Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Playing 20 Questions With The Commander In Chief

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Playing 20 Questions With The Commander In Chief
Anyone who has ever sat through one of President Barack Hussein Obama’s heavy-petting sessions the corporate media call “interviews” or one of his extremely infrequent press conferences knows that wresting a straight answer from Barry is one tall order. As a conservative, I have about the same chance of scoring a sit-down with his Imperial Highness as Media Matters high priest David Brock does of silencing the voices in his head.

But what if I could interrupt one of Obama’s secret skeet-shooting sessions for a little verbal one-on-one? What questions would I pose to the most deliberately opaque President in American history? Since CBS News’ Steve Kroft has already handled the light lifting, I suppose there’s not much point in repeating the same softballs “60 Minutes” substituted for substantive sound bites.

I compiled a list of 20 questions I’d love to hear Obama answer. Of course, given his dim view of media outlets that don’t toe his statist line, I’m aware that I’m more likely to play Q&A with Obama’s auditory hallucinations and/or his little friend who totes the unregistered, semi-automatic handgun with a capacity of well more than seven rounds. But, hey: If liberals can dream of a day without liberty, then I can certainly dream of a day with a forthright President.

Thus, I would pose these interrogatives to The One, and I fully intend to do so (right about the same time Secretary of State — and Obama heir apparent — Hillary Clinton learns how to make those crocodile tears believable):
  1. Since your plan to reduce so-called “gun violence” centers on the elimination of so-called “assault weapons” instead of something that hasn’t already been proven ineffective in places like Chicago; Washington, D.C.; and Newtown, Conn., will you consider yourself responsible when so-called “gun crime” rises after you disarm the people? Or will you just stick with blaming President George W. Bush, conservatives and/or law-abiding citizens for your own ineffectiveness?

  2. I suppose you can’t really deport Piers Morgan just for being an imperious British twinkie, but can’t you sign an executive order forcing him to do his show from the Camp Lejeune rifle range? I would DVR the heck out of that show.

  3. How do members of your Secret Service detail manage to stifle their laughter when (if) you shoot skeet at Camp David?

  4. How do you Democrats reconcile being pro-abortion but anti-capital punishment? Is it just that the unborn are easier targets, or are you concerned about the death penalty’s detrimental effect on the ability of ACORN (or whatever the hell they’re calling themselves these days) to “get out the vote”?

  5. Is Eric Holder’s Spanish good enough to order lunch in Mexico, or do his narcoterrorist clients speak English?

  6. Did you let the “Benghazi Four” die because you really didn’t give a crap, or did you think you were watching “Blackhawk Down” on Air Force One’s big screen before grubbing for cash in Las Vegas?

  7. Does Hillary Clinton make little stabby gestures every time your back is turned?

  8. Since you’ve broken your promise to close Gitmo, have you considered putting in a golf course? I hear it’s lovely this time of year, and you could hit the links with some of your friends?

  9. When the Democrat Channel (aka MSNBC) minions come for a visit, how do you get those unsightly Rachel Maddow stains out of the rug in the Oval Office? Furthermore, does Al Sharpton have to fight the urge to pick up Maddow and hurl her at every teenage intern who walks by?

  10. What did fake Congressional witness Sandra Fluke have to do in exchange for the Democrats making her famous (for a little while, anyway)? Did it involve the sort of behavior Bill Clinton might enjoy? Did she charge the whole thing to Georgetown University?

  11. Is it possible to dial some of those 1-900 numbers from an Obamaphone?

  12. How come I’ve never seen your wife and Oprah Winfrey in the same room? Hang on; they’ve been in the same room. Which one was which?

  13. As or at which is Joe Biden most effective:
    a.Throw rug
    d.Guessing the number of jelly beans in the jar on your desk

  14. Do you actually enjoy hanging out with union thugs like Richard Trumka, or is that just part of the job? (Cough twice if you’re afraid to answer because they’re in the room.)

  15. According to your party and its corporate media, high gas prices were the fault of President George W. Bush during his term, but you are powerless to affect them. Does it hurt your feelings to hear your own minions say you’re impotent by comparison?

  16. Where is the “Choom gang” now, and can you hook a brother up?

  17. Have you told Malia and Sasha about the crippling national debt with which you’re saddling their generation, or will they be running for office as well?

  18. Since you lied about not hiking taxes on the middle class, can we at least get a better spot in line for the Obamacare death panels?

  19. If the Democrats successfully pass Representative Jose Serrano’s bill to eliminate the 22nd Amendment, will you personally visit the Texas Legislature to convince lawmakers to ratify it, or will you send Serrano? (If I were you, I’d send Serrano.) Also, will you still be known as “President Obama” or will you go with something cooler, like “His Most Royal and Serene Highness, Lord of All He Surveys and Ruler of the Known Universe, the Sultan Barack I?”

  20. Before he goes to bed at night, does the boogeyman check under his bed for Rahm Emanuel?
I’m willing to acknowledge that not all of these questions are worthy of a dignified interview with the commander in chief, but neither is the current commander in chief. At the very least, I’d obviously hit the real issues a great deal harder than Kroft. Fortunately for me, I work for Personal Liberty Digest™, not some bush-league liberal hack farm like “60 Minutes.”

Immigration Reform, School Choice and the Proposed Border Commission

By: Hugh Hewitt / Townhall Columnist
First, a terrific compendium of think tank analyses of immigration compiled by the wizards at is here.

If you are going to debate immigration reform, be smart about immigration reform, especially about the positions of the opposite party's intellectuals.

This means among other things being smart about school choice for immigrant children. Vouchers for newly regularized immigrants under the age of 18 empowering them to attend any public or private school in the city in which they reside should be part of the GOP amendments to any immigration reform bill. The cost of such a voucher is zero additional dollars if used in a public school and if used for, say, a Catholic school, it would be far less than the actual cost of attendance –which is about $3500 on average for a Catholic school in the U.S.—but enough to get some private schools to accept some of the young, newly regularized immigrants.

The reasons for marrying vouchers and education reform to immigration reform are many, and that is why I discussed the idea with both Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Jeff Flake on the Monday their bipartisan group's principles were announced (those transcripts are here), and with AEI’s James Pethokoukis the same day, and why I hope many more conservatives will take up the idea in the weeks ahead.

First, while education is largely a local and state issue, the federal government has plenary authority over immigration. It has the power to impose vouchers on every school district in the country when it comes to newly regularized immigrants under the age of 18. It doesn’t have to use the Constitution’s spending power or its taxing power. The Congress can simply mandate that the newly regularized young immigrants may attend any school in the city in which they locate and it can give a private school voucher payable from the Treasury. So Congress has the authority.

Next, regularizing these children and then condemning them to the worst performing elementary and secondary school does nothing to advance the assimilation goals of the genuine immigration reformer.

Pethokoukis has written about this and assimilation ought to be a huge focus of regularization.

Third, as Arthur Brooks has repeatedly argued, conservatives have to be for the poor –really be for them—if we want to make the best case, which is the moral case, for free enterprise.

A grudging acceptance of immigration reform does nothing to communicate the reality of the conservative hope for immigrants. Putting the education of the newly regularized immigrants at the heart of the GOP response to immigration reform puts a moral response at the center of the conservative contribution to the debate.

Fourth, adding vouchers for immigrants under the age of 18 adds that issue to the larger debate in a way that will quickly divide the Democratic activists, some if not many of whom look at immigration reform as a means to an end of generating loyal voters and foot soldiers in their larger ambitions. Introducing vouchers into the debate throws a light on the decrepit schools into which many of these immigrants are herded –read Jay Matthew’s Work Hard, Be Nice on the origins of the KIPP program in Houston’s inner city schools—and would thus broaden the discussion into areas that the left doesn’t want to go, which brings me to the last but perhaps most appealing to some argument for marrying vouchers to immigration reform.

If vouchers can be introduced for immigrant children, school choice will quickly spread to many millions of children. The very first call I got on this idea the Monday the debate opened was from a young woman asking why her sister's kid couldn’t have a voucher but an illegal immigrant kid could. Precisely the reaction that I expected and the answer is twofold.

First, the federal government cannot mandate the use of vouchers for state governments and for local school systems. The Congress can, however, create vouchers which must be honored under its authority over federal immigration law. Even if it could expedite the use of vouchers through its spending power, it will not do so because of the blocking power of the teachers' unions. Those unions will be hard pressed to oppose immigration reform legislation because it proposes to empower the parents of newly regularized immigrant minors.

Second, and this is the key, once such vouchers are issued to and used by regularized immigrants the same sort of vouchers will be demanded by millions of parents sick to death of the failure of urban education, a failure rooted in a lack of competition. Vouchers for regularized immigrant children are the wedge to open up the use of vouchers across the United States. They are a very good thing on their own, but they would be the door to school choice for all children. Refusing to support a great reform simply because you are not first in line to benefit from it is shortsighted in the extreme.

It will take just one senator or representative to offer a well-written amendment to the immigration reform bill to thrust the issue of education into the center of this debate, and every member of Congress who starts talking this up will get very good press which he or she will deserve. Judging by their responses to my questions on the subject, neither Senator Rubio nor Senator Flake seemed to have considered doing so although the question of what happens to children brought into the country illegally by their parents in fact sparked the debate’s reopening last year, but both seemed intrigued.

The immigration reform train is moving out of the station and doing so very, very quickly. Conservatives and the GOP leaders they look to can demand that some things be on that train that serve the public good, and not settle for just genuine border security. Will the left really stand against vouchers that will obtain real education opportunity for the children they purport to be trying to help?

One final note on the debate as it opens.

The left, led by the Washington Post's Greg Plum, quickly zeroed in on the proposed Border Commission yesterday, and demanded that it only be advisory, which of course means it must be invested with real authority, and the triggers it is empowered to pull on regularization must be tied to real, measurable improvements, including the numbers of miles of new, double fencing built. Its membership must not be susceptible to being captured and manipulated, as “independent” commissions on redistricting were captured and manipulated by Democrats in Arizona and California. Governors and Attorneys General in California, Arizona, New Mexico and three northern border states as well as Florida with its immigration issues makes sense, along with three members named by the leaders of the parties in both houses. I'd like to serve on that commission in order to make sure its proceedings were publicized, and the GOP must use its appointments to serve that end of keeping the public's attention focused on the deliberations.

The new legislation must also oblige the Commission to hold public hearings, to conduct its business transparently, and to vote publicly and not by voice vote so that the elected officials and appointees serving must publicly declare that so many miles of double fencing have been built, so many agents have been deployed etc, and do so issue by issue. Such a commission could be constructed so as to really work and to force along border security improvement, but not if it is like most D.C. commissions. A citizen suit provision --so beloved by the left in environmental laws-- should be included to provide for court review of triggers that ought not to have been pulled. (In fact, the new law should make sure that environmental laws do not obstruct border security improvements.)

The Rubio-led GOP effort is off to a good start, and Jeff Flake is another welcome, new voice in the debate, but it is just a start and the Republicans have to be willing to work on the details, be innovative and continually appear in public and defend their ideas.

Beginning with vouchers for new immigrants under the age of 18.
Whose Welfare?

Whose Welfare?

If there is ever a contest for the law with the most grossly misleading title, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 should be a prime candidate, because the last thing this Act protects is the welfare of Indian children.

The theory behind the Indian Child Welfare Act is that an American Indian child should be raised in an American Indian culture.

Based on that theory, a newborn baby of American Indian ancestry, who was adopted immediately after birth by a white couple, was at 27 months of age taken away from the only parents she has ever known and given to her father.

Apparently the tribe has rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act. If this child were of any other race, a court would be free to decide the case on the basis of whatever was in the best interests of the child. Instead, the child is treated almost as property, contrary to the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery.

Fortunately, the legal issues growing out of this case are now before the Supreme Court of the United States. We can only hope that the justices will use their wisdom, instead of their cleverness, to decide this case.

Solomon’s wisdom provided a good example many centuries ago, in a case where two women each claimed to be the mother of a child and each demanded custody. Since he did not know who was the real mother, King Solomon said that he would cut the child in half and give each mother her half.

When one of the women dropped her claim, in order to spare the child's life, he knew that she was the real mother. Anyone who would ruin a helpless child's life, in order to assert their own legal prerogatives, or to protect the tribe's turf, raises very serious questions about what kind of parent they are.

The question is not which home is better, but whether the child will ever feel secure in any home again, after the shock of being forcibly taken away.

The welfare of a flesh-and-blood human being should trump theories about cultures -- especially in the case of a two-year-old child, who has been torn away from the only parents she has ever known, and treated as a pawn in a legalistic game.

This little girl is just the latest in a long line of Indian children who have been ripped out of the only family they have ever known and given to someone who is a stranger to them, often living on an Indian reservation that is foreign to them. This has happened even to children who have spent a decade or more with a family to which they have become attached and is attached to them.

There have already been too many scenes of weeping and frightened children, crying out in vain for the only mother and father they have known, as they are forcibly dragged away.

Whatever the merits or demerits of various theories about culture, they are still just theories. But too many people put their pet theories ahead of flesh-and-blood human beings.

One of the rationales for the Indian Child Welfare Act is that, in the past, Indian children were wantonly wrested from their Indian parents and sent off to be raised by non-Indians. But nothing we can do today can undo the wrongs of the past -- especially not by creating the same wrongs again, in reverse.

While those who are most victimized by the so-called Indian Child Welfare Act are the children ripped out of their homes to satisfy some theory, they are not the only victims.

Indian children without biological parents to take care of them can be needlessly left in institutional care, when there are not enough Indian foster parents or adoptive parents to take them into their homes.

The Alice in Wonderland legal situation can hardly encourage non-Indian families to take care of these children, when that can so easily lead to heartbreak for both the children themselves and the surrogate parents who have become attached to them.

The New York Times reports that fewer than 2 percent of the children in Minnesota are Indian, but 15 percent of the children in that state's foster care system are Indian. In Montana, 9 percent of the children are Indian, but Indian children make up 37 percent of the children in foster care.

What a price to pay for a theory!

An event I wholeheartedly support

On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive actions against your 2nd amendment Constitutional right to bear arms. He did this without the consent of Congress which in itself, violates the foundation of the Constitution and the co-equal branches of government.

In response to these unconstitutional actions by the President, on .223, February 23, 2013 the American people will stand together in defiance to protect the right that protects ALL of our rights, the 2nd Amendment! They will organize locally so that they may band together neighbor to neighbor and reassert their community's right to determine their own destiny! Join today by selecting an option below:
Yes! I want to resist. Please connect me with others near me!
Yes! I want to help organize a rally near me!
Yes! I have begun organizing a rally and would like to register it for promotion and would like to be provided with a list of people who sign up close to me!
Please provide sponsoring organization if you've already organized a rally and need promotion assistance.

Already registered and looking for an event? Check out the Official List of Rallies here.

Paid for by Stop This Insanity Inc., a 501 c4
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
In conjunction with Stockton Strategies LLC.

Immigration reform...a necessary evil
By: Diane Sori

“Yesterday the ghost of immigration reform past reared its ugly head. In 1986 we went down this exact same road with amnesty for 2-3 million illegal immigrants. I heard the word “contingent” used often. Furthermore, the Senate Judiciary Committee is headed by Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The final decision on immigration could mean a permanent dependent class and a permanent electoral block for the next generation. One can only estimate where political loyalties would lie, and imagine what happens to job opportunities for those here in America legally.” - LTC Allen West

So said Allen West after Monday's press conference where a bipartisan group of Senators announced a 'Pathway to Citizenship' proposal that would give legal status to the 11 million ILLEGALS currently in this country (three times larger than the amnesty plan passed under Reagan in 1986, which legalized about 3 million immigrants but did NOTHING about enforcement), and would include those students currently under auspices of the 'Dream Act'.

And while Allen is one hundred percent correct in what he says (he usually is), and I might add that I personally believe ALL who came here ILLEGALLY are criminals knowingly breaking our laws, hence the term ILLEGALS, the fact remains that most people, conservatives included, do want some sort of plan that would lead to citizenship for the people already here, in addition to an overhaul of the non-functioning non-enforced immigration laws currently on the books.

And non-enforced is at the crux of the problem for the non-enforcement is what allowed us to reach the point we're at now.

But at this point in time make NO mistake about overhaul is needed because Republicans are sadly losing the Hispanic vote, a vote they once had, as witnessed by the November election where Hispanics ran from ALL Republican candidates like they were poison, sending a clear message that we must find a solution to the very real immigration conundrum.

According to committee member Florida Senator Marco Rubio (whose original plan this proposal is somewhat based upon), this proposal starts with the fact that our borders MUST be secured and sealed BEFORE any other measures move forward. And by 'securing' that also means that a better tracking of people here on visas must be implemented (especially to insure that they leave when their visa is up). Only after that's been accomplished would ILLEGALS be permitted to apply for legal status by applying for a green card to earn a chance to stay, and a green card would NOT happen unless a thorough background check was done and proof of gainful employment along with an established work record is presented. Also, a fine and any back taxes owed would have to be paid before the green card was given, and the person receiving the green card would NOT qualify for any federal aid. Learning English and civics would also be a

After having a green card for a probationary number of years (still to be determined) ONLY then would they be allowed to apply for citizenship, but they would go to the back of the line BEHIND those who've come here legally and applied the right way. Also of note is that NO ILLEGALS convicted of crimes would be allowed to get a green card...they would be deported.

And no matter what the naysayers claim, this proposal is NOT blanket amnesty because as Marco Rubio says, “Amnesty is the forgiveness of something and nothing is being forgiven.”

Basically, when everything is stripped away, this 'Pathway to Citizenship' proposal is really just giving the ILLEGALS a chance to file for a green card as they should have done when they first came here.

In addition, when this proposal was presented, Rubio made it clear, and this is extremely important, the Democrats must at all costs be kept from passing a bill that gives these ILLEGALS the right to vote before they complete the so-called 'Pathway to Citizenship'...meaning NO voting until they have become full citizens.

This one point is beyond critical because if allowed to happen we all know the outcome...a lock hold on our government by the liberal Democrats will be the rule of law for years to come and this, while the Democrats goal, is NOT the intended goal of this proposal.

But even with this proposal and the best of bi-partisan intentions, Obama can always be counted on to throw a wrench into the mix and to play politics, as witnessed yesterday in his speech in Las Vegas. While NOT outwardly challenging this bi-partisan Senate bill, Obama did NOT endorse it and in fact tried to sabotage it.

As expected, Obama wants a faster path to citizenship for ILLEGALS, that gay couples (who he called our brothers and sisters) living here ILLEGALLY to be included in any proposal, and said absolutely NOTHING about border security being implemented first before anything else goes forward. Of course he wouldn't because if it was up to him he'd open all the in the more that come here and support Democrats the better it is.

But most importantly was Barack HUSSEIN Obama's threat, and threat it was, and I quote, "If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away."

Just who the hell does this man think he is to 'insist' on when or on what Congress votes. NO president has the right to 'insist' dictate...when or on what Congress votes on. Talk about overstepping his bounds...but than again, Obama doesn't see himself as president but as our supreme ruler and savior (gag).

And with statements like this, Barack HUSSEIN Obama has proven himself yet again to have committed crimes against America by NOT abiding by our system of checks and balances of power. So once the Senate proposal is passed (and I believe it will be), and according to its content, lets deport this Constitution hating ILLEGAL president back to where he came from...and it 'aint Hawaii.

Oh, and by the way, he can take ALL his muzzie brethren with him.