Obama: Republicans Want a 'Moat' With 'Alligators' on the Border - President Obama - Fox Nation

Obama: Republicans Want a 'Moat' With 'Alligators' on the Border - President Obama - Fox Nation



Excuse me Mr. President.... You have not done everything to secure the borders! The border fence is less than complete. Border Patrol is still vastly undermanned and equipped. How do you stop illegal immigrants when agents are armed with bean bag rounds and the illegals have lethal firearms sold to them courtesy of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco? Over 3000 firearms sold to gunrunners upon the authorization of the BATF have been used in crimes in the United States against our citizens. These very same firearms were sold under Project Gunrunner and several other project names run by the BATF. That program, whether poorly or criminally run was intended to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drug dealers into the United States.



So no, Mr. President, our borders are not secure. Rather than pandering to your special interest groups such as La Raza and the Unions, why not visit the ranchers and homeowners who lost family members and friends to the criminal acts of illegals and drug dealers? Do you really want to be face to face with the families and co-workers of the Immigration, Border and BATF Agents killed or injured by these criminals? Are you willing to help pay the tab for enforcement, prosecution and incarceration for these border states? I thought not!



We do thank you for the idea of building a mote and we have here in South Carolina a very hungry breed of American Alligator which would be ideal to stock it with. It just might be cheaper than the fence, less costly to maintain and I know of whole neighborhoods in the South willing to stock it for free.

PISS MOAN Some More 07/27 by Southern Sense | Blog Talk Radio

PISS MOAN Some More 07/27 by Southern Sense | Blog Talk Radio

Join us today or listen in later!  This is YOUR show to vent on any topic you choose.

Recent studies show that people are happier and healthier if they set time aside to worry.  Well, here is your free 90 mins of fun and good friends to PISS And MOAN!

Just maybe someone out there has a solution or can help.  We can guarantee we will listen (at least for a few seconds). You never know!

Mark your calendar

Every week for 90 mins of self therapy!

Wednesdays 7PM EDT

Bookmark this link: http://www.BlogTalkRadio.com/Southern-Sense

Bogus Micro-Chips Risks Military & Civilian Lives & Safety

 

Since 2005 The US Commerce Department has warned of an increase of the import of counterfeit microchips which are used in Military Hardware, including F-15 jets, as well as civilian applications such as power grids and nuclear reactors.  The US Military has purchased over 59,000 of these chips.

Many of these chips are cheap knock-offs, while others are "Trojan Horses" programmed to fail intentionally.

As this story breaks, look for updates on the Southern Sense radio show and this blog!

PRESIDENTIAL POWER GRAB - ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

PRESIDENTIAL POWER GRAB

We need to call, email or FAX members of the US Senate and protest an upcoming bill.  S 679 is titled: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 The complete text is here: Click Here This bill removes from the Senate the power to vote their consent for Senior Government Appointments, placing in the Office of the President powers contrary to those accorded in the Constitution.  While it is tacit that the process to name and approve these appointments needs to be streamlined, it should not be upon the backs of our rights and freedoms declared in the United States Constitution. The Constitution's Appointment Clause reads: "... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." The Heritage Foundation wrote in a recent article the following: "The Senate Should Preserve, But Speed Up, Its Role in Senior Presidential Appointments When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power. The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate's consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office. Many of the Framers had practical experience with government and recognized that not every office would be of sufficient authority and consequence as to merit the attention of both the President and the Senate to an appointment to the office. Therefore, they provided a means by which the Congress by law could decide which of the lesser offices of government could be filled by the President alone, a court, or a department head."   By removing these offices from the Senate consent process, they diminish the power of the Senate and increase the power and role of the Presidency, further reducing the Checks and Balances set up by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution.  Furthermore, S 679 does not determine if the offices named in the bill are of "little or no consequence".  Rather, it deems that because the Senate is too slow, the sponsors feel that they should streamline the process and bypass the Senate Confirmation process.  Now wouldn't it make more sense that if speeding up the process of appointments, then the Senate shouldn't the Senators review their internal process and look to modify it?  Also, the Executive Branch  should look internally at their own procedures in an effort to streamline the vetting process which has become over-burdensome and invasive as it travels through the federal bureaucracy before reaching the Senate.  As usual, this legislation uses a sledgehammer to fix a problem, when a Love-Tap is more appropriate.  Legislation should not be necessary to "mandate" that the President tell his staff to cut the layers of bureaucracy, communicate with other departments and agencies (You know - Play nice boys!), nor to tailor the vetting process to the needs of the actual job the appointment is being made.  The "Working Group"created under the Executive Branch and appointed directly by the President not only is an additional power grab, but another layer of bureaucracy we can ill afford and a relinquishment of powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. ** More than 200 positions will be affected - this is a sampling of some of the Appointments to be directly under the Power of the President: The Agriculture Department's Commodities Credit Board Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service Administrator The Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The Commerce Department's Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information The Defense Department's Assistant Secretary for Networks and Information Integration The Assistant Secretaries of each of the armed services for financial management The Education Department's Assistant Secretary for Management Education's Commissioner of Education Statistics All 7 of the Assistant Secretaries of Energy The Department of Homeland Security's Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness Homeland Security's Assistant Administrator of FEMA for Grant Programs The Department of the Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer The Treasurer of the United States Director of the US Mint The Governors and Alternate Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (amending Section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act) Governor and Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank (amending Section 3(a) of the Asian Development Bank Act) Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund (amending Section 203(a) of the African Development Fund Act) Managing Director of the Corporation for National and Community Service The Office of Management and Budget's Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management Director of the Community Development Financial Institution Fund  If this doesn't scare you?  How about this fact - The bill sponsor is Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and includes Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) as co-sponsor.  The following Republicans also signed onto S 679: Alexander (TN) Brown (MA) Collins (ME) Johanns (NE) Kyl (AZ) Lugar (IN) McConnell (KY) Hot Air also has a good article on this boondoggle! Read it here!

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE NOW AND TELL THEM

VOTE NO!

ON S 679 AND ANY COMPANION BILLS THAT WILL DIMINISH THE POWER OF CONGRESS AND INCREASE THE POWER ACCORDED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

OH-klahoma, Why You Should Fear Sharia Law

As usual, another liberal judge is legislating from the bench.  The people of Oklahoma overwhelmingly passed Question 755 this past November, which is a State Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the courts from using international law or Sharia law in their decisions.  The amendment reads as follows:

"This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed."

There is a great difference between Sharia, Catholic Canon Law, Hebrew Law and Hammurabi's Code.  The Catholic and Judaic Laws are specific and written laws involving their own religious courts, judges and penalties.  These laws also recognize the authority of a nation's court upon all people within that nation.  Sharia is based upon the writings in the Qu'uran and the teachings of the prophet Mohammed, and subject to extremely broad interpretations.  Countries under Sharia Law enforce it upon all people of that country irregardless of their religious affiliations.  International law is loosely interpreted to include the laws of any other nation, treaties, pacts and agreements between various nations and/or peoples.   Courts in the United States refer purely religious law question to among the specific religion involved (i.e. - Catholic or Hasidim).  They by Constitution mandate, cite only Federal, State or Local enacted laws and defer religious cases back to the involved religious court.

For example, a divorce may be granted in an American Civil Court to a spouse and legally recognized.  The spouse is therefore eligible to remarry under U.S. law.  However, under the spouse's specific religion, the divorce may or may not be religiously recognized or granted.  The spouse may not be able to remarry within there original religion, but they are eligible to remarry under another accepting religion and/or an American court/justice of the peace.  This is true "Separation of Church and State". 

Under Sharia Law, the religion IS the state, there is no separation of one from the other.  The interpretation of Sharia Law is as vast and varied as the political ideologue of the ultra conservative as compared to that of the  progressive liberal.  There are no written unified codes and penalties, structured courts or specified procedures to elect/select judges under Sharia.  One Iman will declare Jihad is an inner personal journey of peace and redemption.  A different Iman will declare Jihad is a bomb laden vest, promise of Heaven with 20 virgins and the death of any Non-Muslims.  Each will claim they are enforcing true Sharia.

Citing international law is equally confusing when  one judge may rely on the laws of Spain in a case and a differing judge may cite the laws of Cuba to overturn the previous judges decision.  Now, if this doesn't convince you that U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange made a really bad decision with her injunction, consider, she completely ignores Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land" clause.  Muneer  Anwad and the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) in their petition cite the First Amendment, "Prohibiting the free exercise" of religion clause.  The logic, is that the amendment creates the impression that Islam is a religion that is a threat to the country.

I say, "What?"  No where does the amendment prohibit the free exercise of Islam.  It does prohibit the enforcement of Islamic Sharia law within the American court system and upon ordinary citizen of non-Islamic faith.  Question 755 re-enforces Article VI of the Constitution.  It narrowly specifies Sharia Laws and international laws, which progressives have slowly and insidiously been attempting to use to co-opt the American legal system.  It is tacit that freedom of religion exists as long as the exercise of that religion does not cause harm or undue hardship to others.  Can that be said of all forms of Sharia Law?

Senator Barbara Boxer Says She's Just Like A Vet Or Cop! Really?

In the latest act of stupidity, Senator Barbara Boxer compares her own and Maxine Waters accomplishments to that of the brave men and women in the military and those of police officers and fire fighters. PLEASE!  REALLY?

In a complete mockery of these tremendously brave persons, she seems to feel sitting on her posterior and doling out political favors is on par with placing one's life in the line of fire, protecting and serving the American people. 

This past July 24th in Inglewood, California at a campaign fund raiser, Ms. Boxer stated; "We know when you have veterans in one place where they can befriend each other and talk to each other.  You know when you've gone through similar things you need to share it.  I don't care if you're a policeman or a fireman or a veteran or by chance a member of congress.  Maxine and I can look at each other and roll our eyes.  We know what we are up against.  And it is hard for people who are not there to understand the pressure and the great things that go along with it and the tough things that go along with it."

In case I transcribed the words wrong, here is the YouTube video.

Really Ms. Boxer, (and no, you no longer deserve the title of Senator) are your Herculean efforts on par with running into a fire fight against an enemy who wants to destroy your country, your family and anything you hold dear?  Does your daily routine cause you to place your body between a criminal or terrorist and the innocent civilian, to take whatever blows, knife jabs and bullets in order to protect and serve the public safety?  Do your tireless duties cause you to risk life and limb by running into blazing buildings to rescue not only human victims, but pets as well? 

Ms. Boxer, please tell your constituents the one time you risked life and limb to defend or rescue them from harm?  Did you ever deliver their babies or rush them to the hospital in a medical emergency?  Did you ever spend long hours tirelessly standing duty to prevent the worst horrors from occurring to them?  And when they fell victim to some crime, where you there to help pick up the pieces, give comfort and seek out the perpetrators to bring them to justice?

Ms. Boxer, did you ever once, without doing a photo op, bring aid and much needed supplies to the neediest, without receiving a thank you, public acclaim or publishing a press release? 

Ms. Boxer, were you ever injured in a career ending line of duty incident, then sent into a bureaucratic maze of impossibility that would delay or deny your proper care and compensation?

Ms. Boxer, did you ever execute your duties according to the laws and your training, only to find yourself on the wrong end of a civil or criminal prosecution, fearing the loss of your financial security, job security or even your very freedom?

Ms.Boxer, did you ever walk out of your comfy home on your way to work and leave your spouse and children to wonder if you will make it home alive or even in one piece at the end of the day, much less months long tour?  Did you ever spend months on end under fire in the most God forsaken part of the world unable to call your loved ones and let them know you're still alive?

Well Ms. Boxer, when you have walked in the real shoes of veterans, police officers or fire fighters, then you will earn our respect.  Until then, spare us your sanctimonious and pompous statements.  From whence do I speak?  I speak from experience as a retired, disabled in the line of duty, Police Officer!  I stand in awe of our fire fighters and fellow police officers.  And, in greater awe of our military men and women, who give up months even years away from home and family to defend us.

Shame on you, Ms. Boxer!  It is not by "chance" but choice that you are a member of Congress.  Come this November, I pray it is by the choice of your constituents that they will do more than roll their eyes by voting you out and you no longer will be one!