If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from
again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy
and your fate will be sealed.
If you cross the Mexican borders illegally you will jailed for two years.
If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political
prison to rot.
If you cross the United States border illegally you get:
1 – A job
2 – A driver’s license
3 – A Social Security card
4 – Welfare
5 – Food stamps
6 – Credit cards
7 – Subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house
8 – Free education
9 – Free health care
10 – A lobbyist in Washington
11 – Billions of dollars in public documents printed in your language
12 – Millions of servicemen and women who are willing to – and do – die
for your right to the ways and means of our constitution
13 – And the right to carry the flag of your country – the one you walked
out on – while you call America racist and protest that you don’t get
enough respect.

(WaPo)- September 1st 2010

Federal domestic spending increased a record 16 percent to $3.2 trillion in 2009, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, largely because of a boost in aid to the unemployed and the huge economic stimulus package enacted to rescue the sinking economy.

The rise in spending was the largest since the Census Bureau began compiling the data in 1983. The Washington region was among the biggest beneficiaries of the government’s spending.

With congressional elections looming this fall, the spike in federal spending has emerged as one of the nation’s most contentious political issues.

Many Republicans accuse President Obama and his Democratic allies of being reckless spenders who are harming the nation’s long-term economic prospects by inflating the deficit.

“The stimulus put the nation a trillion dollars further into debt, which was bad enough, but an additional concern is that there will be efforts to extend and make permanent many of the stimulus programs,” said Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute.

August 27, 2010

My new book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” has just been released, and in many of my radio interviews, hosts have been asking me whether I believe Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. Though I don’t address that subject in my book, I’ll take a stab at it here.

First, let me confess that we can’t possibly know for sure whether someone is a Christian, in the sense that we can’t read another person’s soul. We can sometimes get a pretty good idea based on someone’s statements, professions and actions, but ultimately, Christianity is about an individual’s beliefs and his faith and personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

With that disclaimer and the further admission that I’m no expert on Islam, let me share with you some factors that I believe merit our consideration on the question of whether he is Muslim, Christian or neither.

In some ways, Obama exhibits a worldview that more closely resembles a secularist than it does either a Muslim or a Christian, especially in his views on social issues. Also, he seems to place a great deal of confidence in himself and in government to bring about transformational change.

How many God-fearing people have you known who would say “we (meaning I) are the ones we’ve been waiting for” or “generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”? The staggering conceit of these statements cannot be overstated.

Those who mocked President George W. Bush for openly declaring his faith in God and sharing that he prays to God for strength squawked about the horrors in Bush’s allowing his beliefs to influence his governance. Apart from the mockers’ misunderstanding of the proper intersection of faith and governance, let me pose another question.

Are you more comfortable with a chief executive who, along with the overwhelming majority of Americans, humbly admits to reliance on God or one who projects the impression that he himself is messianic? Which has a firmer grip on reality or comes closer to your own worldview?

Though the mockers would have us believe the former is abnormal, this can only be true if enormous numbers of Americans are lying to pollsters about their Christian faith. It’s time we quit acting as if belief in God and Christianity were some kind of oddity or government officials should or even could fence off their beliefs from their governance. Secularists certainly don’t.

Some counter with the oft-reported tidbit that Obama heavily relies on his spiritual advisers and receives a daily devotional on his BlackBerry. But can they explain away his messianic complex or satisfactorily square his apparent personal idolatry with his profession of Christian faith?

I have neither heard a believing Christian openly mock Scripture as Obama did during the campaign nor heard one mock those who cling to their guns and Bibles.

Though Obama would have us believe that he sat through 20 years of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons without hearing a word, it’s hard for us to overlook the fact that Wright took the Lord’s name in vain in his church and that the church subscribes to black liberation theology, which seems more race-centered than Christ-centered.

We also shake our heads in discovering that this church, through its publications, has championed the causes of certain terrorist organizations.

In office, Obama has rarely attended church and has routinely snubbed Christianity and Christian symbols while consistently espousing values inconsistent with the biblical ethic. On the other hand, he has gone out of his way to glorify Islam. He told us in one of his books that the Muslim call to prayer was the sweetest sound he’d ever heard.

More significantly, he said in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world that Islam is a revealed religion. I’m amazed this didn’t get more attention because it is extremely anomalous for a believing Christian to refer to Islam as a revealed religion.

The word “revealed” had to have been carefully chosen and was absolutely unnecessary to convey his overtures to the Muslim world. One needn’t affirm another person’s religion to extend him a hand of friendship and peace.

Words have meaning, and if Obama believes Islam was revealed, then he most certainly believes it was revealed by God. If it was revealed by God more than 600 years after Christ was on earth and contains beliefs wholly inconsistent with doctrinal Christianity — such as that Christ was not God, but a mere prophet — then, in that essential particular, it cannot possibly be reconciled with Christianity.

If Obama truly believes Islam was revealed by God, I can’t fathom how he could be a believing Christian. I don’t know that Obama is not a Christian, but I am dubious.

August 26th 2010  L.A Times

President Obama has scheduled an important back-to-school address to the schoolchildren of the United States. It will be on Sept. 14 — hopefully during the entire math lesson — carried online and via national television into any classroom.

Obama’s first annual address to the country’s kids in school (see video below) ignited a medium thunderstorm of professed concern and criticism.

It seems the administration’s eager Department of Education, run by Arne Duncan, Obama’s basketball-playing buddy, sent out an official lesson plan to the nation’s teachers suggesting that their young charges be told to write essays about “what they can do to help the president.”

Wed, Aug 25th, 2010, 11:14 pm (EST) by Jordan Douglas Games have become an easy target for politicians and the mainstream media. The latest controversy comes as Britain’s Defense Secretary Liam Fox calls for a retail ban of the “disgusting” and “tasteless” Medal of Honor reboot coming this fall, set in present day Afghanistan. Fox’s complaints lie in the portrayal of the Taliban in Medal of Honor, which allows players to take control of the terrorist group versus other player-controlled US soldiers in online, competitive multiplayer. Statements such as these often come from those looking to score cheap points or get attention by attacking a medium they do not understand – the Defense Secretary seems to fit the mold rather well.
During his tirade against Medal of Honor, Fox stated how “shocking” it is “that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers.” He told the BBC, “I am disgusted and angry. It’s hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.”

Here we see the first of many signs that Mr. Fox is speaking from a position of ignorance, as British soldiers are not featured in the game. Even after being corrected on that, Fox refused to detract from his earlier remarks. There’s also the question as to how the minister is able to make such sweeping comments about a game that has not been released, one where relatively little information has been shared with the public.

Is the very presence of the enemy in an ongoing armed conflict enough to label something disgusting and tasteless? That seems hard to justify. The fact is more established creative mediums – such as film and literature – feature the depiction of enemies in war, often in a much more graphic fashion. Is Oliver Hirschbiegel’s Downfall tasteless simply because it’s told from a German perspective during the Second World War? Most people wouldn’t make that assumption. Therefore, looking at other forms of entertainment, the only conclusion is that Fox singled out Medal of Honor because it’s a game.

In terms of game precedents, EA’s Frank Gibeau, president of the games label, was quick to out point the countless other games that have put players in the shoes of opposing forces. In a separate interview with the BBC, Gibeau said, “Many popular video games allow players to assume the identity of enemies, including Nazis and terrorists. In the multi-player levels of Medal of Honor, teams will assume the identity of both US forces and the Taliban.”

The argument that Medal of Honor actively seeks to promote the Taliban in a positive light, or does so indirectly, because of its multiplayer component or setting doesn’t carry much weight. The idea likely would’ve been quickly dismissed if it were another entertainment medium in the spotlight. Hopefully we’ll soon reach a point in society where games aren’t so easily marginalized.

Associated Press, From the American Family Association,

The Obama administration will give away nearly $6 million of American tax dollars to restore 63 historic and cultural sites, including Islamic mosques and minarets, in 55 nations. See the State Department document here.

This is an outrage! Our country is broke. And can you imagine what the ACLU and others on the secular left would say if these monies had been spent to repair Christian churches? They would be screaming “separation of church and state!” Funding Islam on foreign soil with American taxpayer money? Not a whimper.

The latest taxpayer givaway includes $76,000 for a 16th century mosque in China, $67,000 for a mosque in Pakistan, $77,000 to restore minarets in Nigeria and Mauritania, and $50,000 for an Islamic Monument in India.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. program to restore Islamic and other cultural sites in other countries is taxpayer money well spent.

Court says stem cell research destroys human embryos, stops federal funding

WASHINGTON — Reuters  A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research in a slap to the Obama administration’s new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

“(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,” Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

The unusual suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued that the NIH policy violates U.S. law and takes funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

The U.S. Department of Justice and NIH had no immediate comment.