Obama spies watching Jews house to house ?????



Obama’s spies monitoring Jews house-to-house

‘They try to mingle with us to get more information on what we’re doing’

Posted: August 05, 2009
9:05 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


JERUSALEM – The Obama administration has set up an apparatus to closely monitor Jewish construction in Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank to the point of watching Israeli moves house-to-house in certain key neighborhoods, WND has learned.

Obama: “This Is The Moment Our Movement Was Built For”

Obama: “This Is The Moment Our Movement Was Built For”

August 5th, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.


After the election, Obama renamed his campaign Organizing For America, and forced the DNC to set it up as the real DNC, Obama’s private, de facto governing body of the Democrat Party. Obviously, it’s also a grass-roots political machine. I signed up as Albert Fish. They send me emails. Here’s today’s:

albert –

This is the moment our movement was built for.

For one month, the fight for health insurance reform leaves the backrooms of Washington, D.C., and returns to communities across America. Throughout August, members of Congress are back home, where the hands they shake and the voices they hear will not belong to lobbyists, but to people like you.

Home is where we’re strongest. We didn’t win last year’s election together at a committee hearing in D.C. We won it on the doorsteps and the phone lines, at the softball games and the town meetings, and in every part of this great country where people gather to talk about what matters most. And if you’re willing to step up once again, that’s exactly where we’re going to win this historic campaign for the guaranteed, affordable health insurance that every American deserves.

There are those who profit from the status quo, or see this debate as a political game, and they will stop at nothing to block reform. They are filling the airwaves and the internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change. And some people, not surprisingly, are getting pretty nervous. So we’ve got to get out there, fight lies with truth, and set the record straight.

That’s why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act.

But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support. So here’s what I need from you:

Can you commit to join at least one event in your community this month?

In politics, there’s a rule that says when you ask people to get involved, always tell them it’ll be easy. Well, let’s be honest here: Passing comprehensive health insurance reform will not be easy. Every President since Harry Truman has talked about it, and the most powerful and experienced lobbyists in Washington stand in the way.

But every day we don’t act, Americans watch their premiums rise three times faster than wages, small businesses and families are pushed towards bankruptcy, and 14,000 people lose their coverage entirely. The cost of inaction is simply too much for the people of this nation to bear.

So yes, fixing this crisis will not be easy. Our opponents will attack us every day for daring to try. It will require time, and hard work, and there will be days when we don’t know if we have anything more to give. But there comes a moment when we all have to choose between doing what’s easy, and doing what’s right.

This is one of those times. And moments like this are what this movement was built for. So, are you ready?

Please commit now to taking at least one action in your community this month to build support for health insurance reform:


Let’s seize this moment and win this historic victory for our economy, our health and our families.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Hezb’allah stockpiles 40,000 rockets

Hezb’allah stockpiles 40,000 rockets

Rick Moran
All for self-defense, mind you, according to Richard Beeston and Nicholas Blanford of the Times Online:

Hezbollah’s rearming is in the name of resistance against Israel. The real reason, however, probably has more to do with its ally Iran. If Israel carries out its threat to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the main retaliation is likely to come from Hezbollah in Lebanon.

All sides agreed that the threat was not a bluff. Last month the scale of the Hezbollah build-up was revealed after an explosion at an ammunition bunker in the village of Khirbet Slim, 12 miles from the Israeli border.

Surveillance footage obtained by The Times showed Hezbollah fighters trying to salvage rockets and munitions from the site. Obstructions were placed in the way of Unifil peacekeepers going to investigate.

Alain Le Roy, the head of UN peacekeeping operations, told the Security Council last month that the explosion amounted to a serious violation of UN Resolution 1701, which imposed a ceasefire and arms ban after the war.

“A number of indications suggest that the depot belonged to Hezbollah and, in contrast to previous discoveries by Unifil and the Lebanese Armed Forces of weapons and ammunition, that it was not abandoned but, rather, actively maintained,” he said.

This is surreal. Does anyone recall why the Israelis agreed to a UN cease fire? Because the United Nations promised that its expanded UNIFIL force would interdict any attempt by Syria and Iran to resupply the terrorists.

How’s that working out guys?

One might ask what those 13,000 UN troops are doing out there besides getting a suntan. They certainly failed spectacularly in fulfilling their mandate which runs out at the end of this month.

Time to bring the boys home.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/hezballah_stockpiles_40000_roc.html at August 05, 2009 – 10:50:48 PM EDT

The Obama Resistance Grows

By Lee Cary

Spontaneous, uncoordinated, passionate — citizen resistance to Obama socialism grows by the day.

America is no stranger to resistance. The nation was born from citizen resistance that had mixed support among the colonists. About one in five was loyal to the King. Some of the bitterest fighting in the American Revolution was between Loyalists and Patriots. And all of it was between Americans in the Civil War. We know how to resist.


There was a spontaneous resistance after December 7, 1941. It shook America out of its flirtation with isolationism. In that case, it was largely Republican politicians who were slow to see the danger from international tyrants. Edwin Bodley of East Chicago, IndianaObama Resistance was a junior in engineering at Purdue University when he joined the students who, upon hearing the news of Pearl Harbor, spilled out of their dormitories in a spontaneous demonstration of resistance. The next day Edwin enlisted in the Air Force. After flying 56 missions over the “Hump,” he volunteered to go back to the war and rescue downed flyers in the Pacific. Lieutenant Bodley died on August 13, 1945, hours before the war ended, the navigator on the last US crew aircraft lost to hostile action in World War II. The resistance never died in him. His name was Legion for there were many like him in those days.


So we Americans understand resistance. We don’t hunger to engage in it. We can be slow to respond to the non-violent circumstances that provoke it. But once it begins, it takes its own course among us. Like water pulled by gravity seeking its own level. It’s happening now.


The internet has shortened the gestation period for resistance. Nearly every day a new video surfaces on the web showing an angry crowd of ordinary citizens talking back to their member of Congress, or to some Cabinet person, as the pol morphs from confident and officious to stunned and stupefied. (Obama’s czars, on the other hand, like their Russian predecessors, never face public scrutiny. They butterfly float in an ether world of inbreed wonkishness in search of purpose, doing who knows what. Hopefully, little.)


The April 15th Tea Parties, belittled by the legacy media, were collectively the coming-out event of a new American resistance. The cause then was out-of-control government spending. Today, it’s shifted to a wider focus on Obama’s brand of socialism for America. When the cover of the February 16, 2009 issue of Newsweek proclaimed “We Are All Socialists Now,” it was a barely visible comet streaking across a news cycle. Not now. “Like hell we are!” is the Obama Resistance 2rising antiphonal response today as a litany of proposed socialist legislation lines up in Congress. 


Barack, Nancy, Harry, Rahm, Barney, Waxman et al have been cattle-driving a legislative cramdown since the TARP bill passed in George W. Bush’s final days. They mistook victory against a tepid Republican presidential candidate for a mandate to reconstitute the United States of America. Slow to awaken, her citizens now grow angrier. It’s not the loss of land and lives they fear, but of freedoms. Accustomed to trusting any new president, they’re quickly losing confidence in this one. Seduced by his artful use of the spoken word, they’re growing attuned to the nuances within his words. When he begins a sentence with “Let me be clear about this,” our listening becomes acute, for it’s not clarity that often follows, but evasiveness through circuitous parsing.


As members of Congress go home for recess it won’t be to playground games. Some will hide from their constituents, not wanting to face them. Why bother? They plan to vote as Rahm and their party leaders tell them anyway, for their only ideology is to remain in power. Others will think, “The people have short memories; soon they’ll be back watching reruns of Law & Order.”  They’ll underestimate the resistance. Meanwhile, the legacy media will attribute it to right-wingers and belligerent extremists incited by their demonized arch enemies, conservative talk show hosts. They don’t get it either.


Others, the bolder pols, will face their constituents and be so foolish as to presume to tell them what they, the voters, should think. Tell them what’s good for them, whether they know it or not. This will be a mistake. Unless they represent the uniforObama Resistance 3mly like-minded, these members of Congress will face spirited resistance. More of it than most will have encountered in their political careers. When it comes, their faces will assume fault lines of shock-and-awe in the face of citizen audacity. Some will paper over it with thin smiles and louder talk. That won’t work.


Vocal opposition from their constituents differs from what they’re accustomed to hearing from colleagues on the floor of the House or Senate. There it’s, “I respectfully take exception to the position expressed by the honorable member from the state of bla bla bla.” The ruling class speaks the language of the ruling class when citizens might be watching on C-SPAN. But in the public forum, people speak plainly, in a language with which some members of Congress are not used to being addressed. The resistance doesn’t speak Beltway.


Regardless of the decibel-level of the opposition to Obamacare and Cap & Tax that Congress hears back home, many will return to their Safe Zone inside the Capital and vote against the wishes of their constituents. They are, after all, wiser and more knowledgeable in these matters than the voters. They may chose not to give us the government we want, but the government they think we should want. And would want, if we knew what was good for us. Such is the timeless arrogance of power.


If that happens, stand-by. For the American resistance will continue to mount, and soon begin to register on the Richter scale.

Obama Resistance 4

Illustrations by Big Fur Hat. No actual Obama posters were harmed in the preparation of these graphics.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_obama_resistance_grows.html at August 05, 2009 – 04:23:32 PM EDT

White House Goes To War With The Drudge Report

White House Goes To War With The Drudge Report

August 4th, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.


WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House is turning to the Internet to hit back at a Web posting that claims to show President Barack Obama explaining how his health care reform plans eventually would eliminate private insurance.

The three-minute White House video features Linda Douglass, a former network television correspondent and now White House Office of Health Reform communications director, sitting in front of a computer screen showing the Drudge Report Web site. That site carries a series of video clips from another blogger who strings together selected Obama statements on health care to make it appear he wants to eliminate the private health insurance business.

In the video Douglas says the site is “taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a very false impression.”

Obama: A Modern Day Roman Plebeian Tyrant

Obama: A Modern Day Roman Plebeian Tyrant

By Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D.

Many comparisons have been made between the Roman Empire and the United States.  The Roman Empire was the most powerful civilization on Earth.  Similarly, the United States, for now, is the sole remaining superpower.  However, with the good comes the bad and the decline and fall of the Roman Empire has been compared to the decline and pending fall of the United States. We often forget the fact that the Roman Empire was preceded for 450 years by the Roman Republic, which arose in 509 B.C. with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy. 

Of course, there’s an interesting correlation with the American Revolution, which also overthrew government by monarchy.  Rome was structured around a strong constitution, though little of it was written down.  The early years of the Republic were marked by political power held by a strong aristocracy descended from earlier royalty. In a series of events very similar to developments in our own country, the republic devolved into rule by a series of popularly elected political elites who circumvented the constitution for political purposes.


The Roman constitution was a powerful code designed with a complex system of checks and balances and served as a model for our own Constitution.  The purpose was not to establish a simple democracy, but a representative form of government, which was, by the rule of law, resistant to the whims of the majority. But, as the society “advanced,” professional politicians began promising rewards in exchange for votes.


Initially, two consuls, or highest magistrates, were elected for one year terms. The main legislative body, the Senate, (the model for our own Senate), was comprised of Patricians, members of society with ancestry derived from royalty. The Plebeian Council was composed of elected officials (tribunes) of lower societal rank who met in tribal councils.  Over time, through a series of popular reforms, decisions made by the Plebeian Council would have the full force of law.  Plebeians soon began occupying the Senate in a movement to bring “change” to the system of government. 


Around 200 B.C. there was an economic crisis, similar to the one we are experiencing today.  The plebeians, especially farmers, found themselves unable to afford their homes and they demanded a bailout from the government. When the Senate refused, an uprising occurred, resulting in increased power for the popularly elected Plebeian Council.  The country was then essentially controlled by new Plebeian political elites who were, however, mostly concerned with their own power and not about the problems of the people who elected them.


As common Plebeians fell further into debt, unemployment rose and farmers could no longer sell their produce, resulting in widespread bankruptcy. People began voting for politicians who promised bailouts. Populist leaders emerged who promised “change.” The final decades of the Roman Republic saw an eerily familiar increase in the dependence of the average Roman citizen on their government, along with tax increases to pay for government programs. The Republic had slowly devolved into a democracy wherein people voted themselves benefits they had not earned. Sound familiar?


In 133 B.C., Tiberius Gracchus was elected as a Tribune.  In a move that would be considered “Obamanesqe,” he attempted to “spread the wealth” by proposing a law that would have limited the amount of land any particular individual could own and redistributing land to the poor. He was later murdered but his brother was elected and continued to support populist policies that circumvented the constitution.  A new political party, the democratic “Populare” party, gained power.  They regularly broke the law in the name of democracy. In a final attempt to reestablish constitutional rule and strengthen the Senate, Lucius Sulla, a member of the conservative “Optimate” party, took control as dictator, passed laws to strengthen the constitution and the Senate and then resigned.


Another populist movement (like Acorn) arose in about 65 B.C. to address the problems of the poor.  When they were unable to pass all of their reforms legally they began using illegal methods. Eventually, Julius Caesar, a “Populare” politician, was installed as perpetual dictator in 44 B.C., influenced by his greatness as a general and his distribution of benefits, like food subsidies to the population and free land to his former soldiers.  He began appointing officials some today would call “czars” (named today after Russian Czars, a word derived originally from the word Caesar) that would not have to be approved by the legislature, but his tenure was cut short by assassination.  After Mark Antony was defeated by Octavian at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C., the Senate gave Octavian extra-constitutional powers in 27 B.C., effectively terminating the Roman Republic forever.


The summary above is a short synopsis, not a complete history.  However, the parallels are unnerving and we can easily see the chilling similarities.


Aristotle warned:  “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.”  The Federalist papers show us that the founding fathers understood this all too well.  Just as the Roman Senate became more “democratic”, so to our own Senate changed from being indirectly elected to direct popular election in 1913.  We were founded as a republic partly because democracies become weaker as they grow whereas republics can become stronger.


Yet we elect populists, like Chairman Obama, whose unaffordable promises and unconstitutional actions, after the manner of Tiberius Gracchus, Caesar, and Octavian, will be recorded in history as the beginning of the end of our republic. We slip further into a “democracy” of dependence on government and control by it. Inevitably, we too will degenerate into despotism and tyranny. This has already begun. From antiquity through the present, great thinkers like Aristotle and our founding fathers have warned us of the dangers of repeating the mistakes of prior civilizations. Those who survive us will learn how the selfish majority, at the behest of power hungry political elitists, accepted subjugation in exchange for benefits and thereby sowed the seeds (or acorns) of our destruction.


Barack Obama: Plebeian politician to Senator to Dictator wannabe. The USA: republic, to democratic dictatorship and then despotism. It not only can happen, but it will, unless we learn from history and prevent its repetition.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obama_a_modern_day_roman_plebe.html at August 05, 2009 – 12:23:49 PM EDT

Democratic Voters Flee the Obama-Pelosi Bandwagon

Democratic Voters Flee the Obama-Pelosi Bandwagon

By Brad O’Leary

As President Obama’s approval rating continues to nosedive toward that of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one has to wonder: Who are these naysayers abandoning the dynamic duo of government-run everything?  While it’s true that a majority of the discontented comes from the ranks of Republican and Independent voters, it is also true that many Democratic voters are parting ways with the Obama-Pelosi agenda on several fronts. 



According to a recent Zogby International/O’Leary Report poll (which surveyed 4,470 voters July 21-24 and has a margin-of-error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points – internal data here), only 36 percent of Democratic voters support the Obama-Pelosi government administered health insurance plan that would put government in charge of determining what medical procedures Americans can have and when they can have them.  Fifty-nine percent of Democratic voters prefer to either keep the current system in place, or want something different altogether. 


When Obama and Pelosi ask their more moderate colleagues to come onboard with Obamacare, what they’re really asking them to do is ignore the will of their constituents, voters within their own Party, and the broader American electorate.  That’s a tough sell.


First Amendment Rights


On September 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could turn a key provision of the “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance law on its head.  At issue is a documentary about Hillary Clinton that was produced by the conservative group Citizens United and released in January 2008 when Clinton was running for president.  Citing “McCain-Feingold” restrictions, a district court barred the group from advertising the documentary on television and distributing it through video-on-demand.  Now the Supreme Court will decide if such a ban infringes on Americans’ First Amendment rights.


Both Obama and Pelosi support McCain-Feingold, however, the same can’t be said for a majority of voters in their Party.  The same Zogby/O’Leary poll found that 54 percent of Democratic voters believe that the First Amendment protects the right of organizations to buy political advertising that either supports or opposes a candidate for political office.  Only 27 percent of Democratic voters believe otherwise.


Second Amendment


Recently, an amendment that would have permitted law-abiding gun owners with concealed-carry permits to carry their firearms across state lines fell short in the Senate.  Although the amendment received a majority of votes (58-39), a filibuster-proof 60 votes were required for passage.  Thirty-seven of the “no” votes came from Democratic Senators. 


The Zogby/O’Leary Report poll found that an overwhelming 79 percent of Democratic voters support laws that allow law-abiding Americans to carry guns.  Yet over 60 percent of Democratic Senators voted to disallow Americans this right.  A majority of Senate Democrats voted against the wishes of a majority of Democratic voters.


President Obama and Nancy Pelosi have never met a gun-ban they didn’t like – both of their records are abundantly clear on this.  But is this a reflection of the Democratic electorate at large?  Or is it just a reflection of their native enclaves – Southside Chicago (where Obama cut his political teeth) and San Francisco?  Signs point to the latter.


Fifty-six percent of Democratic voters believe the Second Amendment “‘right to keep and bear arms’ is a right that should apply to every law-abiding citizen living in this country.”  A slight majority of Democratic voters (52 percent) disagree with any law that would ban the possession of handguns, and the same percentage agree that “self-defense with a firearm is a fundamental right.”  And finally, 73 percent of Democratic voters believe in the individual right to own and use firearms.




President Obama and Speaker Pelosi may find it convenient, not to mention politically expedient, to blame Republicans every time they fail to get one of their Big Government agenda items through the Democrat-led House and the Democrat-led Senate.  However, the inconvenient truth is that majorities of Democratic voters are opposed to the Obama-Pelosi agenda on many issues.  According to a recent Gallup poll, 40 percent of all Americans consider themselves “conservative,” and only 21 percent call themselves “liberal” (35 percent say “moderate”).  The same poll found that 62 percent of self-identified Democrats consider themselves either conservative or moderate.


Try as they might, Obama and Pelosi should eventually find these numbers hard to ignore.  In the meantime, they seem content to not only buck mainstream America, but also buck the mainstream within their own Party.


Brad O’Leary is publisher of “The O’Leary Report,” a bestselling author, and is a former NBC Westwood One talk show host. His new book, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech,” (endoffreespeech.com) is now in bookstores. To see more, go to olearyreport.com. 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/democratic_voters_flee_the_oba.html at August 05, 2009 – 12:21:27 PM EDT

Cash For Clunkers Con

Cash Con
By: David Swindle
Wednesday, August 05, 2009


Is the hoopla behind the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program really justified?
Pitched as a jumpstart for the recessionary economy and a boon for the environment, the federal government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program has certainly been a hit with the nation’s distressed auto industry.

But is the much-praised program – which promises a $3500 to $4500 government rebate to consumers who trade in their current car for a more fuel efficient and “environmentally friendly” alternative – really a great deal on wheels? Or is it just a cash advance taken from future generations and little more than political exhaust when it comes to reducing pollution?


In theory, the program’s aims are laudable. On the one hand, by encouraging Americans to purchase cars at a time when they otherwise may not, “Cash for Clunkers” is intended to be a stimulus for the economy. It is also an environmentalist initiative, since it involves exchanging cars with low gas mileage for greener models.  


In practice, too – at least according to its Congressional champions – the program has been a success. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asserts that “the original intent of the ‘clunkers’ program was to encourage people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and the data so far tells us that’s exactly what’s happening.”


Not surprisingly, Feinstein believes that the now cash-strapped program should be extended, a view shared by her allies in the House, who voted overwhelmingly last Friday to funnel another $2 billon into the program after it burned through its original $1 billion allotment.


Amidst these Capitol Hill hosannas, some skepticism is in order. In essence, the government is merely offering consumers a $4,500, taxpayer-subsidized bribe to get rid of their old car. That certainly accounts for some of the program’s “success” to date. Who knew that it would be so easy to give away taxpayer money?


The jury is still out on whether the program has been an economic stimulus. The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol observes that instead of helping the unemployed cope with the ailing economy, the funds in the program are being diverted to “bunch of upper-middle-class people who have some cars sitting around from 12 years ago.” Call it welfare for the Prius set.


Proponents of fiscal discipline also do not like what they see. Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist at the Concord Coalition, has warned that since the U.S. government is taking on debt to pay for programs like “Cash for Clunkers,” the program is really being financed by borrowed funds. Rogers notes that the Obama administration and Congress “don’t really think of what the real cost” of the program is. For instance, Rogers points out that, once it’s paid back in interest for the initial debt, the $4,500 credit could end up costing the government $10,000.


Some might argue that such costs are justified as the price of doing good for the environment. But the cost-benefit arithmetic of Cash for Clunkers is not quite that simple. Cars turned in as part of program, for instance, have to be destroyed – something that imposes its own environmental costs. (According to the New York Times, the process of destroying the traded-in cars is also “quite laborious and potentially dangerous.”) In a Washington Post op-ed this week, Gwen Ottinger of the Chemical Heritage Foundation’s Center for Contemporary History and Policy pointed out that:  


…even when new cars and appliances are more efficient than the ones they replace, the act of replacing them entails environmental costs not accounted for in the stimulus programs. Building a new car, washing machine or refrigerator takes energy and resources… Disposing of old products, a step required by most incentive and rebate programs, also has environmental costs: It takes additional energy to shred and recycle metals; plastic components often cannot be recycled and end up as landfill cover; and the engine fluids, refrigerants and other chemicals essential to operating products end up as hazardous wastes.


Moreover, if the goal is merely to improve fuel economy, there are cheaper and more environmentally-friendly ways of doing it than paying people to buy new cars. As Matthew Bandyk pointed out in US News and World Report, “Changing your fuel filter, getting a tire gauge, and getting your car’s emissions system checked can make a big difference.” It’s a lot cheaper, too.


Specific flaws aside, perhaps the biggest question about the Cash for Clunkers program is foundational: Should Washington really be in the car business? After all, if it’s true, as the Obama administration seems to believe, that Americans truly want the eco-friendly cars promoted through the program, why then are they being bribed to purchase them?


In fact, of course, Americans know very well which cars they want to buy. One need only juxtapose the success of Japanese automakers like Honda and Toyota, both known for the high mileage counts of their cars, with the crumbling ruins of Detroit’s Big Three automakers.

Cash for Clunkers has not created a new type of American car consumer. It has merely confirmed the timeless wisdom that everyone likes free cash. The trouble will start when the bill for the government’s automotive spending spree finally comes due.

David Swindle is a free lance writer, film critic, and blogger. He is currently working on a book on the ideas of David Horowitz, the research for which can be read and contributed to at his blog Books In Depth. He can be contacted at DavidSwindle@gmail.com.

Obama wants single payer health system—In his own words