This is unfreakingbelievable..... and the beat goes on!

[Varmit]

... all liberals are liars and all good Marines are conservatives. ...

Well, I'll be..Diane, you finally said something that I agree with.

[Diane Amberg]

You are really gonna get it!

[Warph]

Ah yes..... the beat keeps moving right along... without a hitch....

Lets see now.... in the age of Attorney General Eric Holder.... who not only won't pursue the case against the New Black Panther Party,
who won't investigate the allegations that Joe Sestak was illegally offered inducements by the Obama administration to drop his primary challenge against Arlen Specter,

who won't investigate similar offers made by the Obama team to former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff to drop his primary challenge to Senator Michael Bennett,

who won't investigate ACORN on possible racketeering charges,
who has a blase approach towards terrorism and who cannot even utter the words "Islamic terrorism,"  

who told a senator's he hasn't read Arizona Law 1070,

now......should we be surprised at all that mealy-mouth John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proudly declared he won't process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona state officials?  

Gee... I'm not at all surprised!  Could it be that these Chicago gangster Clowns are looking at the November elections and realize their refusal to enforce federal laws can reap political payoffs in the hispanic & latino vote?  YOU BET'CHA!!!

So, the country's top federal immigration enforcement cop says his agency won't be doing its job .  "John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials.  The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.  'I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,' Morton said during a visit to the Chicago Tribune editorial board.

And Morton's opinion is relevant how exactly?  Well, it is relevant in the sense that a senior Homeland Security official has openly declared that he won't be doing his job.  Morton has sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the United States.  He is not allowed to pick and choose which ones he likes and which he doesn't.  

Perhaps Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano could do something RIGHT for a change and FIRE this guy.

And while Morton plays politics he justifies himself with this gem: "In the immigration business, if they are against you on both sides, it's generally a sign that you're doing something right," Morton said.

Sorry sport, it just means you are failing comprehensively.


....Warph

[Warph]

The Liberator OnLine
Good News,
Bad News,
Unbelievable News
by James W. Harris


Feds Ponder Mandatory Redesign of... Hot Dogs

Is there nothing the federal government can keep its hands off of?

Apparently not.

Writes Virginia's Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper:

"At the instigation of the American Academy of Pediatrics, federal bureaucrats at the FDA, the Department of Agriculture, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are studying whether to require the nation's hot-dog makers to redesign hot dogs to reduce the likelihood of choking."

Yeah, it sounded like a joke to us, too. But it's not.

Let us quickly note that we're not in favor of child strangulation. Indeed, we stand firmly against it.

However, as the newspaper points out, children under age 10 eat almost 2 billion hot dogs each year. Yet in 2006, there were only 13 hot dog-related choking deaths in this age group across America.

Of course, any child death is tragic. However, the Richmond-Dispatch further observes:

"On a per-hot-dog basis, the odds of a child choking to death are 13 divided by 2 billion, which comes to ... well, a microscopically small number. The odds that a person will be struck by lightning in any given year are about 4,000 times higher than the odds of a child choking to death on a hot dog. Given that context, redesigning hot dogs looks like a solution in search of a problem.

"If the regulatory state has reached a point at which it is warning about the dangers of patently safe products, then the public might reasonably wonder what, exactly, is being protected -- the health of young children, or the jobs of federal employees?"

More on the Hot Dogs: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-FEAR09_20100507-194005/342939/

[Warph]

.......and the beat goes on!

Rep. Joe Sestak, winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, is refusing to provide more information on what job he was offered by a White House official to drop of that race, although he confirmed again that the incident occurred.

The White House was backing incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the primary.  Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official.... a potential violation of federal law, btw... but has not offered any specifics on conversation.  Republicans are trying to use the issue against Sestak in the November Senate race.

So Joe says: "It's interesting. I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt that I should answer it honestly, and that's all I had to say about it." Sestak said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."  "Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role.  That's their responsibility."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has been asked at SIX different White House briefings about Rep. Joe Sestak's claim that the White House offered him a high ranking administration position if he would not run in Pennsylvania's Democratic U.S. Senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter.  On none of these occasions did Gibbs directly confirm or deny Sestak's claim.

The Gibb's Timeline:

Below are Gibbs's responses to reporters' questions about Sestak's allegation as drawn from the official White House transcripts of Gibbs's briefings.


February 23, 2010

Question: "One last thing, I'm sorry. Congressman Jeff Sestak last week said that the White House offered him a high-ranking job in the administration to not run against Arlen Specter. Do you guys have any comment on that?"

Gibbs: "I was traveling for a couple of days, as you know. I have seen some stuff that he said, but I have not looked into this."

Later on Feb. 23

Question: "I want to follow-up on Jake's (ABC News) question, because on Friday, unnamed officials of this building did vociferously deny Representative Sestak's assessment that he had been offered a job. And I just want to say, when you said, 'I haven't looked at this,' I want to make sure you're not contradicting that denial."

Gibbs: "I just -- because I was on the road and dealing with different things on the road, I've not had a chance to delve into this."

Question: "Would there be anything inappropriate about a discussion like that?"

Gibbs: "Let me have somebody look into--like I said, I was on the road and I don't really have a whole lot of knowledge on this."

March 1, 2010

Question: "Thank you, Robert. Last Monday you were asked twice about the claims of Congressman Sestak that he had been offered a high-ranking administration position and--"

Gibbs: "I have not--I have not made any progress on that."

Question: "Just to let you know, I was in touch with Geoff Morrell from the Pentagon, who said there was no discussion of it at all. But Mr. Sestak's spokesman, Jonathan Dworkin, said the congressman stands by his story. Can you check if the White House--?"

(crosstalk)

Gibbs: "I was remiss on this, and I apologize."

(crosstalk)

Gibbs: "I -- there's not much to follow up on. Let me, let me check into that."

Later on March 1

Question: "(inaudible) back on it just very briefly. An unknown White House spokesperson did say in the Philadelphia Inquirer, or did deny what Sestak had said three times on TV?"

Gibbs: "Yes, I said I would check on this. It's hard for me to do followups on something I can't--can't work through."

Question: "So, so at this point, the White House is not ready to deny what Sestak said?"

Gibbs: "No. I, I think I said I would check on, on the situation."

March 9, 2010

Question: "A couple of quick political ones. On the Sestak issue, Arlen Specter said on another--this afternoon that Sestak and his opinion on this allegation that he was offered a job not to run against Specter, needs to prove it, needs to back it up, and claims that Sestak's accusation is hurting the White House, damaging its reputation. You told us a couple of times you'd check back on this. Can you give us an update, number one? And number two--"

Gibbs: "I don't have the update with me, but let me check and see if I do have anything--"

Question: "Do you have any evaluation of Senator Specter's comments on this?"

Gibbs: "No, I don't."

March 11, 2010

Question: "One other thing, because last Tuesday you told us, 'I don't have the update with me on Sestak.' Two things have happened since then. Two things have happened."

Gibbs: "I don't have any--"

Question: "Darrell Issa sent a letter to the White House Counsel – "

Gibbs: "I don't have anything additional on that. Scott?"

Question: "Are you ever going to have anything additional on that?"

Gibbs: "I don't have it today."


March 12, 2010

Question: "And the other thing:  Do you have an answer yet on Mr. Sestak's charge?"

Gibbs: "I don't have any more information on that."


March 16, 2010

Question: Robert, perhaps a sore point, but Congressman Darrell Issa has accused you, Robert Gibbs, of being part of a cover-up because you will not say whether the White House offered Joe Sestak a job for not running against Arlen Specter.  Guilty or not guilty?

Gibbs: Look, I've talked to several people in the White House; I've talked to people that have talked to others in the White House. I'm told that whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.  I think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is -- whatever happened is in the past, and he's focused on his primary election.

Question:  Did the White House Counsel's Office look into whether this was a crime--

Gibbs: I'd refer you to my previous lines.

Question: Sestak says he was offered something.

Gibbs: I'll refer you to what I just said a minute ago.

As someone said: "Gibbs is merely a goon emulating Baghdad Bob in his servitude to his Marxist lords. He's merely portraying the "transparency" of Obama's moronic administration."

[Warph]

...the beat... moving right along...

Another Vacation, Barry?  Obama schedules his second one since the infamous Oil SPILL...

Our one-term Prez, Obama, went to Arlington Cemetery to lay the wreath last year, but this year Obama's handing the wreath to Plugs and heading off to the more welcoming political climes of Chicago:  

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to spend a long holiday weekend in Chicago.

The White House says Obama and his family will travel to their hometown on Thursday and stay through the weekend. It will be their first trip back home since a visit for Valentine's Day weekend in February 2009.

On Monday, Obama is scheduled to participate in a Memorial Day ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Ill.

In Obama's absence, Vice President Joe Biden will participate in the customary wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington.

Obama will however make it back to Washington in time next week to honor Paul McCartney, who has sacrificed so much for the freedoms we enjoy.  Boy, I'm starting to think that West Point speech he gave the other day wasn't from the heart.  
Hmmmm.... le'ssee now.... Another Vacation? Obama schedules his second one since the infamous Oil SPILL...

Oh yeah... did I mention Obama will alter vacation plans slightly and travel to the Gulf on Friday in a desperate attempt to "plug the damn hole" in his approval ratings.

[Diane Amberg]

Considering the instant communication available to everyone these days, I think any President can be President from anywhere. Camp David, Crawford,Texas, Illinois or where ever.  None of them are ever truly "on vacation." I'm more interested in how they are Presidenting...Is that a word? ...than where they are doing it. ( He, nor any Democrat, could do anything right in your eyes anyway, so why bother?) I'm not sure what the oil spill has to do with the President's where abouts.  B.P has already hired many of the locals on the condition they don't talk. Is is a disaster that will take years, if ever to recover. The next President will probably deal with it too. There is still oil under rocks and places in Prince William Sound after all these years, saw it myself. There isn't more  our Gov't can or should do is there? It's BP's and all their contractors' problem, so they should deal with all of it. I'm watching with inters as the spill might even pick up a ride with the Gulf stream and come up the east coast some day.

[Warph]

President Barack Hussein Obama Declares June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/29/Obama_Declares_June_LGBT_Month/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AdvocatecomDailyNews+(Advocate.com+Daily+News)&utm_content=FaceBook

"My Fellow Americans,
As Americans, it is our birthright that all people are created equal and deserve the same rights, privileges, and opportunities. Since our earliest days of independence, our Nation has striven to fulfill that promise. An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans, we renew our commitment to the struggle for equal rights for LGBT Americans and to ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists.

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level. Thanks to those who came before us, the brave men and women who marched, stood up to injustice, and brought change through acts of compassion or defiance we have made enormous progress and continue to strive for a more perfect union.

My Administration has advanced our journey by signing into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which strengthens Federal protections against crimes based on gender identity or sexual orientation. We renewed the Ryan White CARE Act, which provides life saving medical services and support to Americans living with HIV/AIDS, and finally eliminated the HIV entry ban. I also signed a Presidential Memorandum directing hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to give LGBT patients the compassion and security they deserve in their time of need, including the ability to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions.

In other areas, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a series of proposals to ensure core housing programs are open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. HUD also announced the first ever national study of discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the rental and sale of housing. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services has created a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders.

Much work remains to fulfill our Nation's promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans. That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits. We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment. I am also committed to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal.

As we honor the LGBT Americans who have given so much to our Nation, let us remember that if one of us is unable to realize full equality, we all fall short of our founding principles. Our Nation draws its strength from our diversity, with each of us contributing to the greater whole. By affirming these rights and values, each American benefits from the further advancement of liberty and justice for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth."

BARACK H. OBAMA

[Warph]

June 17, 2010
Goodbye to One Man, One Vote
Blogger: Selwyn Duke

If you thought that "one man, one vote" reflected the full flowering of representative democracy, think again. In the village of Port Chester, N.Y., just a few towns north of my locality in Westchester County, there is a new system. It's "one (minority) man, six votes" -- brought to us courtesy of the U.S. Department of Injustice and a lunkhead of a federal judge named Stephen Robinson.

Here's the story: In 2006, the Injustice Department alleged that Port Chester's election system was "unfair." The problem? While the village is almost half Hispanic, no Hispanic had ever been elected as a trustee. 

Now, how this hapless village got on the feds' radar screen, I have no idea. Were Hispanics intimidated into avoiding the polls? Were there literacy tests? Poll taxes? No, this story will not inspire a movie by the name of Port Chester Burning. Instead, it seems the problem Uncle Scam had was that the town's slim white majority -- who turn out to vote in greater numbers than their Latino neighbors (Hispanics also account for only about 20 percent of Port Chester's voting-age population), along with whatever Hispanics join them -- have thus far chosen to elect only white candidates. That pesky majority rule can be a real bummer, can't it?

So the Injustice Department -- using our tax money -- dragged Port Chester into court, which, presumably, cost the village tax money in litigation costs (ain't being a civil rights lawyer grand?). It's enough to make you wonder if the Injustice Department has too much time and money on its hands, except that it doesn't seem to have time to tackle real voter intimidation. Remember that this is the bureaucracy that refused to pursue the case against the Black Panthers who tried to scare white voters away from a polling place in Philadelphia.

This brings us to Federal Judge Stephen Robinson. He ruled -- get the Digitalis -- that the village's practice of having conventional at-large elections violated the Voting Rights Act. Now, let me put this in the simplest terms possible. The Voting Rights Act's purpose was to ensure that everyone would have the opportunity to vote. Yet this "judge" decreed that "one man, one vote," and the attendant majority rule, violate the act if they don't yield a politically correct result.

And the kicker is Robinson's remedy: He approved a plan to give every resident six votes, which they can apportion among the six trustees to be elected any way they wish. It's known as "cumulative voting." No, we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. Heck, I'm not even so sure we're in America.

What's the thinking? I suppose the idea is that many Hispanics will exhibit great ethnic patriotism and give all their votes to one Hispanic candidate, whereas whites don't vote as a block to the extent other groups do. Perhaps we're seeing an example of leftists nobly shouldering the Liberal White Man's Burden.

Judge Robinson also ruled that Port Chester must allow residents to show up on any one of five days to cast ballots, a system called "in-person early voting."

So first the left gave us quotas in schools and businesses, and now we have them in elections. I wonder, if there is a locality in which whites are almost half the population, with a black majority that has never elected a white candidate, will the feds roll into town and work the same voodoo? What if it's an area that's almost 50 percent female but that has never voted a woman into office? Maybe we should just mandate that public officials must reflect the demographic composition of their constituencies.

You could also say that this is the next step in the evolution of get-out-the-vote drives. It used to be that such endeavors were geared merely toward motivating the ignorant and apathetic to cast ballots, as we know that such people will make thoroughly stellar voting decisions if we can only somehow cajole them into the polling place. But this is so much simpler: Get out the vote by multiplying it. We don't need dead people in Chicago anymore -- we have deadheads in the Injustice Department. 

Really, this scheme visited upon Port Chester is just another example of liberal bigotry. The leftist social engineers are again dividing people into groups, tacitly claiming that a person of one race cannot adequately represent a person of another, and changing the melting pot into a cauldron of ethnic tension.

So on Tuesday, June 15, there was an election in a village in New York. In preparation, the locality had six forums in English and six in Spanish to explain a new, federally mandated scheme to the voters.  It created various ways of publicizing the election -- with tote bags, lawn signs, and tee shirts stating "Your voice, your vote, your village"; and reminders in the form of TV spots, brochures, and handouts given to schoolchildren, in both English and Spanish -- all of which had to be approved by the Department of Injustice. It also hired a "non-profit" election research and reform group called FairVote to provide consultation services (our tax money at work -- again). And when it came time to cast the votes, "federal observers" were on site...watching. 

The left is Balkanizing us. I just wonder what their quota prescription will be when it comes time to partition the nation.