Napolitano: Border With Mexico to Stay Open for Now === LUNACY DUMP JANET IN MEXICO

Napolitano: Border With Mexico to Stay Open for Now

By Spencer S. Hsu
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano rejected calls to close the U.S.-Mexico border in response to the swine flu outbreak, saying the costs to both countries at this point outweigh the medical benefits.

“That’s something that always can be considered,” Napolitano told NBC’s “Today” show Tuesday, before adding that the virus has already spread to several states across the United States.

“You have to look at what the costs of that are. We literally have thousands of trucks and lots of commerce that cross that border. We have food products and other things that have to go across that border. So that would be a very, very heavy cost for — as the epidemiologists tell us — [what] would be marginal, if any, utility in terms of actually preventing the spread of the virus,” Napolitano said.

Napolitano made similar comments in a half-dozen televised appearances, appearing to seek to tamp down potential controversy.

 

On Friday, Rep. Eric J.J. Massa (D), a freshman lawmaker from upstate New York, called for a complete closure of the border. He was joined Monday by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, a group that advocates for reduced immigration, which urged Congress to halt all but “non-essential traffic” at the border and the deployment of the U.S. military to stop illegal immigration.

Massa changed his tune slightly Tuesday morning. “The good news is, it looks like this kind of swine flu is treatable if you can get to the doctors within three to four days,” he told MSNBC, adding that his point was that the U.S. government needed to control its borders. “To the extent that my request has brought attention to this in the United States, I think I’ve served the people of my district,” he said.

Obama’s Narcissism

obama-narc3Obama’s Narcissism
April 27th, 2009
THOMAS F. ROESER, Chicago Daily Obrserver

Obama is quite proud of himself
After he sat listening to a 52-minute tirade about America the Fascist Imperialist tyranny, a droll Barack Obama told the media that the rant by Nicaragua’s Daniel C. Ortega “wasn’t about me.” No, it wasn’t. It was about America which evidently didn’t concern the narcissistic U. S. president since it involved John F. Kennedy, not he. And it did not occur to him to defend America since he himself wasn’t named: thus the narcissism. Also the lack of patriotism.

Criticism about Obama back here has centered on his spinelessness and unwillingness to defend his country from attack. Yes, that’s part of it. But a bigger part is the absolute obsession of this young man with himself-in contrast to concern about the country. This could be expected from one who has caused the press…guilty over charges of racism… to evade its own responsibility for checking facts on presidential candidates-notably the one that his late paternal grandmother made declaring she was present when he was born in what is now Kenya…also checking the recording supposedly of the grandmother making the admission which has been publicly available and about which two men have submitted affidavits attesting to its authenticity, which have not been answered by Team Obama.

Read More:

Obama as the new FDR – unfortunately

Obama as the new FDR – unfortunately
Leslie S. Lebl

At first I thought I had mistaken my catch-up reading for the morning paper. In the passage I was reading, the American president understood that the proposed new program would run out. As he himself put it:
“Ah, but this is the same old dole under another name. It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in [the future]. We can’t do that. We can’t see the United States short in [the future] any more than [now].”

Was this President Barack H. Obama being transparent? No, it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt talking to trusted aides about the proposed Social Security plan, as detailed in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes.

That isn’t the only whiff of déjà vu in her book. Elsewhere, she recounts that Roosevelt was concerned that the Supreme Court might rule his gold policy unconstitutional.
“Days after the oral argument began, he told [Treasury] Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Homer Cummings at lunch that he hoped to keep the bond market in confusion until the Supreme Court decided the gold-clause issue. Then, if the Court decided against the administration, things would still be so rough that the people would turn to the president and say: ‘For God’s sake, Mr. President, do something.’”

Truly, a crisis is too good a thing to waste. Morgenthau reproached Roosevelt, who the next night said he had only been kidding. Morgenthau was not so sure.

As we await the rollout of Obama’s health care and education initiatives, here’s a snippet from an early discussion of Social Security: Then, Democratic Senator “Champ” Clark from Missouri objected to the program’s design:

“If the Social Security program was entirely about social welfare, he said, then why not allow private companies with pension programs already in place to choose to stay out of the government program? This would allow a genuine private-sector counterpart against which to measure the government program…Without the opt-out of the Clark Amendment, companies would give up supplying private pensions. Why should they pay double when the government would do their work for them?”

Or, what about the controversy over the National Recovery Administration and its attempts to micromanage American businesses? In the case brought by the United States against chicken butchers in Brooklyn, to give just one of the examples Shlaes presents, the prosecutor tried to demonstrate that the butchers were cheating by lowering prices – clearly oblivious to the fact that the market price for chickens fluctuated.

Roosevelt’s actions led to a growing chorus of protests that he was violating the Constitution. As the Tea Parties demonstrate, that’s another box Obama gets to check.

In conclusion, I remain skeptical about Obama’s chances of becoming the new Lincoln but I think he definitely has the inside track for becoming the new Roosevelt. That’s too bad, especially when you consider the assessment, made in 1939, by Morgenthau when he testified before Congress:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

His measure of effectiveness was the unemployment rate. In 1939 it was higher than in 1931, the year before Roosevelt was elected.

Leslie S. Lebl is Principal of Lebl Associates and a Fellow of the American Center for Democracy.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/obama_as_the_new_fdr_unfortuna.html at April 28, 2009 – 11:02:34 AM EDT

Obama’s New Gun Bill—– The Second Amendment… . America’s original homeland security

Obama’s New Gun Bill

——————————————————————————–

Remember when considering this bill. We will be losing our hunting heritage
and the freedoms that we have, since the founding of this great nation,
enjoyed. Ethical gun owners are not the problem. Guns are not the problem.
Those who refuse to obey the laws are the problem. Remember, guns don’t
kill….people kill.
Warmly,
Limoboy77

Subject: HR45 Gun Licensing Bill

HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009

Please send this to everybody on your list… this is Obama
guncontrol by secrecy.

________________________________

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the
House.
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.
Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it is flying under the
radar.
To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or
Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You
will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a
clip or ANY pistol unless:

.It is registered
.You are fingerprinted
.You supply a current Driver’s License
.You supply your Social Security #
.You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their
choosing .Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale
must be reported and costs $25
– Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are
subject up to a year in jail.

.There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a
child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child
under 18.

The Government would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing
your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable
for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke – go to the website and take your pick of many
options to read this..
http://www.opencong ress.org/ bill/111- h45/text

It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of
this. Pass the wordalong.

FAILURE TO DO SO AT YOUR PERIL!

Any hunters in your family – pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in
the morning.

He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it
and “spring into action”.

Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle
Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA..

This is just a “termite” approach to complete confiscation of guns and
disarming of our society to the point we have no defense – chip away a
little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes
it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

The Second Amendment… . America’s original homeland secur