Common_Sense's Blog

This was in the London Times today.  I have to wonder why this story is being completely ignored by the American "news" media.   If this was Bush or even McCain, it would be the lead story on the evening news.  It would be on the front page of the Arizona Repugnant.  Instead, not even Fox is carrying it.

I can't think of any election in my life in which the media has so clearly supported one candidate over the others.

Mansion 'mistake' piles the pressure on Barack Obama

The London Times

February 26, 2008

A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.

Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.

Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions.

It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.

In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations."

Mrs Rezko, whose husband goes on trial on unrelated corruption charges in Chicago on March 3, refused to answer questions about the case when she spoke by telephone to The Times.

Asked if she used money from her husband to buy the land next to Mr Obama's house, she said: "I can't answer these questions, I'm sorry."

Asked how long she and her husband had known Mr Auchi, she replied: "I will not be able to answer this question."

Mr Auchi's lawyer, asked whether the Fintrade Services loan was used to buy the land which became Mr Obama's garden, stated: "No, not as far as my client is aware."

Mr Auchi's links with Mr Rezko are a new political headache for Mr Obama, the charismatic Illinois senator vying to become America’s first African-American president.

Hillary Clinton has sought to make Mr Rezko, who has bankrolled Mr Obama's political career since his first run for the Illinois state senate in the mid-1990s, into an election issue by calling him a "slum landlord" in a televised debate. She has repeatedly suggested that Mr Obama has effectively not been "vetted" by media scrutiny and will not withstand "the Republican attack machine".

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr Obama, told The Times: “The bottom line is Obama does not recall ever meeting him [Mr Auchi].”

The house-and-garden deal raised questions about whether Mr Rezko, a property developer and fast-food restauranteur, made it possible for the Obamas to purchase a mansion they could otherwise not afford.

Mrs Rezko paid the asking price for the garden but the Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million, - $300,000 less than the asking price. The sellers deny they offered the Obamas a discount on the house because the garden had fetched full price from Mrs Rezko.

Mr Rezko has since been indicted for allegedly scheming to pressure companies seeking business with the state of Illinois for kickbacks and contributions to the governor Rod Blagojevich's campaign. He goes on trial on March 3.

A prosecution document filed last month alleged that a "political candidate" - identified by the Chicago Sun-Times as Mr Obama - received a $10,000 campaign contribution from what is said to be a $250,000 kickback in the corruption case. That means Mr Obama's name could figure in Mr Rezko's trial, although he is not accused of any wrongdoing.

Mr Obama insists he never used his office to do favours for Mr Rezko but admits that, as an Illinois state senator, he once wrote letters to housing officials urging them to provide money in support of a proposed apartment building for elderly people which Mr Rezko wanted to build.

Mr Obama has publicly sought to atone for his closeness to Mr Rezko, paying $150,000 to charity to distance himself from a man accused of political corruption.

The spotlight fell on Mr Rezko's ties to Mr Auchi last month when the Chicago businessman was thrown in jail for violating his bail terms by failing to declare a different $3.5 million loan from the British billionaire, made in April 2007. Prosecutors feared Mr Rezko, who travels widely in the Middle East, might flee to a country without an extradition treaty such as his birthplace of Syria.

Mr Auchi was convicted of corruption, given a suspended sentence and fined £1.4 million in France in 2003 for his part in the Elf affair, described as the biggest political and corporate scandal in post-war Europe. He, in a statement from his media lawyers, claims he is appealing against the sentence.

Mr Auchi founded his Luxembourg-based General Mediterranean Holding (GMH) in 1979, a year before he left Iraq. He says that he did business with his native country when it was considered a friend of the West but ceased to trade with the late Saddam Hussein's regime once sanctions were imposed after the invasion of Kuwait.

Mr Rezko has told a court that Mr Auchi is a "close friend." Mr Auchi's lawyer told The Times: "It is untrue that my client and Mr Rezko are 'close friends'. Mr Auchi first met Mr Rezko after the 2003 Iraq war and they have a business relationship."

Mr Rezko and Mr Auchi have been partners in a pizzeria business in the Mid-West and a major 62-acre land development in Riverside Park in Chicago.

According to court documents, Mr Rezko's lawyer said his client had "longstanding indebtedness" to Mr Auchi's GMH. By June 2007 he owed it $27.9 million.

Under a Loan Forgiveness Agreement described in court, Mr Auchi lent Mr Rezko $3.5 million in April 2005 and $11 million in September 2005, as well as the $3.5 million transferred in April 2007.

That agreement provided for the outstanding loans to be "forgiven" in return for a stake in the 62-acre Riverside Park development.

A posting last week on a GMH-owned website, middle-east-online.com, portrayed Mr Auchi as a Middle Eastern "Donald Trump" with a global business construction empire.

Mr Auchi visited the United States in 2004. Pictures show him meeting Emil Jones, the president of the Illinois state senate, an ally of Mr Obama, a former state senator.

Both Mr Auchi and Mr Obama say they have no memory of meeting each other. But, according to a source, the two may have had a brief encounter at the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago where Mr Auchi’s visit was being honoured with a dinner attended by the Governor when Mr Obama, coincidentally in the hotel, dropped in.

An aide to Mr Obama said he did attend an event at the Four Seasons at which Mr Rezko was present but does not remember meeting Mr Auchi. "He shook a lot of hands and met a lot of people," the aide said. "We do not remember individual people."

Prosecutors say that, after Mr Auchi was unable to enter the United States in 2005, Mr Rezko approached the US State Department to get him a visa and apparently asked "certain Illinois government officials to do the same." Mr Obama denies he was approached. Mr Auchi's lawyer has emphasised to The Times that it would be entirely false to imply that money had been lent by GMH to Mr Rezko in return for Mr Rezko seeking to assist Mr Auchi to obtain a visa. The two men's relationship, the lawyer stressed, was a busines s one.

Mr Auchi's lawyer said the purpose of the Fintrade Services loan was to "assist the financial position" of a pizzeria company called AR Pizza, in which GMH held a shareholding. He said the loan had since been repaid in the form of a greater stake in the Chicago 62-acre land project.

AR Pizza has since become a defendant in a civil lawsuit by the Papa John's pizzeria chain, which alleges that it continued to operate a string of former Papa John's franchises under the name "Papa Tony's" without permission.

Mr Auchi's lawyer said: "My client played no part in the management and/or day to day running of AR Pizza, the GMH Group being an entirely passive investor in the company. Further, there was no need as a mimimum return on the investment was guaranteed. As to the court proceedings, my client is not a party to these. He denies any wrongdoing in relation to his involvement in AR Pizza."

Mr Rezko was also a major fundraiser for Governor Blagojevich. The governor's chief fundraiser Christopher Kelly, who also served as his gambling adviser, is fighting tax charges related to betting losses. The Associated Press reported that last month Mr Auchi's conglomerate also gave a loan to Mr Kelly secured on a Nevada land deal which the governor’s bagman was involved in.

Here's yet another example of Fox 10's liberal bias for those bozos who claim Fox is "conservative."  This is a tear-jerking propaganda piece, a lead story on New Year's Day, about an illegal alien family that was properly deported.  The piece is clearly designed to invoke sympathy for the woman who was driving a vehicle without a driver's license or insurance.

Furthermore, the article describes Derechos Humanos, the group that reported the non-story, as a "human rights group."  Derechos Humanos is an anti-America Marxist group dedicated to the "repatriation" of the Southwest United States to Mexico.  It's a seditious group of traitors who fabricate and lie to make American authorities look bad.  Yet, Fox 10 repeats their lies and calls them "a human rights group."  Pathetic.

Finally, the article makes a big deal of the "three U.S. children."  These children were born to two Mexican nationals.  They are only "U.S. children" by virtue of a loophole in the law that says if a pregant illegal squeezes out her baby on U.S. soil, that baby is a U.S. citizen.  That loophole, known as the "Anchor Baby Law" is costing U.S. taxpayers billions in welfare benefits.  This law needs to be repealed.

Why Fox kowtows to hate groups like Derechos Humanos and accepts their press releases defies logic.  85% of Americans are fed up with illegal aliens and WANT them deported.  Why does the media feel compelled to be the propaganda arm of those who want to allow illegal immigration?

Jonathan Livingston Obama

I ’ve caught Obama fever! Obamamania, Obamarama, Obama, Obama, Obama.

 Only white guilt could explain the insanely hyperbolic descriptions of Obama’s “eloquence.” His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides. In announcing his candidacy, Obama confirmed that he believes in “the basic decency of the American people.”

And let the chips fall where they may! Obama forthrightly decried “a smallness of our politics” — deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, “My fellow Americans, size does matter.”) He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: “There are those who don’t believe in talking about hope.” Take that, Hillary!

Most weirdly, he said: “I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this — a certain audacity — to this announcement.” What is so audacious about announcing that you’re running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you’re officially a Democratic candidate for president.

Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters. There were about 400 more reporters at Obama’s announcement than Mitt Romney’s, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama. Obama has locked up the Hollywood money.

Even Miss America has endorsed Obama. (John “Two Americas” Edwards is still hoping for the other Miss America to endorse him.) But Obama tells us he’s brave for announcing that he’s running for president. And if life gives you lemons, make lemonade!

I don’t want to say that Obama didn’t say anything in his announcement, but afterward, even Jesse Jackson was asking, “What did he say?” There was one refreshing aspect to Obama’s announcement: It was nice to see a man call a press conference to announce something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. B. Hussein Obama’s announcement also included this gem: “I know that I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”

As long as Obama insists on using Hallmark card greetings in his speeches, he could at least get Jesse Jackson to help him with the rhyming.

If Obama’s biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn’t learn anything the first four years.

There was also this inspirational nugget: “Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what’s needed to be done. Today we are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that call.” Is this guy running for president or trying to get people to switch to a new long-distance provider?

He said that “we learned to disagree without being disagreeable.” (There goes Howard Dean’s endorsement.) This was an improvement on the first draft, which read, “It’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”

This guy’s like the ANWR of trite political aphorisms. There’s no telling exactly how many he’s sitting on, but it could be in the billions.

Obama’s famed "eloquence" reminds me of a book of platitudes I read about once called “Life Lessons.” The book contained such inspiring thoughts as: “When was the last time you really looked at the sea? Or smelled the morning? Touched a baby’s hair? Really tasted and enjoyed food? Walked bare I can’t wait for Obama’s inaugural address when he reveals that he loves long walks in the rain, sunsets, and fresh-baked cookies shaped like puppies.

The guy I feel sorry for is Harold Ford. The former representative from Tennessee is also black, a Democrat, about the same age as Obama, and is every bit as attractive. The difference is, when he talks, you don’t fantasize about plunging knitting needles into your ears to stop the gusher of meaningless platitudes.

Ford ran as a Democrat in Republican Tennessee and almost won — and the press didn’t knock out his opponent for him by unsealing sealed divorce records, as it did for B. Hussein Obama. Yet no one ever talks about Ford as the second coming of Cary Grant and Albert Einstein.

Maybe liberals aren’t secret racists expunging vast stores of white guilt by hyperventilating over B. Hussein Obama. Maybe they’re just running out of greeting card inscriptions. I’ve caught Obama fever! Obamamania, Obamarama, Obama, Obama, Obama. (I just pray to God this is clean, renewable electricity I’m feeling.) foot in the grass? Looked in the blue sky?” (When was the last time you fantasized about dismembering the authors of a book of platitudes?)

by Ann Coulter

Note to Fox 10:  Can you dispense with the "Happy Holidays" crap this year?  It's not "the holidays", it's Christmas.

There is only one legitimate national holiday in December:  Christmas. 

The major Jewish holiday is Passover.  Hannukah is a minor holiday, not even celebrated by most Jews. Hannukah has been elevated by the liberals and the atheists solely to dilute Christmas.

Kwanzaa is a bogus "holiday" devised by a racist black criminal and separatist, Ron Everett (a.k.a Maulana Karenga), who thought Christmas was "too white."  Even the Black Panthers think that Karenga is too extreme, and a former Black Panther now says that "Kwanzaa separates black people from the rest of Americans."

The word "kwanzaa" means, roughly, "first fruits" and was chosen so that the make-believe holiday would seem to be modeled after a traditional harvest celebration. However, there are no such celebrations in Africa, never have been, and in fact there are no harvests of any kind in Africa in December or January! Shame on the gullible fools who say that "kwanzaa" is "Pan-African" or has been celebrated in Africa for "hundreds of years." Not only is this made-up holiday as American as apple pie or race riots, but there is no "Pan-African" culture to begin with; the sovereign nations of Africa have dramatically different cultures, customs and holidays.

Anyone who has read anything about "kwanzaa" or its perpetrator should came to realize that there is not one aspect of this "holiday" that is not either fraudulent or racist at its core.  Why would any mainstream media outlet promote such a divisive "holiday"?

Observing CHRISTMAS in December is an American tradition.  It is the ONLY legal holiday in the month.  It is the sole reason for the lights, the festivities, the gift buying, etc.  So, why cave in to the leftists and the atheists and refuse to acknowledge what everyone knows:  it's MERRY CHRISTMAS, not "happy holidays."  Get a backbone and chuck the political correctness.

I have discovered a site, operated by USA Today, where you can answer questions and the site will show you which candidates most closely match your political philosophy. 

USA Today gave the same questions to all the candidates, and after being matched to a candidate, you can see how they answered the questions.

The site is called "The Candidate Match Game."  Click this Link and you can go there.  Please post your results in this thread.

My top three were:

1. Mitt Romney

2. Mike Huckabee

3. Fred Thompson

I think this article clearly points out the way liberals use lies as merely a tool for the promotion of their dogma.  Liberals are dedicated to restructuring our society, and they're simply not going to let something like "truth" get in their way.  Perhaps liberal smears and lies will backfire on them if enough people discover their methods.

Modern Day McCarthyism
By Phillip Ellis Jackson

October 9, 2007

There has to be a legitimate outrage to protest, before one can protest an outrage legitimately.


There's an old axiom in politics that goes something like this: If you're losing the argument, change the subject. Get caught destroying records from the National Archives or plagiarizing the work of others? Talk about the lies and deceptions of your political enemies; or as a fall back, admit to some non-specific lapse of judgment, then check into re-hab for a week or two to confront the same human foibles we all possess — but you have the singular courage to tackle. Collect some illegal campaign contributions from a notorious swindler? Talk about the pressures of a campaign that don't allow you to micro-manage every small detail of your life; or as a fall back, reaffirm your commitment to campaign finance reform while simultaneously giving the little people whose donations were bundled an opportunity to re-contribute those same funds in a more legitimate fashion.

There's nothing particularly nefarious about changing the subject, mind you. We all do it to some degree or another in our daily lives. Only when truth-stretching reaches a certain level of hyperbole does it cause a problem. Being late for dinner with your in-laws because of a mythical traffic jam or last minute crisis at work is one thing. Being late because you were abducted by aliens or had to perform open heart surgery on your boss with a pocket knife is another.

And so we get to three recent, and highly-"coincidental" attacks by the Left on Conservative opinion leaders following the public relations fiasco of the Petraeus-Betray Us ad. Unable to explain away their supposed good-intentions in launching the highly personal attack on a genuine war hero, Moveon.org, Media Matters and the rest of the First Amendment R [only for] Us crowd decided to do the next best thing. When you're being clobbered for your own stupidity and political boorishness, and your base is howling that you haven't lived up to your campaign promise to immediately pull the US out of Iraq regardless of the consequences, there's only one thing left to do. Change the subject. And how does one do this in politics today? You go on the attack.

Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. Stupidity, ignorance, greed, and a myriad of other foibles deserve to be pointed out when the practitioners are public servants in general, and elected officials in particular. And there's even a legitimate place for doing the same to non-elected, but otherwise public opinion leaders like we find on talk radio and cable TV. But all this presumes one tiny little thing that in its haste to change the subject, the Left seems to have forgotten (or deliberately ignored).

There has to be a legitimate outrage to protest, before one can protest an outrage legitimately.

Case #1: Bill O'Reilly makes racist comments.

This would be a story worthy of public condemnation; that is, if it was true. While eating at a restaurant in Harlem, O'Reilly commented that there would be less racism in America if all people could see what he saw; normal people leading normal lives who happen to be of a different race than they might be. This, of course, was immediately portrayed by the Left as Bill speaking in code that Blacks are indeed different, and deserve to be treated as such.

Huh? Talk about the fact that we shouldn't let superficial differences divide us, and this somehow becomes code to return all Blacks to slavery? To the Left, there is nothing supposedly questionable about this. All conservatives talk in code — that's the only way they can be understood. Surely no one is simple-minded enough to believe conservatives actually mean the things they say, literally? Therefore, "reduce taxes" is code for "hate minorities". "Obey our laws" is code for "deport everyone who isn't white, whether they're here legally or illegally." And of course there's the all encompassing "I'm proud to be an American", which translates into "kill and rape as many innocent Iraqis as we can."

So when the O'Reilly smear first appeared, there was a tendency to believe that the Left was just being its typical insane self and seeing boogeymen where no such boogeymen exist. That's the generous interpretation. The non-generous interpretation is that these people are so unhinged that they not only believe this stuff, they are quite prepared to draw any conclusion whatsoever and shout it from the nearest rooftop if it will tarnish the character and reputation of someone on the Right. Whether the charge is true or not is just a detail; the accusation makes a nice, blunt political weapon that when wielded in conjunction with a mainstream press that doesn't question its scholarship or conclusions, is designed to take conservatives and/or conservative ideals down a notch or two in the eyes of the marginally-politically informed public.

Or so I thought until case #2 quickly appeared on the horizon.

Case #2: Rush Limbaugh defames our troops.

There was a time in our country's history when certain things were thought to be universally true. If the President said X, X was probably true. Then came the Bay of Pigs. You could leave your child with a Catholic priest and never give the matter a second thought. Then came a few dozen highly publicized cases of … well, you get the idea.

So, the fact that a man who has led the effort to support our troops in a time of war now stands accused of defaming those same troops, makes us pause to consider the charge. As illogical and counter-intuitive as it seems, we can't simply dismiss the charge out of hand without further looking into the matter. If a civil rights leader can use a racial slur against Jews, then why can a Conservative talk show host be equally hypocritical in his support for American soldiers?

To answer this question, let's start with what, exactly, is the charge? Rush is said to have called every single U.S. soldier in the United States military who opposes his (Rush's) point of view a "phony soldier". Only those who toe the Limbaugh line are "real soldiers". This has resulted in a firestorm of criticism from the Left, led by the hyper-patriot Harry Reid, who is offering a Congressional resolution condemning the supposed slur on American soldiers. No word yet on whether John Murtha has signed on as a co-sponsor.

I happened to hear this exchange live when Rush was making the allegedly idiotic statements. Rush was clearly speaking about Jesse MacBeth and other darlings of the Left who have falsified claims of military service to accuse the U.S. of committing atrocities in Iraq, not about legitimate American soldiers who don't share his views. Limbaugh is the top dog in Conservative talk radio, and a charge like this — if true — would do substantial damage to his credibility and therefore his political influence. True, no one who has listened to Rush, or who has taken the time to look at the transcript of what was actually said, will give this charge any credence. But it does serve the purpose of further distracting the public from the Petraeus-Betray Us controversy by manufacturing a phony moral equivalence charge against Limbaugh.

And, to those who get their news from MTV, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and other similar sources, it will help to marginalize Limbaugh in a perverse sort of way. They can claim that US troops routinely rape and slaughter innocent civilians, and say that US troops who support the war are illiterate uneducated fools deceived by their superiors, but supposedly calling soldiers who disagree with your opinions "phony" crosses the line! Such is the logic of the Left, where you can still smear a guy by claiming that he believes exactly the same things you do!

Which brings us to Case #3.

Case #3: Michael Medved supports slavery.

Conservative talk show host Michael Medved — are we noticing a pattern here? — recently wrote an opinion piece entitled "Six Inconvenient Truths about the U.S. and Slavery". Medved was not making excuses for the despicable practice of trading in human lives, but rather sought to put U.S. slavery in perspective with the worldwide slave trade of that era. Among his points were that while participating in the slave trade, Americans didn't invent it. They weren't even the most egregious practitioners. And to its credit, America ended the practice.

All of which has led to the posting of a phony (can I use that word?) photoshopped image of Medved holding a Robert E. Lee statue, with the claim that his article was a stalwart defense of the institution of slavery and tacit support for America's role in it. I won't waste any more time on these manufactured charges, since the article he wrote speaks for itself
Link

What I will do is point out another obvious attempt by the Left to shut down all politically incorrect debate (politically incorrect as they define it), and attack both the messenger and his message.

This whole phenomenon of smearing your opponents is nothing new. Universities have been practicing it for decades where free speech and the open exchange of ideas is strongly encouraged — unless you object to homosexuality, question affirmative action, believe that radical feminism is misguided, etc., at which point you are brought before the university administration to answer charges of making "hate speech." Similarly, both political parties have routinely pounced on the stupidity of their opponents to make legitimate political points, from McGovern's "1000%" backing of Thomas Eagleton, to Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook".

What distinguishes the past from today is the way the Left has chosen to discredit ideas from the Right not by attacking those ideas, but by condemning something that was never said or done. It's modern-day McCarthyism, and we all have a responsibility to recognize it for what it is and oppose those who practice it, regardless of our political preferences. It was no more correct to smear people in the 1950s who disagreed with your political opinions than it is to do the same in the 21st century.

I'm not holding my breath, though. The Left has raised the political smear to an art form, and it's not one they will relinquish easily. Why debate policies when you can create phony documents about George Bush's military service? The lesson from this fiasco wasn't that political smears are wrong; but that when manufacturing a phony document, remember to use the correct font. Why argue with Medved's scholarship when you can photoshop him holding a statue of a Confederate general to make your point? Why take on O'Reilly or Rush on the things they actually said, when it's so much easier to attack them for things they never said?

Why indeed? To save the Left the trouble of responding, I'll write the headline they'll use to summarize this article. "Jackson defends O'Reilly's racist comments, Limbaugh's slur on U.S. troops, and Medved's support for slavery."

I'm sure this fairly and accurately encompasses the main points I was making.

Amnesty Fight Returns to Congress

By Bobby Eberle

 September 18, 2007

During the summer, the debate over so-called "immigration" reform was waged not just in Washington, but across the country. With the Bush administration and top pro-amnesty senators backing a bill that would grant legal status to millions of illegal aliens, passage of the bill seemed certain. However, the Senate and the president learned the power of the grassroots. Through actions such as phone calls, petitions, letters to Congress, and word of mouth, a movement spread around the country that resulted in the clear defeat of the bill. Now, that grassroots coalition will again be tested as the Senate once again tries to sell amnesty to the American people.

As noted in the Washington Times, there are several pieces of legislation (in the form of amendments to other bills) that, if passed, would grant amensty to millions of people currently in the U.S. illegally. It is quite apparent from these actions that the Senate does not listen to the voices of grassroots Americans.

During debate this summer on the large scale, comprehensive amnesty bill, there were calls by some senators and others for "border security first." This made perfect sense to me. Let's clamp down on the borders and prevent more illegal activity. This is the most important aspect of immigration reform, especially in a post-9/11 world. With the failure of the bill, as noted in the Washington Times, "it appeared as though enforcement -- better border security and workplace checks on employers — would see action." However, that is not the case. Rather, Democrats "have pressed measures on the other side of the equation to legalize some groups of illegal aliens."

First is an effort by Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin to grant amnesty to illegal alien students under his "Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act." This bill would "grant legal status to illegal aliens who arrived here before the age of 16, have lived here at least five years, graduated high school and finished at least two years of college or military service."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) noted in Congressional Quarterly that the so-called "DREAM" act "would allow states to provide college benefits to illegal immigrants" and that the measure could benefit "1.3 million illegal immigrants."

Second, as noted by Sessions, is that liberal California Sen. Dianne Feinstein "plans to offer an amendment to the five-year farm bill that could come to the floor in October that could legalize 1.5 million farm workers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated they would bring another 1.8 million relatives into the country with them."

The Times reports that Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid promised Feinstein that "he would find floor time for the agriculture workers proposal."

What is so frustrating about all of this is that bills such as these are such a slap in face to law-abiding Americans. The grassroots soundly rejected amnesty... illegal behavior and activities should not be rewarded! Yet politicians keep pushing and pushing -- waiting for that moment when the grassroots isn't paying attention, and then -- BOOM -- a bill is passed. We can't let that happen!

An informed and movitivated grassroots is the most powerful force in politics. We must continue to stay informed, and when the time comes for action, we must be ready. Congress needs to build the fence! Border security comes first.

Please phone, write, and fax your representatives, including "Turban" Durbin", and demand that they honor the will of the people who elected then.  No "Dream Act" and NO amnesty of any kind!

With city shelters filled and a surge of further refugee claimants expected to flood into Windsor, Mayor Eddie Francis is pleading for financial help from Ottawa.

"When there is a possibility of adding thousands to the local social assistance system as a result of refugee claimants crossing the border into Windsor, we will become overwhelmed and our current resources will not suffice," Francis wrote in a letter sent Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Over the past three weeks, 45 families and 31 individuals -- approximately 200 people -- entered Canada at the Detroit River crossings and applied in Windsor for shelter and social assistance after filing refugee claims with the Canada Border Services Agency. Municipal agencies dealing with the sudden influx of mainly Mexican refugee applicants are renting out hotel rooms and bracing for predicted thousands more to come.

"We don't have the means, ability or capacity to deal with this additional cost. We are not able to deal with this potential crisis locally," Francis wrote Harper.

"I don't believe that Windsor's residents and taxpayers should have to foot the bill for U.S. immigration policy," Francis told The Star. He was referring to the suspected source of the problem -- a recently begun crackdown on illegal immigrants in economically struggling regions of the U.S. South.

With the bulk of the latest arrivals being long-time Mexican illegals dislodged from their homes and workplaces in southwestern Florida, fingers are being pointed at unscrupulous outfits charging money and then directing desperate individuals and their families toward the Windsor border crossing.

"We are aware of these operations -- they have been advertising incorrect and false information," said Marina Wilson, a spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Wilson said Canadian immigration authorities have started contacting the Mexican and Haitian communities in Florida, as well as local media there, to get the word out that nothing has changed in Canadian refugee policy.

"The fact someone wants to come here for better economic opportunity or a better quality of life ... that's no basis for a successful refugee claim," said Immigration Refugee Board (IRB) spokesman Charles Hawkins.

But a group operating out of Naples, Fla., vowed to continue sending the so-called economic refugees to Windsor.

"They ask, 'Is Canada an option?' and I say, 'Yes, it is an option,'" Jacques Sinjuste of the Jerusalem Haitian Community Center said in a phone interview Wednesday. For a US$300 "donation" (most of those interviewed in Windsor claim they paid US$400), JHCC staff download forms off the Internet, help applicants fill them out and give directions on how to get to the Canadian border.

Sinjuste said he's simply providing a "referral" service.

"Most of the time when the people come, they say they've heard something (about Canada). I say that I've heard the same thing," he said.

Jacquie Rumiel, director of programs for new Canadians at the YMCA, where refugee claimants are referred by Windsor's border guards, said the new people she's seeing are "mostly" Mexicans coming from Florida.

To be successful, refugee claimants must prove they are fleeing persecution at home, something most of the Mexicans arriving in Windsor would be hard-pressed to do. The IRB's Hawkins said there was only a 13 per cent acceptance rate of refugee claims filed by Mexican nationals during the first six months of the year, compared to an overall rate of 47 per cent.

But the average processing time for a refugee claim in Canada is currently 14.2 months, said Hawkins, a period during which the applicant is eligible for financial and other support. A failed claimant then also has the right to seek leave to appeal his or her rejection to federal court.

Despite the high number of failed applications cited by the IRB, Sinjuste said he gets calls to his Naples centre from "a lot of people" who've arrived in Windsor.

 "They say everything is okay -- they are doing good, going to schools, going to work," he said.

Sinjuste said he was visited last week by an official from the Canadian consulate general in Miami but couldn't remember if he was told to stop helping economic refugees go to Canada.

"I don't think they tell me that," he said. Federal bureaucrats confirmed the meeting but said they couldn't divulge details.

Others are warning about the types of activities Sinjuste is engaged in.

"The way he's misleading the most vulnerable is infuriating," said Pegg Roberts, executive director of Detroit's Freedom House, which runs a shelter and assists asylum-seekers with their refugee claims. Sinjuste said he uses the Freedom House website to download refugee claim forms and advises the people he assists to seek help there.

"I do not help economic refugees," said Roberts, adding her non-profit organization assists the fleeing victims of torture and war crimes and has no affiliation with the JHCC.

"This is a problem the U.S. has allowed to create. It's really unfair for Canada to have to face this," said MP Joe Comartin (NDP -- Windsor-Tecumseh),  his Party's  public safety and national security critic.

"This is very much being driven by (the U.S. Department of) Homeland Security," he said, predicting that, "with few exceptions," most of these "economic claimants" will eventually be sent back.

(I wonder what country Canada wants to send them back to)

You guys are into lunatic conspiracy theories.  You blame Bush, Republicans, the Masons, and/or the J00s for everything from global warming and 9/11 to your hemorrhoids.  Consider another possibility...consider that it's ALL part of an even BIGGER conspiracy....an intergalactic conspiracy.  The Truth is out there......

 REPTILIANS

One of the most unusual species of the extraterrestrial phenomena are the reptilians. The first encounter I had with a reptilian was in my bedroom while my husband was out of town. He came to me as a silhouette of light in the darkness of my room. After many other visits I was finally able to see him. My contact with him continued for 20 years until I found a way to stop it, which was over a year ago. I have had contact with several other alien species since I was 3 years old: The first type was a mammalian, and was followed by greys, grey hybrids, and insectoids. The military is working with them, as well as a humanoid species who came to me at the same time I had encounters with the reptilians.

This page will give you a little information about the different types of reptilians and their possible agendas. My research, through my own experiences and through the people in my support groups have shown me that there are polarities within species; contact and abduction can vary from species to species depending upon their agenda, which serves to further complicate these encounters. Some are able to manipulate time: they are inter-dimensional, able to choose their evolutionary path. My research of the negative ones such as CHUKARA or what you have heard of as DRACO, has led me to understand to some degree, what they want. I believe the physical/sexual encounters through domination of abductees, manifest themselves through mind control and fear. Our emotional adrenaline is like candy, or a drug to them. They can steal this from us by causing us to feel fear, to feel passion, hate, anger and even kill us as they devour the last of our energies feeding from our adrenaline as it pumps throughout every cell of our body as we take our last breaths of life.

The reptilians have been here since the beginning of man or before; there are many relics which depict such beings, perhaps they are mythic gods of our ancient cultures. Ancient Peruvian myth depicts virgins in sacrificial rites to the gods, as this ritual is common in many ancient cultures. In my research I have found there is a definite correlation between some abductee's past life memories, of being sacrificed to the gods. Some regressions recall ceremonial ritual led by a priestly figure; the gods appearing in a reptilian form. The virgins were given to Draco for the sacrifice - they were raped while their adrenaline energy was sucked from them as they lie dying. We have read about virgin sacrifices in the ancient texts, now we have more of the possible morbid details.

At an intimate moment with my partner, a door seemed to open above us in the ceiling. It was as if a very strong energy was whirling above us. I felt like they were taking some of that sexual energy from my partner and myself. In fact there was a time when he and I not only felt their energy, but they seemed to cause my partner and myself to act very odd. As soon as we figured out what was happening we called upon spiritual help and were able to close the door and stop the experience. This has never happened to me since, and I have stopped all abductions in my life and so can you. I continue with my support groups for people who are having these experiences and my hope is that they too can stop these negative experiences and take control of their life as I and many others have done.

Bazaar as it might seem, there are the many cases of women who have on-going relationships with reptilians. This may be very hard to understand, but this does exist, and these women do have a strong connection to what might be referred to as their reptilian lovers. The women remark that it is the best sex they have ever had. There is really no way to explain it, but these experiences seem to be of a positive nature; whether they really are or not, no one knows for sure. Some women have found that the reptilians were not working for their highest good, perhaps this is because of their discovery that they have been subject to mind control or manipulation on the part of the reptilians. This may be an age old system that they are calling back into reality, such as the incubus and succubus and other ancient sexual myths from our recorded history that may not be myths, and were possible even in Eden. They seem to come from a powerful place, yet one of apparent affection. They seem to follow the women through their adult lives and watch over and protect them and sometimes even control their lives and their relationships with men. There are many answers that we are still seeking about why these women are chosen. What is the connection to these women? Are the women being deceived into believing that what is happening to them is good? Is it just another way to control humanity? I do not have these answers, however my investigation will continue until the truth is known. Are they for OUR highest good? We need to understand that if some are, which ones are and which ones are not; this is the big question here. I believe that when this is answered we will then know how to bridge the separation gap between the species.

I believe malevolent reptilians are working in a small secret part of our government. The agendas of the negative and positive reptilians are very different. It is my belief some reptilians are here because they have a strong bond to the human race. Perhaps they are working to absolve bad karma from their past actions, but I am afraid these are in the minority. Most are service to self and do not serve a higher good for humans; their agenda is one of control.

I believe that this group may be the same malevolent extraterrestrial group that have been working behind the scenes CONTROLLING THE WORLD through the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood controls the world today through the banking, business, political and legal systems it has created. The malevolent extraterrestrial group is seeking to take over the planet through the human elite while the people have no idea what is going on. There must be a reason why they cannot just take it over by force; their numbers may not be large enough. Other extraterrestrial races, I believe, are seeking to help humanity to wake up but they won't interfere in our free will, while the malevolent group will; if we allow it. The time may come when we will be manipulated into fearing some extraterrestrial invasion from space.

The extraterrestrials who are working through the Brotherhood will not invade from space.

They are already here.

They have been here since the beginning.

If you are an Experiencer and you would like to talk with me or share you experience please email me at:

Democrat presidential candidates are attending the convention of the radical leftwing hate group, Daily Kos.  The media is everywhere at the convention, yet there is no coverage being shown of the hatred and vitriol against the U.S. being spewed there.  Why is that? 

I just saw a segment on the Today Show about the "Yearly Kos" Democratic debate. Surely the place was crawling with reporters, and they obviously caught the incident with the soldier on video (see link to video). This is the sort of high drama incident at a high profile event like a presidential debate that the voyeurs in the media would normally rush to be the first tell us about. Surely it was more interesting than the debate itself. The only problem was that the pro-war soldier came across as sympathetic, while the radical Democratic organizers of the event came across as bullies trying to shut him up before he said anything that would make them uncomfortable. Since it would be virtually impossible to spin this to make the Dems look good, the editorial boards across the spectrum of the media decided universally to withhold any information about this incident from their viewers.

Do you honestly believe that if an anti-war soldier came to and event hosting a Republican debate and was treated the same way, that the media wouldn't be turning the guy into the next Cindy Sheehan as we speak? They'd be crawling all over themselves trying to get an interview with him. The media pundits would be in universal agreement that this is a blackeye to the Republicans and would all be offering their self-fulfilling speculations about how this embarassing incident will harm all of the Republicans candidates etc.

Take a look at how the soldier was treated during the Kos Democrat debate. This is how Democrats "support the troops":

Soldier speaks at Democrat debate