Military Medal for Courageous Restraint ie the Obama Coward award

Military Medal for Courageous Restraint

Posted May 12th, 2010 by USNavySeals

A feature on the Navy Times shares information regarding a proposal that is making the rounds in the Kabul headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

military medalsAnother medal may eventually be added to the array of medals that service members can earn while in combat – and it is a medal that may be earned for doing nothing. The proposal was reportedly put on the table by British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, commander for the Regional Command South of the ISAF, during a visit by Army Command Sgt. Maj. Mike Hall, the top U.S. enlisted member in Afghanistan.

This award is an effort towards the prevention of civilian casualties; the proposed award will be in commendation for what was termed as “courageous restraint,” where a service member chooses to hold their fire, even if they are at risk, in order to save civilian lives.

Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis shares: “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.”

There are concerns, however, that having such an award may cause confusion among service members and embolden further the tactics of enemy combatants, who recognize that U.S. Troops are concerned about civilian casualties and already use them as shields or even turn them into targets, as shared by Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis.

Next Up on Obama Chopping Block: Free Speech SCOTUS PICK CENSORSHIP ADVOCATE promoting an “illegitimate attempt to use ‘censorship to control thought.'”

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Next Up on Obama Chopping Block: Free Speech
SCOTUS PICK CENSORSHIP ADVOCATE promoting an “illegitimate attempt to use ‘censorship to control thought.'” Fascism in action. Watch him choke on his words. Fascinating to witness free countries fall under the spell of a would-be dictator. If your blood doesn’t run cold after viewing this video and reading this post, you’re already dead.
Obama at Hampton University – Hey don’t pay attention to the info on iphones and blogs.mov

This convergence of evil is no accident. Last week I reported: Obama Puts the Web Under Fed Control. A federal appeals court ruled last month that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to regulate the Internet. So last week the Obama Administration chose to “reclassify” the Internet so that it can regulate the Web anyway.

Now this. Any Senator who votes to confirm this freak is an enemy of the people.

Chief Justice Roberts: Kagan Asked Court to ‘Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters’ (CNSNews.com) – Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s argument that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations was rejected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case, and in a scathing concurrence Chief Justice John Roberts took direct aim at Kagan’s argument that the government could ban political pamphlets.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
 
Justice Kennedy described the law Kagan had defended as an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”
 
“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
 
In March 2009, six months before Kagan told the court that the government could bar corporations from publishing political pamphlets, her deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, had gone further, telling the court the Constitution authorized Congress to prohibit corporations from publishing full-length books that included passages advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Arizona Bill Targeting Ethnic Studies Signed Into Law

Arizona Bill Targeting Ethnic Studies Signed Into Law

May 11th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

dirty_php2oss34

Los Angeles Times:

Gov. Jan Brewer signs the bill that bans schools from teaching classes designed for students of a particular ethnic group. School districts may appeal the law, which becomes effective Dec. 3

A bill that aims to ban ethnic studies in Arizona schools was signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jan Brewer, cheering critics who called such classes divisive and alarming others who said it’s yet another law targeting Latinos in the state.

The move comes less than 20 days after Brewer signed a controversial immigration bill that has caused widespread protests against the state. The governor’s press office did not return requests for comment Tuesday evening.

HB 2281 bans schools from teaching classes that are designed for students of a particular ethnic group, promote resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity over treating pupils as individuals. The bill also bans classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.

The bill was written to target the Chicano, or Mexican American, studies program in the Tucson school system, said state Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Horne.

School districts that don’t comply with the new law could have as much as 10% of their state funds withheld each month. Districts have the right to appeal the mandate, which goes into effect Dec. 31.

Tucson Unified School District officials say the Chicano studies classes benefit students and promote critical thinking. “We don’t teach all those ugly things they think we’re teaching,” said Judy Burns, the president of the district’s governing board.

She has no intention of ending the program, which offers courses from elementary school through high school in topics such as literature, history and social justice, with an emphasis on Latino authors and history. About 3% of the district’s 55,000 students are enrolled in such classes.

Horne has been trying to end the program for years, saying it divides students by race and promotes resentment. He singled out one history book used in some classes, “Occupied America: A History of Chicanos,” by Rodolfo Acuna, a professor and founder of the Chicano studies program at Cal State Northridge.

“To begin with, the title of the book implies to the kids that they live in occupied America, or occupied Mexico,” Horne said last week in a telephone interview.

Also last week, Augustine Romero, director of student equity in the Tucson school district, said it now had become politically acceptable to attack Latinos in Arizona.

Ethnic studies are taught at high schools and colleges nationwide, but the Tucson district officials say their 14-year-old program is unique because it’s districtwide, offered to grades K-12, and can satisfy high school graduation requirements.

In Los Angeles, more educators have been attempting to build curriculums, teaching lessons or units in ethnic studies, especially with the growth of charter schools in the area, said Maythee Rojas, the president of the National. Assn. of Ethnic Studies. “I don’t think it’s uncommon anymore,” she said.

In Tucson, the program is supported by a court-ordered desegregation budget, and is part of the district’s initiative to create equal access for Latinos.

Board member Mark Stegeman said he believes the board needs to consider the program carefully and whether the courses, as taught, violate the new law. Perhaps an external audit could be done to assess that, he said.

Ethnic studies courses are sometimes controversial because people believe the programs are attempting to replace one voice with another, Rojas said.

The Tucson district plans to double the number of students in Chicano studies in the upcoming school year, said Sean Arce, the director of the program. Arce said that now that the bill has become law, he’s waiting for direction from the district’s legal department

Arizona or San Francisco?

Arizona or San Francisco?

Posted By Russell Pearce On May 12, 2010 @ 12:31 am In FrontPage | 5 Comments

I am State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, which was signed by Governor Jan Brewer.  Fear mongering and misinformation is the tool of the Left against this common sense legislation.

Paul Kantner of the 1960s rock band Jefferson Airplane once remarked, “San Francisco is 49 square miles surrounded by reality.”  When I first heard that San Francisco was planning to boycott Arizona over the SB 1070, this description seemed apt.

However, when neighboring Oakland’s city council voted 7-0 to boycott Arizona last week, and President Pro Tem of the California State Senate Derrell Steinberg announced a campaign in the legislature to boycott us, it became clear that San Francisco is merely ahead of the California crazy curve.

Why did I propose SB 1070?  I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state.  I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowed, and budgets strained.  Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals.

The murder of Robert Krentz—whose family had been ranching in Arizona since 1907—by illegal alien drug dealers was the final straw for many Arizonans.  But there are dozens and dozens of other citizens of our state who had been murdered by illegal aliens. Currently 95 illegal aliens are in Maricopa County jail for murder.  When do we stand up for Americans and the rule of law? If not now, when?  We are a nation of laws, a Constitutional Republic.

Most of the hysterical critics of the bill do not even know what is in it. SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law and removes excuses and concerns about states’ inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal “sanctuary” policies.

The law does not allow police to stop suspected illegal aliens unless they have already come across them through normal “lawful conduct” such as a traffic stop, and explicitly prohibits racial profiling.  Illegal is not a race, it is a crime.

Aside from the unfounded accusation of racial profiling, the chief complaint about the bill is that it infringes on federal jurisdiction by enforcing laws.  Arizona did not make illegal, illegal.  It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws when the federal government has failed or refused to do so.

For all their newfound respect for the authority of federal immigration law, the open borders advocates who oppose SB 1070 have no problems with “sanctuary cities” across the country that explicitly obstruct federal immigration authorities to protect illegal aliens, even though are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373.)

In 2008, San Francisco began a campaign to encourage illegal aliens to take advantage of the city’s public services.  Mayor Gavin Newsom stated, “We have worked with the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights groups to create a city government-wide public awareness campaign so that immigrants know the city won’t target them for using city services.”

The results were tragic. A few months after the campaign, Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien and member of the MS 13 gang, murdered San Francisco resident Tony Bologna and his two sons who he mistook for rival gang members.  Ramos had a lengthy criminal record including a felony assault on a pregnant woman.  He was arrested on gang and weapons charges and promptly released just three months before the murder.  Not once did San Francisco report him to immigration authorities.

One month after the murder of Bologna, illegal alien Alexander Izaguirre stole Amanda Keifer’s purse and then intentionally ran her over with an SUV, laughing as she hit the pavement and fractured her skull.   Four months earlier, Alexander Izaguirre had been arrested for felony dealing of crack cocaine.  Not only did San Francisco refuse to turn him over to immigration authorities, they expunged his record and helped get him a job, which is criminal in and of itself.

Keifer asked the obvious question, “If they’ve committed crimes and they’re not citizens, then why are they here?  Why haven’t they been deported?”

The answer is that politicians like Gavin Newsom and Phoenix Mayor Gordon put the interests of illegal aliens before the safety of American citizens.

Our law is already working.  One can just scan the newspapers and see dozens of headlines like “Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law: Tough, Controversial New Legislation Scares Many in Underground Workforce Out of State,”

In contrast, American citizens are leaving California.  For the last four years, more Americans have left the state than have moved in.

In criticizing the SB 1070, Barack Obama said, “Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others.”  There is nothing irresponsible about enforcing our law, but President Obama is right in that this is only necessary because the federal government does not do its job.

But the solution is not “comprehensive immigration reform,” a euphemism for amnesty. This will only encourage more illegal immigration.  And making illegal aliens legal does nothing to change the social and fiscal costs they impose on Arizona or the nation as a whole.  The Heritage Foundation’s research puts the cost of amnesty at over $2.5 Trillion dollars.

The federal government simply needs to enforce its immigration laws by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, securing our borders, and deporting illegal alien criminals.

If states understand states rights and our Constitutional duty and responsibility to our citizens this legislation in Arizona will be a model for states across the nation and the federal government, it will end illegal immigration to America, but President Obama is looking towards San Francisco instead.

State Senator Russell Pearce represents Arizona’s 18th Legislative District.

Kagan may have to sit out key cases for Obama agenda

Kagan may have to sit out key cases for Obama agenda

May 12th, 2010

By JULIE MASON, Washington Examiner

 

conflicts of interest could block her from ruling on cases dealing with Obama

President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court assumes that she will have to step aside on numerous cases. But that concern that was trumped by what Obama called her “skill as a consensus builder.”

For Obama, installing Kagan on the high court would mean more than adding another like-minded constitutional scholar to the mix. Ideally, Kagan would bring outreach skills the more liberal members of the court have been lacking.

“She has a long record as a consensus builder and is the kind of person who can bridge the 5-4 splits that have become so routine on this court,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kagan’s skill set appeals to Obama, who wants to expand on his first-year Supreme Court nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
While Sotomayor is a reliable liberal vote on the court and the first Latina to serve, she functions primarily as a counterpoint to the court’s conservatives. Obama perceives Kagan as a justice with a broader role on the court.

Read More:

CBO ups Obamacare cost projections by $115 Billion

CBO ups Obamacare cost projections by $115 Billion

May 12th, 2010

By JENNIFER HABERKORN, Politico

 this brings the cost to over $1Trillion for Obamacare

Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.

The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to about $1 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.

The CBO released the estimates in response to a request from California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. A spokeswoman for Lewis said the inquiry was filed before the House voted on the bill.

“[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.

Read More:

Big Momma Michelle Obama: Food profiteer-turned-food cop

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

Big Momma Michelle Obama: Food profiteer-turned-food cop

By Michelle Malkin  •  May 12, 2010 01:06 AM

My syndicated column today takes on the First Lady’s hypocritical war on junk food. You can find the White House obesity task force report that lays the groundwork for Mrs. Obama’s nutritional power grab here. Or as White House aide Melody Barnes puts it: “It will serve as a roadmap for the work we need to do together to make sure that our kids grow up healthy and have the opportunity to live active lives.” My roadmap on the SEIU connection to Mrs. O’s campaign is here.

***

Big Momma Michelle Obama: Food profiteer-turned-food cop
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

Let me summarize first lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity agenda: Shed as I say, not as I gain. While she crusades for organic foods and puts government pressure on corporations to stop marketing fast food and junk food to children, Mrs. Obama herself profited from the very same processed food industry she now demonizes.

In June 2005, a few months after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Obama hustled a seat on the corporate Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Despite zero experience, the food-processing company put her on its audit and nominating and corporate governance committees. For her on-the-job training and the privilege of putting her name and face on their literature, the company forked over $45,000 in 2005 and $51,200 in 2006 to Mrs. Obama — as well as 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.

The chairman of the TreeHouse Foods board, Sam K. Reed, was a top executive at Kellogg’s and Keebler Foods, home of that great menace to children, the Keebler Elf. Before that, he headed up Mother’s Cake and Cookie Company. The conglomerate sells cheese sauces, Cremora non-dairy creamer, instant soup, puddings and powdered soft drink mixes. Hardly the stuff of Mrs. Obama’s new vision of nutritional paradise. TreeHouse is also a leading supplier of pickles used in the burgers of evil fast food chain McDonald’s — exactly the kind of corporate restaurants Mrs. Obama is now targeting in her war on urban “food deserts.”

The corporation-bashing Mrs. Obama would have continued raking in her TreeHouse cash if it hadn’t been for her husband’s pesky pledge to pander to Big Labor and swear off Wal-Mart. The retail giant, you see, happened to be TreeHouse’s biggest customer. And Wal-Mart is to Big Labor as sunshine is to Dracula.

In May 2007, Obama told AFL-CIO workers in Trenton, N.J., that Wal-Mart was dead to him. “I won’t shop there,” he pledged, with an eye toward embarrassing then-chief rival Hillary Clinton, who had served on Wal-Mart’s board from 1986-1992. The AFL-CIO has waged relentless attacks on Wal-Mart, dubbing it the “Poster Store for Greed.” That, by extension, would make Mrs. Obama — all-too-happy recipient of a Wal-Mart dependent compensation package worth more than $100,000 in 2008, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records — a Poster Child for Ancillary Avarice.

Candidate Obama shrugged off his wife’s conflict of interest. “Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement,” Obama explained to Crain’s Chicago Business magazine before his White House bid. Political expediency, alas, required that the candidate’s wife step down when the issue reared its head after Obama’s Wal-Mart bashing during the presidential campaign cycle. True to form, Mrs. Obama turned the decision into an ostentatious display of martyrdom:

“As my campaign commitments continue to ramp up, it is becoming more difficult for me to provide the type of focus I would like on my professional responsibilities,” said Chicago’s Joan of Arc in a resignation statement eight days after her husband declared his boycott of the stores stocked with food items processed and distributed by her TreeHouse colleagues. “My priorities, particularly at this important time, are ensuring that our young daughters feel a sense of comfort and normalcy in this process, and that I can support my husband in his presidential campaign to bring much needed change to this country.”

She saw no conflict then. And she sees no conflict now in wielding her East Wing clout to restrict the advertising free speech of the food industry that lined her pocketbook with big, fat paychecks. The Obama White House is on an insatiable control binge. No private space has been left behind — not your grocery aisles, not your children’s TV shows, not even your refrigerator.

Give the first lady this: She has an uncanny knack for wrapping her self-interests in the mantle of self-sacrifice and public service. It’s the Obama way.