ is by far the lamest, most juvenile brief I have read in my nearly 40 years of exposure to such texts. The main reason for this is that, in all of the lawsuits I have read heretofore, there is a citation of law. Here there are no laws cited at all and also no case law. It fails in fact to rise to the level of a legal brief. The fact that it was even accepted by the Supreme Court is an ominous sign for our country.

Text sample [my comments in brackets]:

“It [the AZ law] will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens [How will it conflict with federal law if it agrees with it? No legal precepts or laws specified]. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution [First, what protections are legally available for “an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution”? Would an alien have a well founded fear of persecution if he was acting within the law? Further, since the AZ law is based on federal law, then it would have to be the federal law that is ignoring humanitarian concerns. No laws specified] or who has been the victim of a natural disaster [If it is legal to enter the US without papers on the grounds of a natural disaster, then AZ law does not apply because it is based on US law. If it is illegal to enter the US without papers in case of a natural disaster, then the courts must base their decision on the law as written, not on controversial opinion as to what constitutes a hardship case and whether humanitarian concerns override the law in such a case. Besides, again, the federal law is the basis for this AZ law, so it is not fair to single out AZ as one of many states that expect federal immigration law to be obeyed within its boundaries or to punish the state for having such reasonable expectations]. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries [Is this diplomatic relationship not based on law? If not, on what is it based? If something other than law, then this is not a matter for the courts to decide, because they are charged only with evaluating the legal aspects of any case or law, not the diplomatic aspects].”

 If the Supreme Court sides with Obama in this case, then we can no longer in any way expect our legal system to base any decision on the law as written. Legal decisions then become a matter of personal philosophy of the judges. For example, the president could demand in a lawsuit that all auto makers and sellers cease and desist from their activity on the grounds that some cars have fatal accidents.

The courts have always sided with the States in matters of immigration of this kind, so a departure from case law would also open up a new era of total randomness in court decisions. No legal system can stand for long under such circumstances.

Further reading: 

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/feds-sue-arizona-over-1070it

Many conservatives dismally ill-informed

Many conservatives dismally ill-informed

Don Hank

I recently got an email with a link to a presentation by Lou Dobbs on CNN quoting John Boehner referring to a bill before Congress that would have given all kinds of benefits to illegal immigrants. Boehner had called it “a piece of sh…t.”

The guy who forwarded it apparently thought it was current information and said ‘Well, folks, what do you think of Obama now?”

I took a quick look at the Youtube still and realized I had seen this at least a half-dozen times over the last few years, and that it was made during the Bush administration. (May of 2007 to be exact, as you can see here.)

It was in fact G.W. Bush who had pushed this miscreant bill. Yet the sender thought it was recent and was using it as an example of how pro-invasion the Obama administration is!

I have always said that Obama is one of the best things that ever happened to this country because now, the unconstitutional legislation that was given a pass in the Bush years is happening under a lefty, and finally it is being acknowledged for what it is: a leftist attempt to take over America and change it radically.

Too bad we needed to elect a self-proclaimed lefty to show people how bad – and far-left – our immigration policies always have been.

What worries me is that many of the same people who are outraged by this nonsense – and rightfully so – are backing Sara Palin. Yet during her last campaign Sara was silent as the Sphinx on immigration. You couldn’t get a rise out of her except for a boilerplate comment about how immigrants made America great. And she was, of course, running with – and enthusiastically endorsing – one of the biggest RINOs and pro-amnesty politicians in the Senate. Need I also mention Palin’s selection of a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court?

The fact that she now benefits from photo-ops with Jan Brewer does not put new spots on this leopard.

America has two vital missions that can’t be put off:

1 – to kick the far left out of power

2 – to kick out RINOs, their enablers

If we only accomplish mission one, that will be worse than a total failure, because, by anesthetizing the conservative public, as was done under the Bushes, it will enable the RINOs to accomplish all the things the far left could not do. And on top of that, it will make you complacent enough again to like what you see.

But how do we tell the difference between a true conservative and a phony who will run with the Dems once elected?

Some things you can do to prevent disinformation:

1– Compare what the Left is promoting to see if your favorite “conservative” is pushing the same thing. (Example: Both Bush and Obama signed the first bailout bill),

2 – Verify everything you read in “conservative” news sources and every email you receive from conservative friends. Their hearts are in the right place. But it’s up to you to find out where their heads are.

3 – Never “follow your heart” instead of your head. Feel-good policies are the hallmark of the Left.

4 – Always be more cautious with news sources from groups, including religious and conservative groups, that are making money off of donations or are selling news or teaming up with other conservatives in speaking engagements. These groups, even the more solid ones like WorldNetDaily (they’re behind Sara Palin), usually feel they have to be more mainstream to survive. (Some, like Judicial Watch for example, seem to have avoided that pitfall).

5 – Subscribe to Laigle’s Forum (http://laiglesforum.com/mailing/?p=subscribe&id=1). We do not solicit your money, just your attention. You can make me — and yourself — more prosperous by defending the Constitution.

zoilandon@msn.com

Move over, Obama — Arizona leading US now

Obama and the Democrats are apparently trying to turn leadership of US imigration over to El Presidente Calderon. They gave him a huge round of applause recently when he knocked Arizona’s new get-tough-on-illegals law.

But in reality, according to Dave Levine, Arizona is now the new leader in this area, with all of 18 states looking to pass similar legislation to stop the invasion. Have a look.

Don Hank

Arizona‘s 1070 Law Is Leading The Country And Reshaping The Country

 by Dave Levine

 As of today, May 21, 2010, 18  states  (http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/18-states-now-have-plans-for-a-1) are planning 1070-style anti-trespass bills of their own. 1070 authors Prof. Kris Kobach and Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce have to be feeling good about the popularity of their bill-now-law not only among Arizonans but among Americans across the country. There would be 30 states by now with mirror bills but for the ACLU class action suit having already been filed. Hopefully, a decision on that frivolous suit will be rendered shortly.

While 1070 is the talk of the nation, it has brought the horrors of the Invasion (aka illegal immigration) to the mainstream media and has the left backpedalling. This thing is so popular that to speak out against it is making those who do quite unpopular! Whereas in years past cries of “racial profiling” and “racism” would cause those who might support such a bill to “cower in a corner”, now the worm has turned and it’s the leftists and reconquistas who are reeling! Their cries of “racial profiling” and “racism” are falling on deaf American ears. Why? Because thanks to leaders like Russell Pearce and Governor Brewer in Arizona, Daryl Metcalfe in Pennsylvania and so many others like them–along with the wonderful vehicle of American talk radio–Americans are finding out just how deadly and vicious and detrimental the Invasion by 40 to 50 million foreign nationals (most of them Mexicans) really is. Not just Rob Krentz’ murder by a cowardly illegal alien but also the 25 Americans killed by DUI accidents caused by illegals and murdered daily by illegals across the country, the hundreds of thousands of rapes, child molestations, kidnapping, burglary, battery, the massive document fraud committed by millions of illegals against Americans and our continuing to get them “bennies” while all this is going on! Something had to “crack” and it was Arizona that said “No more!”

 Read more:

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/arizonas-1070-law-is-leading-1

BREAKING: Leaked Doc Proves Spain’s ‘Green’ Policies — the Basis for Obama’s — an Economic Disaster (PJM Exclusive)

PJM has received a leaked internal document confirming Spain realizes its green failures, just as Obama pushes the American Power Act based on Spain’s program. (Click here for the original Spanish document. An English translation is provided in this article.)

May 18, 2010

Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain’s Zapatero administration. The assessment confirms the key charges previously made by non-governmental Spanish experts in a damning report exposing the catastrophic economic failure of Spain’s “green economy” initiatives.
On eight separate occasions, President Barack Obama has referred to the “green economy” policies enacted by Spain as being the model for what he envisioned for America.
Later came the revelation that Obama administration senior Energy Department official Cathy Zoi — someone with serious publicized conflict of interest issues — demanded an urgent U.S. response to the damaging report from the non-governmental Spanish experts so as to protect the Obama administration’s plans.
Most recently, U.S. senators have introduced the vehicle for replicating Spain’s unfolding economic meltdown here, in the form of the “American Power Act.” For reasons that are obvious upon scrutiny, it should instead be called the American Power Grab Act.
But today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy.
Unsurprisingly for a governmental take on a flagship program, the report takes pains to minimize the extent of the economic harm. Yet despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the “green economy” stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece.
The government report does not expressly confirm the highest-profile finding of the non-governmental report: that Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. However, the figures published in the government document indicate they arrived at a job-loss number even worse than the 2.2 figure from the independent study.
Read more