Join me in a cup?
Never, ever forget!
The Real “Divider-in-Chief” DIVIDING BY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
If anyone were to do a quick analytic study of the archives of this site we believe that the ranking hierarchy for the top three would be Special Interest Groups, Political Correctness, and Illegal Immigration. I or anyone here could tell you what exactly the order is in; however, the majority of our writings have been in these categories.
We have found that Special Interest Groups, Political Correctness, and Illegal Immigration are organizations down to individuals that have caused the greatest damage in this Nation; and although warned severely by our Founders not to engage with these groups and individuals by creating regulatory commissions to regulate them, unfortunately for the time-served immigrant and all other Americans administration after administration have failed to handle the destructive ends that these entities can produce.
More Evidence That DOJ Ignores Civil Rights Cases with White Victims: In September 2010, Christopher Coates, Voting Section Chief for the DOJ, corroborated the previous testimony of J. Christian Adams, stating that the Obama DOJ had routinely ignored civil rights cases involving white victims.
Obama Urges Hispanic Voters to “Punish” Their “Enemies”: In a radio interview conducted a few days before the November 2010 midterm elections, President Obama urged Hispanic listeners to flock to the polls: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.” Obama said that Republicans who supported Arizona’s immigration law “aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”
Obama Administration’s Massive Support for the National Council of La Raza: A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and its affiliates had skyrocketed since President Obama had appointed NCLR’s senior vice president, Cecilia Muñoz, to be his director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009.
The year Muñoz joined the White House, government funds earmarked for La Raza increased from $4.1 million to $11 million. Fully 60 percent of that money came from the Department of Labor, headed by Hilda Solis, who has close ties to the La Raza movement. Also in 2010, the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave NCLR $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed almost $800,000, and the Centers for Disease Control gave approximately $250,000.
Obama Signs Bill Paying $1.15 Billion in Discrimination Compensation to Black Farmers: As the result of a 1999 decision on a class action suit known as Pigford v. Glickman, the federal government paid approximately $1 billion to 15,640 black farmers who claimed that the that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against them by refusing to provide them with federally subsidized farm loans and benefits during the years 1981-96. Now then, whilst those who were jumping up and down asking for “hope and change”
In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama pushed to get another $100 million appropriated through that year’s farm bill, to compensate black farmers who alleged USDA discrimination but had missed the 1999 filing deadline under the original Pigford case. Then, in early December 2010, President Obama signed the Claims Settlement Act of 2010, which awarded another $1.15 billion to 94,000 black farmers alleging USDA discrimination between 1981-96. When signing the bill, Obama lamented the “long and unfortunate chapter in our history” that it represented.
Obama USDA Awards $760 Million to Native American Farmers As Compensation for “Discrimination”: In October 2010, the Obama USDA settled the so-called Keepseagle case, agreeing to make $760 million available to Native American farmers and ranchers contending that they had not received the same farm loan opportunities as whites between 1981-99.
Obama Mocks Anti-Illegal-Immigration Activists: In May 2011, President Obama went to El Paso, Texas to give what was billed as an important speech on immigration. He mocked opponents of illegal immigration by saying, “Maybe they’ll need a moat [i.e., in addition to a wall to keep Mexicans out of the United States]. Maybe they’ll need alligators in the moat.” Hopefully tomorrow we will be addressing Education, Political Correctness, and sorry, we believe that there is such an entity referred to as Islamist Terror Organizations.
The real “Divider-in-Chief” DIVIDING BY RACE/ETHNICITY
Barack Obama has based his career on fomenting group-based resentments and thereby energizing his political base. “Hope and change” has, in practice, all too often become “divide and conquer.” Obama’s propensity to pit populations and “interests” against each other in this manner is an outgrowth of the socialist worldview that sees all human interactions in terms of “class struggles.” The divisions that Obama seeks to promote, as the following material shows, are not only those of class, but also of race, ethnicity, and sex.
Obama Characterizes America As “Mean-Spirited,” Where Race is Concerned: In an interview published by the Daily Herald on March 3, 1990, Harvard Law School student Barack Obama said: “There’s certainly racism here [at Harvard Law School]. There are certain burdens that are placed [on blacks], more emotionally at this point than concretely…. Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we’re going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous. I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country.”
In 1991, Obama, who was then president of the Harvard Law Review and a well-known figure on the Harvard campus, spoke at a rally in support of Professor Derrick Bell. The godfather of Critical Race Theory, Bell was infamous for his anti-white views and his contention that America was an irredeemably racist country. At the rally in question, Obama encouraged his fellow students to “open up your hearts and minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell,” whom he described as someone who spoke “the truth.” For a comprehensive discussion of Bell’s views regarding race, click here.
For two decades, Jeremiah Wright was Obama’s pastor in Chicago. Wright’s many writings, public statements, and sermons reflect his conviction that America is a nation infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that make life very difficult for black people. As he declared in one of his sermons: “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!… We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.” For a comprehensive profile of Wright and his views on race read further material. The real fact of this matter is — what sort of demonic mind needed Wright’s pulpit?
Obama Implies that Suburban Whites Are Racist: In a 1995 interview, Obama made reference to a hypothetical “white executive living out in the suburbs, who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner city children for them to go to school.”
Minority Education Expenditures: In the 2008 campaign, Obama said: “Latinos have such a high dropout rate. What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That’s why I’ve said that I’m going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters.”
And finally, The Henry Louis Gates Affair: When Cambridge, Massachusetts police — as a result of a misunderstanding — arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates for disorderly conduct on July 16, 2009, Obama, without knowing all the facts of the case, said it was “fair to say” that the officers had “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates. Obama further said that the arrest played into what he called the “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
For the next couple of issues we will be concentrating on what displays Obama has made that has confirmed his title as The Divider-in-Chief with particular emphasis on more of the above as well as “classes” and “women.” Stay tuned!
Founding Fathers Friday
For the first time in a generation, the Supreme Court is revisiting an issue that has divided, confused and angered Americans for many decades: What’s in and what’s out when it comes to prayer at government meetings? Please consider that this statement is from the original writer of his takes on the National Prayer Breakfast that took place yesterday in the Nation’s Capitol.
The justices will hear arguments Wednesday in a case from Greece, N.Y., where, according to plaintiffs, the prayers before City Council meetings are so overwhelmingly Christian that the city government has essentially “affiliated” with Christianity, and has thus violated constitutional prohibitions against government favoring one religion over others.
There can be no doubt what religion, if any, that the writer took with word usage such as “prayers before City Council meetings are so overwhelmingly Christian that the city government has essentially “affiliated” with Christianity, as for us it seems like this person has a personal problem.
First we believe that we should either take a long look at what is overwhelming Christianity; furthermore, and it is high time that people who are enjoying their personal liberties should take note — that in this blessed Nation Christianity, or those who believe in the theology of Judeo-Christian beliefs are still the majority and we would add that most Christians are tired of being the back-end of every unpleasantry that may bestow an individual.
Attacking Christmas, Easter, the Nativity, where some writings are displayed or not, leads many individuals wondering — what could possibly could be so wrong in a life that the only thing they can think of attacking beside what has already been mentioned are: Crosses planted to commiserate an individual’s specialness, valor, or honor; worse still are those who condemn organizations like The Salvation Army during the holiday season. It is just plain rude.
“The Americans Who Risked Everything: Our Lives, Our fortunes, Our Sacred Honor.” What happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Probably not taught. I didn’t learn this in school, even back then. You learned the big names. Didn’t learn about everyone.
“What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them? I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.
“Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half – 24 – were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians. … These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.
These patriots were willing to make the effort and sacrifice they did because they understood a fundamental that seems to be forgotten today: that the rights of man are either God-given as part of a divine plan or they are granted as part of a political plan. Reason, necessity, and religious conviction and belief in the sovereignty of God led these men to accept the divine origin of man’s rights. To God’s glory, and the credit of these men, our nation had its unique birth.
How prophetic that pledge was to be! Consider with me some of the sacrifices made by these signers. Only seven were over sixty. The youngest, Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, was twenty-six and a half, and the oldest, Benjamin Franklin, was seventy. Three of the signers lived to be over ninety. Charles Carroll died at age ninety-five. Ten died in their eighties.
It Will Say Anything…
Not desirous of saying anything rude therefore we just will not. However there is a person masquerading as (take your pick) a professor, president, justice of the supreme court, theologian, commander in chief, let’s add in there the POTUS who will just say anything at anytime whatsoever. It is overwhelming obvious that he just does not have a clue about what he is saying insofar as how quickly and readily his lies and fabrications of truth pop-up and hit his behind.
Nowhere is this arrogance found than when he brings up his Judeo-Christian beliefs. I wonder how many true ‘god-fearing’ Christians out there have been notified of his comments today during his National Prayer Breakfast speech. The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual Washington event that brings together lawmakers from both parties and leaders from a variety of religions.
The president did criticize the Islamic State, calling it “a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism.”
If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel — the majority of great reformers because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action — sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.
It makes economic sense. Caring for the poor and those in need. So even as we join the great debates of our age — how we best put people back to work, how we ensure opportunity for every child, the role of government in protecting this extraordinary planet that God has made for us, how we lessen the occasions of war — even as we debate these great issues, we must be reminded of the difference that we can make each day in our small interactions, in our personal lives.
Allow me to state that there was far too much of this rhetoric. We were to easily reminded of who was speaking and the real motive behind what was being said.
As a new president, he dismissed the idea of American exceptionalism, noting that Greeks think their country is special, too. He labeled the Bush-era interrogation practices, euphemistically called “harsh” for years,as torture. America, he has suggested, has much to answer given its history in Latin America and the Middle East.
Say what? This ignorant person now blames the USA for matters (Crusades and Inquisition) in those areas?
His latest challenge came Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast. At a time of global anxiety over Islamist terrorism, Obama noted pointedly that his fellow Christians, who make up a vast majority of Americans, should perhaps not be the ones who cast the first stone.
President Obama has never been one to go easy on America
“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history,” he told the group, speaking of the tension between the compassionate and murderous acts religion can inspire. “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.
Some Republicans as well as Democrats were outraged, “The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” said former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore (R). “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”
Obama’s remarks spoke to his unsparing, sometimes controversial, view of the United States — where triumphalism is often overshadowed by a harsh assessment of where Americans must try harder to live up to their own self-image.
Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, called Obama’s comments about Christianity “an unfortunate attempt at a wrongheaded moral comparison.”
Obama spoke a day after meeting with Muslim leaders, who argued that they feel their community has faced unfair scrutiny in the wake of terrorist attacks overseas. Although the White House released only a broad description of the meeting — which touched on issues including racial profiling — participants said it gave them a chance to express their concerns directly to the president.
Rights, Liberties, Freedom, and where do you fit in..?
Here is a part of some unconscionable events that have occurred under this current regime. Quite openly they have made me sick to my stomach at times, whilst at other times I have wondered how this person has stayed alive. You see, in the distance not too long ago, a person even thinking about doing some of the relentless spending, then while asking for $4 trillion dollars for his budget and completely disregards the world’s problems that in turn cause more problems at home. How about this one?
These are extra ‘refunds’ for money earned illegally while they were here illegally. It is being done through the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The Credit is another form of welfare in which money is redistributed to low income workers from higher-paid workers. Some get back more money than they put in.
These particular illegal’s are to be given Social Security numbers and with that, they can collect the Earned Income Tax Credit. They actually get paid by taxpayers for not making enough money. It was meant for our poor citizens, not them.
Obama’s amnesty allows this according to the IRS interpretation of the law. Then again this is the same agency that got busted for having numerous accounts in arrears; also the federal agency that shielded tax breaks in business to those who requested and deserved it.
The illegal’s have to have filed returns but it does go back retroactively.
This is being done while Americans are unable to find work and more than 92 million are out of the workforce.
“This is the problem you get into,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican. “The IRS’s interpretation of the EITC eligibility requirements undermines congressional policy for not rewarding those working illegally in the United States.”
Furthermore, if it gets left the way it is there are two issues that I would buy stock in — 1- A huge influx of illegal’s will come running…and 2- This entire matter will end up in some courtroom where we can see first hand the usurpation that is going on.
Don’t expect any changes. Mr. Obama wants to invite illegal immigration.
It is currently unknown how many billions of dollars will be handed out.
In 2010, the IRS paid out $4.2 billion to illegal’s who claimed a child tax credit
A special thanks to our friend and fellow writer, 1dragon, for the alert for this article. CHEERS!
What content we have been trying to address here is that many similarly troubling judicial actions that add up to an entrenched pattern of government by judges that is nothing less than the usurpation of politics. We agree that this title of The Usurpation of Politics can be confusing to some; however, as we continue to look upon our language and study it, we come to the realization that no political correctness will enter into our findings. It has always been the position of this site that one being “p.c.” has always been about the changes in the native language first, then comes the liberal leaning words in replacement of the original, and the end consequence is none other than changes in morality, ethics, and values that invariably destroy the fortitude of the Nation.
The question then before us then is whether we have reached or are reaching the point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral assent to the existing regime. The subject before us therefore, is this the end of democracy? As stated in earlier portions of this writing is that the United States has for so long been the primary bearer of the democratic idea — has itself betrayed that idea and become something else all together?
Democratic politics means that “the people” deliberate and decide the questions before them of How ought we to order our lives together? One of the biggest problems that faces us today is, in fact, that too many answers to these questions are not deliberated, debated, and/or sent to our representatives who are allegedly representing us.
We believe much as the Framer’s did that given just the size of the federal government would be and is a definite problem. Or may I ask when was the last time any President asked for [demanded] a $4 trillion increase in taxes to cover entitlements and people not authorized to be in the country. These are just two of the increases and should not be used as the only reasons. One could easily put the debunked Head Start program as well as Free Community College for those who want it into that same mix.
However, it is important to note that what caused the Founder’s to implement “The Law of the Land” or the US Constitution we argue is their beliefs about and proven human nature. The very argument about the separation of powers has its basis in the notion that through human nature one person could and would aspire to recklessly make decisions — decisions that are not in his charter to make.
Therefore given that the original Constitution is what 2 1/2 pages in length and now — through the provisions, amending process, and judicial activism the Constitution can fill a library with almost endless provisions — incidentally all of these proviso’s were not done by any legislative deliberations or public opinion polling; the proviso’s added to the Constitution have been primarily done by the Justices who sit on the United States Supreme Court.
All things being equal it has been concluded with a dire evaluation of the present situation: “What is happening now is a growing alienation of millions of Americans from a government they do not recognize as theirs; what is happening now is an erosion of moral adherence to the political system.”
Of interest to all of us working on this topic is Robert Bork’s best-selling book in 1989, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, where Bork argues to a minute degree that Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment had been, in the hands of the modern Supreme Court, as an act of “judicial imperialism.”
Furthermore Bork espoused that “The most important moral, political, and cultural decisions affecting our lives are steadily being removed from democratic control — A majority of the Supreme Court routinely enacts its own preference as the command of the Constitution — A majority of Justices have decided to rule us without any warrant in law.”
Still waiting for her confirmation hearing more than four months after she was nominated, President Obama’s pick to be the U.S. ambassador to Mexico withdrew her nomination earlier this week.
Maria Echaveste, whose parents were Mexican immigrants, would have been the first woman to have the post.
The White House confirmed her decision to the Loop, which was first reported by Politico. Eric Schultz, White House spokesman, said she “cited the prolonged confirmation process and her family’s best interests in her request.”
“Echaveste is a proven leader and a renowned expert on U.S.– Mexico policy with a strong record of public service,” he said. “While the President regrets the long delays in this confirmation process that have led her to this decision, he accepts it and wishes her all the best in future endeavors.”
Echaveste was Bill Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, is a supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton and an advocate for immigration reform – which all would have made her a target in the now Republican-controlled Senate.
When she was first nominated in September, Post Mexico correspondent Joshua Partlow wrote about the strengths she’d bring, but also the challenges she’d face running one of the United States’ largest embassy staffs, in a country with so many critical issues like trade and border security.
Partlow at the time quoted one professor who commended the pick because of Echaveste’s bicultural background, while a Mexican journalist saw it as a way for the White House “to fill quotas.”
Echaveste, whose husband, Christopher Edley, instructed Obama at Harvard Law School, was considered a political appointment because she is not in the foreign service. Although the Democrat-controlled Senate cleared many ambassadorial nominees in the 2014 lame duck session before handing over the majority, Echaveste’s nomination was caught in the backlog. For those who didn’t get through last year, Obama must re-nominate them.
As we’ve written before, for would-be ambassadors, the uncertainty of waiting to find out if and when you are uprooting your life and moving to a new country can be trying. Some were in limbo more than a year.
Echaveste is married to Christopher Edley, who taught Obama while he was a law student at Harvard and who was dean of Berkeley’s law school until last year. Her mother currently lives in Mexico.
In Other News
The president used the ceremony as an excuse to make jabs at recent news surrounding his executive action that protects millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation.
“Today, I’m taking an action fully within my legal authority, the same kind of action taken by Democrats and Republican presidents before me,” he said to a laughing audience. “To spare the lives of two turkeys — Mac and Cheese — from a terrible and delicious fate.”
I found his second statement to be what Obama and his Administration are all about. When Obama starts out with, “Today, I’m taking an action fully within my legal authority,” could this be construed as his other executive actions have not been fully within his legal authority? Being as open as I possibly can, I do believe that that notion goes through his head constantly.
This series of articles was actually started a week ago under the title of The Usurpation of Politics and we are certain by the response and readership of such that we should give it some time before carrying on with it. Therefore today we will try and continue on what we shaped in that article and continue with more.
Given the long history of controversy about (some of) the United States Supreme Court’s (USSC) constitutional rulings, the fact that we find such controversy in the present is not surprising. Nor is the nature of the contempory controversy surprising: The claim at the heart of today’s controversy is substantially the same claim that was at the heart of most earlier controversies about constitutional rulings by the Court — namely, that in the guise of interpreting the Constitution, the USSC is actually usurping prerogatives that under the Constitution belong to one or more other branches or agencies of our government.
This process is clearly seen in the current Obama administration’s use of executive privilege; moreover, it can be seen by all when the President begins to make decisions on his very own, when in fact, the money to finance Presidential decisions — amnesty to 5 to 6 million individuals that are here illegally — is a cost to U.S. citizens.
That in and of itself is unconstitutional — insofar as the executive branch of government has never been chartered with immigration policy in the history of this country! This is made very clear in the original US Constitution whereby that authority and prerogative is within the Congress’ charter. This is one reason why there are thirty-nine states currently suing President Obama.
How the USSC could sit and rule on other lesser significant cases is beyond our comprehension. Therefore, what is happening now is a growing alienation of millions of Americans from a government they do not recognize as theirs: what is happening now is an erosion of moral adherence to the political system.
So we ask — what happens to a country where the very fabric that it is based on — begins to suffer because of a lazy body politic (us, or US citizens) that does not have the courage to do the same as our Founders did? No we are not even suggesting revolution; however, to want to stop some of the “madness” that goes on within the special interest groups, that furthermore seem as legislative law simply because a judge from any court says it is, is not the correct way to proceed in life.
The subject before us is the end of democracy. Perhaps the United States, for so long the primary bearer of the democratic idea has itself betrayed that idea and become something different. If so, the chief evidence of that betrayal is and only could be the judicial usurpation of politics.
We will take special notice of what democratic politics means — simply that “the people” deliberate and decide the question: “How ought we order our life together?” In the American constitutional order the people do that through debate, elections, and representative political institutions. Now we ask — Is this true today? How about say, 50 or more years ago? Is it not in fact the judiciary that deliberates and answers the really important questions entailed in the question, “How ought we to order our life together?”
Again we need to be mindful of our readers — this series of articles has its basis in primarily the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution forbids and/or requires involving matters that may or may not be construed as constitutional. Ahead for us is rulings based on sex-based discrimination, homosexuality, abortion, racial segregation, affirmative action, and some of the rulings that have since changed from their ruling such as citizenship and how rife the current regime is not only to give it away, but also to make pathways in order to receive it.