1) Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2) A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3) A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4) A percentage of zakat (alms) must go towards jihad (zakat is paid by Sharia-compliant banks as “fees” to the government; they keep track of these on the computer terminals sold to them by Bloomberg LLC – yes, Mayor Bloomberg’s company, which he owns 85% of).

5) It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6) A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and male (shocker!).

7) The Muslim public can remove the Caliph in only one case: if he rejects Islam.

8 ) A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9) A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber, making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10) A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11) Sharia never abolished slavery or sexual slavery, and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12) Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13) Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork (what? I can’t walk down the street eating a BLT? Preposterous!), cannot recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14) It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

15) A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16) Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17) No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18) A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslim minority.

19) Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20) There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21) Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22) Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23) There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24) A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25) A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26) The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27) A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28) The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29) A woman loses custody if she remarries.

30) To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31) A rapist may only be required to pay “bride-money” (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32) A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

33) A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with”. These are called “temporary” marriages, or mut’ahs, and can last from one hour up to ninety-nine years. The “contract” for said marriage expires at the end of the contracted time period, with no further obligation on the part of the man.

The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us: what part of the above is compliant with the U.S. Constitution? Or how - with all of its inherent, guaranteed rights and freedoms - is the Constitution in any way, shape or form “compliant” or in sync with the severe restrictiveness of Sharia law?

The mainstream media and our politicians are in denial of any existential threat from Sharia. To them, Islam is just another co-equal, peaceful religion. As far as it pertains to personal faith, that is fine; but Sharia (the political and legal movement) must never be considered a religious right but be outlawed. To this day, slavery and oppression of women and minorities are the law and highly regulated by Sharia. Our president and congress must act to prevent us falling to our very own underground Islamic groups demanding: Sharia or else!

FOREVER VIGILANT!

There have been many instances over the past year and a half where we’ve seen Barack Obama do and say things that completely puzzle us, especially on the international scene. Many pundits have called it, and rightfully so, Obama’s “Apology Tour”. What is there to apologize for? Doing more than our fair to keep the world safe? Every time he opens his mouth, it seems there is something he is trying to bow and scrape before the international crowd for some perceived American faux pas.

The same thing can be said about his actions and attitudes. Everything he does seems to be an attempt to offer redress for some perceived wrong done to some group here in the land of the free and home of the brave. Even some of the seemingly innocuous changes that this administration’s various agencies have been made, if not on his express demand, than at least with his direct approval. Take for example the change earlier this summer of the layout of the Department of Justice (hah – in this administration, that’s certainly a contradiction in terms) website; particularly of the change of the banner.

The previous website and banner can be viewed here. The banner was not only the same throughout the entirety of the Bush Administration, but that of Clinton’s as well (so Obama can’t blame that on Bush). The new one can be viewed here. Gone are the Stars and Stripes, or any semblance of America. Black and gold; I’m told that’s a favorite color scheme of a number of Islamic states. Hmmmm. More telling, however, is the quote in the top right of the banner. “The common law is the will of Mankind, issuing from the life of the people.” The quote is from C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930’s was a leading proponent of the “international law” movement, which had as its goal to impose a global common law and which backed “global workers’ rights”; a man who facilitated a greater role for socialists and communists at the U.N., and the global workers rights movement. In other words, a Marxist. Fits right in with the Obama regime, doesn’t it?

A little more about Mr. Jenks. A British lawyer, back in the late 1930s and after World War II he was a leading figure in the “international law” movement, which sought to impose a global common law, and advocated for global workers rights. Jenks was a long-time member of the United Nation’s International Labor Organization, and author of a number of globalist tracts, including a set of essays published back in 1958, entitled The Common Law of Mankind. As director of the ILO he is credited with putting in place the first Soviet senior member of the UN organization, and also with creating an environment that allowed the ILO to give “observer status” to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and to issue anti-Israeli statements, which precipitated efforts by the U.S. Congress to withdraw U.S. membership from the ILO. The U.S. actually did withdraw in the mid-1970s due to the organization’s leftist leanings.

“It was Jenks’s efforts that helped make the ILO a tool of the socialist and communist movement,” says one of the DOJ lawyers. “We used to joke about how fitting it was that this was Janet Reno’s favorite quote to use in speeches, and now the Obama folks think it encapsulates out department’s mission.”

Suggestions to highlight quotes from the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights or quotes from the Founders, the Federalist Papers or prominent American jurists were quickly shot down by the DOJ’s media and new media teams, according to DOJ sources familiar with the design process, and the White House communications shop was given input to the overall design as well.

The redesigned website was launched without fanfare, but was noticed internally by several career lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of political reprisals. “We were told that the media team and the senior leadership that signed off on the design thought that the patriotic shtick from the Ashcroft days was a bit much for an agency that isn’t supposed to be political,” says a DOJ lawyer, who inquired about the redesign. “It was a real effort not to laugh at that.” No, they’re not political. But they ARE American.

Interestingly enough, a couple of the profiles of Eric Holder on the DOJ home page look remarkably like those that I’ve seen of Josef Stalin. Coincidence? Maybe he’s using the same photographer as King Barry, who apparently tells His Majesty to assume the “heavenly gaze” pose for his glamour shots; makes me want to hurl. We’ve gotta get rid of these people – legally – as soon as possible, before they completely destroy our country. Scary stuff, friends. Scary stuff.

Statistics aside, one question has always plagued me: why, if these government-run health systems are so great, do people who can afford it (including senior government officials [the Premier for Newfoundland, Danny Williams, went to Florida this past February for his heart surgery instead of going anywhere in Canada) come to our country for their health care? The question, of course, is rhetorical and the answer is obvious: while our health care system is in need of some tweaking and repair, our medical care is the best in the world, hands down.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S.                 65%
England         46%
Canada          42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S.                 93%
England         15%
Canada          43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S.                 90%
England         15%
Canada          43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S.                 77%
England         40%
Canada          43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S.                 71%
England         14%
Canada          18%

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”:
U.S.                 12%
England            2%
Canada             6%

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want “Universal Healthcare” comparable to England or Canada .
Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, “Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age.” SHIP HIS SORRY REAR END TO CANADA OR ENGLAND! He is “elderly” himself, but be sure to remember his health insurance is different from yours insofar as Congress has their own high-end coverage! He will never have to learn to accept “inconveniences”! I say what is “good” for us regular citizens should also be “good” enough for our elected representatives; that may give them pause in enacting some of this “groundbreaking” (more like back-breaking or bank-breaking) legislation.

Some other very good comparison statistics can be found at here.

AND THE WINNER IS VERY INTERESTING!
The percentage of each past president’s cabinet (for the last 109 years) who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is: a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages:

T. Roosevelt       38%
Taft                       40%
Wilson                 52%
Harding               49%
Coolidge             48%
Hoover                 42%
F. Roosevelt       50%
Truman               50%
Eisenhower       57%
Kennedy             30%
Johnson             47%
Nixon                   53%
Ford                     42%
Carter                  32%
Reagan               56%
GHW Bush         51%
Clinton                39%
GW Bush            55%

And the winner of the (rubber) Chicken Dinner is:

Obama                  8%

Yep! That’s right! Only eight percent! The least by far of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what’s best for GM….Chrysler….Wall Street….and you and me? I don’t think so. Hope? Nope. Change? Yes, but not the kind we want or need.

I can see November from my house. Can you?

What else propels him? Taking what he wants just because he wants it. Feeling the surge of power, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of stealing a piece of her. Anything else? Yes: feeding primitive, twisted impulses; expressing sadistic needs; the savage excitement of subjugating and controlling another.

Those most likely to rape? Someone who was sexually abused himself, an outsider, a person robbed of a normal childhood. A man who has carved an identity out of rage and envy and resentment. Someone who feels entitled to take whatever he wants.

What fosters rape? Parents missing in action. A culture that thumbs its nose at God. A society that not only minimizes crime, but even heralds certain criminals as heroes (some Black Panthers were rapists, yet they’re revered as idols). A culture where punishment is weak and politicians are moral cowards, fearful of the ACLU.

What else? A media that celebrates debauchery, that entertains through degrading and objectifying. Popular rap songs and cool hip-hop artists whose words slice and dice women. Films where anything goes, where hot lesbian sex scenes are as omnipresent as those bone-headed authority figures. 

And the aftermath of rape? The destruction of something in the victim that will never return: a feeling of safety in the world, in her own body. The nightmare of being treated as an animal; no, worse than this, since animals are now venerated. And from this nightmare she may never completely awaken.

This, in a nutshell, is how rape works. But words alone can never capture the enormity, the horror, the soul-crushing evil of rape. And not only females can be victims; men and little boys are violated, with women, on rare occasions, as perpetrators.

The word “rape” has an intriguing history. It originally denoted the violent seizure of property. I’m going to use the term in both the historic and modern sense to convey what is happening today. 

This country is being raped.

It’s no coincidence that the race for the presidency began with vile behavior against Hillary Clinton – a high-tech wilding of sorts, with her body and sexuality defiled. But the abuse of Clinton was a walk in the park compared to what was done to Sarah Palin. Because she’s a conservative, and an attractive, younger woman, the debasement progressed at a fever pitch.  

And just like in a gang rape, people who could have done something about it didn’t. In fact, the liberal media and many Democrats have stood around watching, egging on the players. Can someone explain to me how the Democrats’ complicity is any different from what happened last October at Richmond High School? There, a gang of boys raped and beat a girl as a crowd not only snickered, but filmed the assault.

We also have the economic rapes, the constant shrieks of “Gimme, gimme.” Give me what you have because I want it. Whether it’s the iPod torn from your ear, or a big chunk of your income, or your standard of living, no matter. I want it, I demand it, give it to me.

Or the intrusions into our very bodies by ObamaCare’s Biggest of Big Brothers. Our medical records, our personal information, our physician/patient relationship, our DNA; they want it, so they will take it from us.

And now that the Left has finally appropriated our health care and our student loans, our banks and newspapers and automobile companies, are they happy? Satisfied? Grateful, for goodness sake? No. The mocking continues, the outright threats and the violence escalate. Suddenly conservatives are not simply opponents exercising First Amendment rights. We’re delusional, crazy, violent, and not quite human.

This is what happens when miscreants get away with immoral behavior. In the criminal arena, when the bad guys are given a wink-wink, or a “boys will be boys,” or, “He’s a victim of white privilege,” the perp becomes more emboldened. And he’s even more contemptuous of a culture that lets him get away with, quite literally at times, murder.

Still not convinced that what’s going on is the Rape of America? What about the queering of children, our School Czar having a history of teaching kids about fisting and “water sports”? Or schoolchildren being subjected to graphic talks by transsexuals, transvestites, or promoters of the sexuality du jour? What about forcing their way into young, impressionable minds, teaching them to hate? Like Palestinian children programmed to despise Israelis, our kids also learn animosity – but towards America.

Still not sure that the sexualization of children, the wilding of women, the looting of the economy, and the intrusions into our bodies constitute the Rape of America? I have one final piece of evidence. A majority of citizens are shouting “No,” from the rooftops. No! to ObamaCare. No! to socialism. No! to trashing the Constitution.

And yet, to Obama and the Left, the assertion of “No” does not matter. Smug and entitled, drunk with power and giddy when they see our fear, they take what they want anyway.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, and I’ll keep on saying it: the Democrats haven’t changed their beliefs in the last 40-plus years. They used to be more discreet about it, doing their nastiness behind closed doors and in the dark of night so to speak. But no more, especially in the last four years. Now they don’t care who knows what they’re doing and when they do it. They’ve blatantly moved their progressive agenda into the light for all to see, even though the vast majority in the country – including a sizeable chunk of their own party – oppose these policies.

The next several months will be critical. We must be diligent. We must stand tall. We must face down tyranny when we encounter it. But most of all we must REMEMBER NOVEMBER!

“All we’re doing is going into the basket and saying, ‘Damn, what did they do in ‘32, what did they do in ‘34, what did they do in ‘36,’ and we’re pulling them out, dusting them off, giving them a paint job, correcting the fenders a bit, and we’re using them…To get us through the horrendous problems we may have over the next several years, we’ve got to make these old programs work, and we’ve got to be as inventive as hell.” Quite an admission, wouldn’t you say?

In May of 2008, the Dow-Jones was 2000 points higher than it is today, and unemployment was at about 5.5 percent, half of today’s national average. At least though, most of FDR’s Keynesian programs were focused on temporarily creating jobs by building things. But that’s the paradox: pace Rep. Kanjorski, we can’t do what they did in ‘34 and ‘36. Thanks to a morass of political correctness, NIMBY – “Not In My Backyard” – extremism has gone BANANAS – “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.”

So Obama’s leading us down the same path to socialism – and into severe depression – as FDR did, only Obama has more fervor (and FDR didn’t have the United Nations to back him up as Obama does). But where it is even more important for King Barry to emulate Teddy instead of Franklin is in the ideas of immigration and, more importantly, the role the immigrants must assume. On February 1, 1916 for example, Roosevelt advocated measures for strengthening and ensuring the “loyalty” of American immigrants:

“…Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted  to regard him only as an industrial asset. We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship.”

A few months later, Roosevelt expanded on this theme in a series of Memorial Day speeches he delivered in St. Louis. Using the motto “America for Americans” for all Americans, whether they were born here or abroad, the former President declared that “the salvation of our people lies in having a nationalized and unified America, ready for the tremendous tasks of both war and peace.”

“I appeal to all our citizens,” the colonel said, “no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischief makers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace or of national origin.”

Col. Roosevelt said he came to St. Louis to speak on Americanism, and to speak of and condemn the use of the hyphen “whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin or of the country from which they or their fathers came.”

He was equally against the native American of the wrong kind and for the immigrant of the right kind, the former President declared, but the immigrant who did not become in good faith an American “is out of place” in the United States. He said each nation should be judged by its conduct and that the United States should oppose encroachment on its own rights, whether Germany, England, France or Russia [or Mexico] be guilty of misconduct.

“The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself,” the colonel continued, “by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to breed a spirit of bitterness, prejudice, and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans [or Mexican-Americans], then after a while others are certain to band together as African-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance [or a Mexican-American alliance], means down at the bottom an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries, jealousies and hatreds.”

In a Fourth of July speech in 1917, Roosevelt urged the adoption of linguistic uniformity, including a requirement that all foreign-language newspapers published in the U.S. should also include English translations:

 Touching on the matter of language, Col. Roosevelt declared that “We must have in this country but one flag, and for the speech of the people but one language, the English language. During the present war all newspapers published in German, or in the speech of any of our foes, should be required to publish, side by side with the foreign text, columns in English containing the exact translation of everything said in the foreign language. Ultimately this should be done with all newspapers published in foreign languages in this country.”

Likewise, on 27 May 1918, Roosevelt urged in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, that English be the sole language of instruction used in American schools. English as the sole language for schools, newspapers and other usage in this country was urged by Theodore Roosevelt in an address under the direction of the National Security League. In voicing his approval of the recent proclamation by Gov. Harding, ordering that English be the only medium of instruction in public or private schools in Iowa, Col. Roosevelt  said:

“This is a nation – a polyglot boarding house. There is not room in the country for any 50-50 American, nor can there be but one loyalty – to the Stars and Stripes.”

In a letter written shortly before his death in January 1919, just a few months after the armistice that ended the fighting in World I, Pres. Roosevelt said:

“…There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple.

“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

“If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.

“We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.” [the emphasis is mine]

WOW! If that ain’t a cold hard slap of reality, I don’t know what is!

I’m not an isolationist, folks; we simply can’t ignore the outside world and let it crumble around us. If we do, pretty soon it’ll be pressing on us from all sides because our enemies will have taken over. But at the same time we must watch after our own sovereignty, the rights of our citizens and those who have come here (and are still here) legally, and to the utmost security of our borders. People immigrating here is fine – legally. But more importantly, if you come here, be loyal to “here”. Learn our language. Strive in all possible ways, as immigrants in generations past did, to assimilate to our country. No more “press one for English”. Hyphenated Americans only divide our country, build barriers, and create too many walls.

I issue a call to Barack Obama: Mr. Obama, TEAR DOWN THESE WALLS!

Right before the Iowa Caucus: “Iowa will make the difference,” Mrs. Obama said. “If Barack doesn’t win Iowa, it is just a dream. If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be.” A little arrogant and presumptuous, are we?

“For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” she told both a crowd in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin (in the same day), “because it feels like hope is making a comeback.” 2/18/08

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” How about you, Shelley? You gonna give up a piece of YOUR pie? Somehow I doubt it…….

“Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign [condescend] to enter this messy thing called politics.” Puny little feeble-minded humans!

“America is just downright mean.”

“Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection.” - Michelle’s failed pitch to the IOC (um…ew. Mrs. Obama was 20 years old when Lewis first competed in the Olympics in 1984 – well, it could be true; but if so, that would be really creepy). Both her and her husband seem to have no problem lying about stuff when it suits them (remember Barry talking about how his grandfather or uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, or how his father fought in some other WWII battle?).

I mean, come on; if these things had been said by a conservative BEFORE an election the press would’ve had a field day and they would have been absolutely excoriated, pilloried, and hung by their thumbs. You know and I know it. And they most CERTAINLY wouldn’t have made it all the way to the White House. Now, if Conservatives had indeed had said stupid stuff like this, I’d be one of the first to tell them to crawl back under whatever rock you came out from under. All I’m asking for is FAIRNESS and CONSISTANCY to have been applied. An unreasonable request? To not do so only undermines credibility.

When all is said and done, just two words need to be kept in mind: REMEMBER NOVEMBER!

However, and far more than King Barry wants to admit, those coming across the border aren’t just seeking a better life for their families. You have, of course, the human traffickers, who have their “customers” conceal who-knows-what and packing all kinds of stuff into the country on (and in) their persons. Hey, they’re coming here anyway, right? But you also have the more nefarious drug cartels with their thugs, the violent gangs, and the increasing number of Middle Eastern ne’er-do-wells who wish us nothing but harm trying (and succeeding) to sneak across our border.

Here I give you a small sample of  what was found by the Federales within the last week just south of the border – at just one “bust” (the fact that only one bad guy was killed but 25 got away makes it a little suspect in my mind). Now, with the corruption they have down there, I don’t doubt they sell the stuff to the highest bidder, or turn it over to whatever rival cartel they happen to be in the pocket of. Too scary to think of. This has got to be a token, just a show to make it look like they’re doing something. But if this is what they “catch”, think of what they let slip by. I shudder to think

First, a display of the M-16’s and RPG’s they found.

And a small sampling of the ammo……

And still more ammo……

RPG’s and Barrett 82A-1 50 BMG (.50 caliber) semi automatic rifles (hmm….wonder what they were gonna do with those?)

M-16’s, AK-47’s and much, much more. Question: what do you think they were planning on doing with these in the U.S.?

An organized crime camp?

One dead guy. Twenty-five escapees. Think they drew straws? Maybe he was the new guy? Think the Federales consulted the rulebook for their RoE first?

And still more stuff…….

And look! The bad guys had 12 SUV’s (probably armored to some degree) waiting to take them to their dream vacations in the Promised Land…….

Toss some RPG’s and launchers into the soup…..

…..and some fragmentation grenades and you have yourself a real party. But really; why does Arizona pick on illegals….I mean undocumented workers?

And what’s extra ammo without stylish pouches to carry it all in?

 Semi-automatic pistols and magazines come in handy for those running fire-fights……

Seriously, there is a lot of firepower here.

Planning on starting a little war, are we? M-4 assault rifles, full auto.

And can’t throw a party without a way to communicate with the guests. About 200 2-way radios.

“We were just going to have an ice cream and you asked me for my papers. Honest!”

LOTS of spare magazines (and I don’t mean Time, People, or Tiger Beat).

A veritable ocean of weapons. Just a walk in the park…….

Kill range is 1 mile with the Barrett.  The others are RPG’s used by the Taliban and the rest of the peace-loving citizens in the Middle East.

And you didn’t think these fine upstanding people were gonna come visit us in the buff, did you?

And what would uniforms be without the police and military accessories to go with them? Like flak jackets and bullet-proof vests. Quite the fashion accessory and all the rage, from what I hear…….

Next time you hear someone defending illegals coming into our country I hope you remember these photos. When was the last time you took your grenade launcher and M16s for ice cream?

Exactly where did you hear about it in OUR media? Nowhere.

Thank goodness for the border patrol that this did not come over the border; I’m sure some of it would’ve been used on them, especially with their phony-baloney, no-contact rules of engagement policies sent from “the smart people”. Janet Napolitano says our border is secure. When was the last time you were at the border in PERSON Janet, even when you were Governor of Arizona? Pinhead.

Let’s quit trying to decide who is violating our federal laws “to make a better life” and ENFORCE the laws across the board on EVERYONE violating them. Nothing discriminatory about that, amigos!

The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that African Americans born in the United States were guaranteed the right of citizenship. It was commonly understood to be the case, as affirmed by Senator Jacob Howard in 1866:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Additionally, the Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation in the now famous Slaughterhouse cases.

Everything changed with the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the ruling of which has been grossly misinterpreted. This case affirmed that the status of someone’s parents is paramount in determining citizenship. The confusion lies in the fact that this case didn’t concern illegal immigrants.

It’s time for democracy to trump liberal, activist judges. I implore you to support Senator Lindsey Graham’s bill to amend the fourteenth amendment to its original intent.

You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”.

Both families have two parents, two children and live in California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour, with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number and gets paid $15.00 cash per hour, ”under the table”.

Ready? Now pay attention…..

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week or $52,000.00 per year. Now take minimum 30% away for state and federal tax and Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays NO state or federal taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00 (and don’t even try spouting the leftist mantra that “illegal immigrants don’t qualify for free government aid”, because while it may be technically true and on the books somewhere, in practice and REALITY is in wide-spread and open practice).

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare, due to his “anchor children” that were born in the US. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00 (see above disclaimer).

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, plus what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home and he needs to pay for a babysitter to watch them while he and his wife work.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them, whereas Jose did not pay anything.

Do you get it now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal immigrants in any manner, then you are part of the problem! It is also way past time to rescind the “anchor baby” law. Remove the incentives for illegals to rush across our border to give birth and thus have access to benefits Americans have worked and paid their entire lives for!

In any case, these people happen to be kingmakers in a political atmosphere where “creating jobs” is – or should be – the number one thing on your agenda.

Enter President Obama’s entire presidency.

The need to cater to the skill-less wanderers of society has been a pressing concern for Obama since the economic catastrophe/depression/Great Recession/financial meltdown/fiscal holocaust (no, I’m not being sarcastic!) began in September of 2008. Surely enough, the president has come to their aid with billions of borrowed dollars. Of course by “their” I’m referring to the president’s political allies.

Too bad the spoils system on steroids hasn’t resuscitated the American manufacturing industry. Any growth we’ve seen, principally in the first quarter of 2010, was due to a resurgence of imports/consumer spending, not stimulus. Sorry Mr. Obama.

There’s a point to this rambling: Mr. Obama is at it again, albeit on a smaller scale. If a $30 billion jobs bill is small scale.

How much more time and money are we going to give this president to “recover” the economy? Americans should be smart enough to realize what’s really going on: a political stunt for this November’s elections. If they can frame Republicans as obstructionist, then they – in theory – will mitigate their losses. I wouldn’t expect too much of a recovery the Democrats any time soon.