Obama wants to spend money we don’t have to rebuild half of our nation’s transportation infrastructure over the next six years “creating jobs as early as 2011 if Congress moves quickly”. He always has grand solutions as long as it is done QUICKLY (preferably without any lawmakers even reading the proposed spending bill, so nobody will fully realize how badly they’ve been screwed until it’s too late, just like Obama-scare!).

At this point I suggest a permanent vacation for Barry and his family. Perhaps Hugo Chavez or Felipe Calderón can play host to the first family until November 2012. They can play golf to their heart’s content and enjoy a lengthy vacation filled with visits to the beach and the most lavish social events imaginable. I know, it sounds deceptively like what’s going on now, but I think this is a better solution.

Besides, Barry seems much better suited for a Banana republic. You see, Barry needs a “starter country”, something small and not very experienced, something to practice with. Venezuela and Mexico are tailor made for Barry. The United States needs real leadership from a patriotic statesman/woman who loves his/her country, not a pocket dictator who will stop at nothing to destroy us. The problem is that those with true character, honor and dedication to country have too much class to stick around with the likes of Barry Obama….where are people, true Americans, such as Condoleezza Rice when we really need some brains and love-for-country-dedication in the White House?!

This is happening more and more all over the western world, and we’re allowing this madness. This is not about freedom of religion. This is Islam attempting to take over the world, make no mistake about it!

Net Neutrality is the term that encompasses the entire debate surrounding the freedom of information on the internet. Currently, paying any one internet provider for service will provide the very same internet to each and every user, no matter the provider. Those in favor of Net Neutrality want to protect this model of the internet. Those opposed to Net Neutrality want to create tiered internet access packages. This means the internet provider will determine what sites are accessible and at what speeds as well as how much time may be spent on a certain site. Some sites may even be blocked entirely.

For example: equate the internet with electricity. There are many electricity providers, and you have the freedom of choice to select any one that you please. You have a new toaster that you want to use to toast all kinds of tasty bread products: bagels, english muffins, bread, pop tarts, strudel, you name it. Small problem though, there are several electricity providers … and they all have very different electrical service plans and packages. It’s just electricity, right? Wrong. Without net neutrality, each of these electricity providers would have a different level of service. These levels aren’t how much electricity you get, but what kind of electricity. If you go with provider A, you can toast bread, but toasting anything else will make you late for work. If you go with electricity provider B, you can toast english muffins and pop-tarts, but you can’t toast bread at all.

This is not a debate about the free market, restrictions on business, or government intrusion. This is a debate about access to information. Should Net Neutrality fail, then companies offering internet access such as Google, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner (just to name a few) will have the ability to restrict what you will be able to see on the internet.

These companies want to create a subscription service similar to the television model. The difference between the internet and television is that anyone and everyone can place information on the internet while television is a highly controlled medium of entertainment and information (yes, in that order). Should any party take up establishing Net Neutrality as their primary platform, they will carry the electronic generation’s attention, support, and vote.

Many who have contributed large sums of money to the Crist campaign (while he still pretended to be a republican) are understandably furious. They were duped by Charlie, but the rest of us won’t be. This past Friday Crist told a TV station that he would have voted in favor of President Obama’s healthcare proposal were he in the Senate. His previous position was against the healthcare bill. Which is it, Charlie? Do you want the government to control a huge segment of our lives or don’t you? This is a matter of principle. It’s an easy choice if you know where you stand.

That’s the problem, not even Charlie knows what to think anymore. At this point I don’t care what he calls himself anymore. Whether democrat, republican or “independent”, when you lack character and core values, principled values which guide you, then waiting for the next opinion poll and giving your support to the most popular sentiments make you weak and unsuitable for leadership.

Crist clearly believes switching his affiliation to independent will give him an advantage, the theory being that he will receive moderate democrat and republican votes. He couldn’t be more wrong. What he’s really doing is splitting the democrat vote. Crist will get the moderate democrat votes and Meek will take the radical lefties. Republican votes will go to Rubio. Crist has merely made himself the Ross Perot of this election. Time will tell.

Most importantly, both Crist and Meek represent everything that’s wrong with this country. They represent the failure and misery which has marked and quickly tarnished the Obama administration.

Marco Rubio is a man of vision and principle, guided by the belief that we as individuals are far more competent to make decisions in our lives than the federal government. Government needs to get out of our way, needs to stop obstructing businesses. It is businesses which create jobs, NOT government. Rubio understands this more than most. He deserves our support. We who live in Florida deserve the leadership of a man like Marco Rubio in the United States Senate.

I can’t believe Americans are so callous and insensitive to the families of the 3000 people who lost their lives at Ground zero.

Pride and patriotism does not exist in the United States anymore. Immigrants coming to the US are not conforming to the American ways and laws. Their allegiance should be to one country and that is the United States of America, not to the radical the beliefs of the country they left. Nor should they come here to have their babies and get all they can free. Some of these people get their education here and learn whatever they can and then use what they learned against the United States.
Unbelievable. You’re not going to guess what our tax dollars are subsidizing besides Rauf’s trip to the Middle East. Actually, in this ObamaNation, it turns out that you and I are funding the State Department to purchase and distribute copies of Feisal Abdul Rauf’s book, What’s Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.

Rauf is the imam behind the Ground Zero mosque and is the same imam who won’t condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization; the same imam who said on “60 Minutes” that America was an “accessory” to September 11; and, as we reported at HUMAN EVENTS, the same imam who told a college audience overseas that the United States is worse than al Qaeda.

And not only has the State Department anointed him as our ad hoc ambassador to the Muslim world, but now they are acting as his personal Barnes & Noble to boot. Buried in a recent New York Times article on Imam Rauf’s global hopscotch, the paper casually referenced that our government buys and hands out his tome in an effort “to lecture about tolerance” and pursue “interfaith dialogue” with Islamic nations.

Only in the left’s strange world does it make sense to support Imam Rauf as a goodwill spokesman for the United States while he’s busy trashing the United States. But that aside, did the bureaucrats at the State Department ever take the time to read Rauf’s What’s Right with Islam? If so, they’ll have to justify why they’re promoting a book that faults America for stirring up conflict with Muslims, brags that America is “Sharia compliant,” and makes excuses for suicide bombings.

Researchers at the American Center for Law and Justice combed through Rauf’s 2004 book and found alarming passages. In the Orwellian-named chapter “What’s Right with America,” Rauf goes on to-you guessed it-blame America. He writes: “If there is any quarrel Muslims have with America, it is that the United States does not always live up to its own ideal of ethics and values.” In the same chapter, Rauf has a section called “America: A Sharia-Compliant State” wherein he contends that the “American political structure is Sharia compliant,” especially if it begins to allow “religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.”

As if that weren’t bad enough, Rauf goes on to rationalize suicide bombings by blaming societal roots and not the warped Islamic fanatics themselves. Quoth the imam: “The most widely accepted view today in psychoanalysis is that suicide is most often a form of ‘displacement.’. the individual inflicts upon himself the result of the frustration and anger caused by the perceived unraveling of the social fabric of his world.”

Protecting the Rights of Terrorists Has Been More Important to Obama and his administration than Protecting the Lives of Americans – look at our borders and the Cartels in our southern states. The Federal government is doing nothing to protect our citizens. Instead Obama is dividing our country. He can’t even back Arizona with their new law.

As the writer of the award winning story ‘Forrest Gump’ so aptly put it, ‘Stupid is as stupid does.’

Ground Zero is a place that will forever stand as a reminder that there are those that wish to harm Americans just because they are Americans. Those that died on September 11th were not a homogeneous collective of middle class white educated males. They were as diverse, unique, interesting, and lively as the city in which they lived. But they were American, and they died for it.

Obama, and his administration, has said that since there is no local ordinance against such buildings, that the organization should be free to build the civic center. Funny that the administration should fall back on the rule of law when it serves a cause they support. Let’s take a little look at how this method of reasoning is entirely inconsistent with this administration’s previous actions concerning the law: refusing to press charges against the Black Panthers who were videotaped committing voter intimidation, refusing to sanction sanctuary cities which openly defy immigration laws, allowing convicted tax cheats to sit on numerous tax committees just to name a few.

They argue that the absence of a law prohibiting a building means that anything goes. Ok, I’ll play your game, sir. Let me think of some wonderful investment opportunities that can go in the same neighborhood, across the street from the mosque … BaconTown: a fun-filled culinary experience in which the whole family can sample bacon from all over the world (can you imagine the magnificent smell from such a wonderful place? I’ll have a one year pass, please); a pork processing plant: pork chops, bacon, boston butt, and pork tenderloin as far as the eye can see; a women’s designer swimsuit boutique with live models that display the store’s product in a large glass window opposite the civic center; or, a 24 hour gay dance club.

Some may say that my proposals are offensive, and baiting. Well, what exactly do you think that this “civic center” is? My suggestions to place these establishments in such proximity to a religious institution that despises them is nothing worse than placing a monument to the religion that was the sole and direct cause for the death of 2,995 New Yorkers on the same city block as the giant crater that serves as their shared grave. Why has this particular city block, this special little spot, this section of very expensive Manhattan real estate been chosen to place this building? The very same thing that any real estate agent will tell you sells: location, location, location.

If the Muslim world wishes to truly distance itself from its violent extremists then it should really think about how it portrays itself. Erecting a building which serves those who share the basic religious ideology of the hijackers is most certainly not in line with projecting an aura of peace, understanding, and acceptance. This projects the aura of a conquering army, proudly placing its flag on conquered soil.

It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.

The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.

While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.

The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.

It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is “a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.”

There is however a political revolution fast approaching Washington that is driven not by mob rule but by the power of ideas and principles, based upon the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It is a distinctly conservative revolution that is sweeping America and is reflected in almost every poll ahead of this November’s mid-terms. It is based on a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and above all, political accountability from the ruling elites. The Obama administration’s mantra may well be “let them eat cake”, as it continues to gorge itself on taxpayers’ money, but it will be looking nervously over its shoulder as public unease mounts.

The US District Court has ruled on the preemption aspect of the bill, not the regulations on immigrants. A law is “preempted” when a state attempts to pass a law that the federal government has already passed, or pass legislation in an area that the federal government has already regulated. Judge Bolton stated “[p]reserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced.” The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of immigration laws, as a whole, that cover such areas; the Court has ruled on Arizona’s laws that overlap with federal rules, laws, and regulations. The federal government already has the exact same laws in place that Arizona’s legislature recently passed. In the ruling,

A quick summary of the federal government’s policy on immigration can be found on Cornell University Law School’s website.

The loudest opponents of this bill have screamed “racism” (please see my previous article on this; man I love continuity almost as much as shameless self promotion) and are now celebrating a major victory. What these people don’t know is that their argument has been heard, considered, and summarily rejected. These opponents claim that the requirements of the AZ law are unconstitutional, when in fact, the federal government has had the very same laws on the books for decades. The government isn’t upset that the bill has been passed, the government is upset that a state is trying to pick up the federal government’s slack. This is more a case of big brother being upset that little brother has done his chores. Think of it like this: you are attending a state fair, and you only have five tickets. You have carefully budgeted how you will spend these tickets because you really, really, really wanted to ride the big shiny thing you have watched the workers construct for a week. Just as you reach the ride operator, you hand him your ride ticket, but your little brother grabs the ticket, hands it to the operator, and away he goes on the ride that you have paid for. The immigration situation is not so different. The federal government has to pay for the majority of immigration doctrines, procedures, institutions, and infrastructure. For these systems to exist, they require funding; funding which comes from the federal government. The federal government makes the laws that involve the systems that it created and funds, and it does not want the states meddling in areas which have been established with a particular infrastructure and funding in mind. Another analogy: you don’t want someone else spending money from a checking account that you manage when that spender has no idea what the balance looks like, do you?

While it’s a loss on the day for Arizona, it’s a victory for the purpose of the bill. For now, the “illegal” in illegal immigrant still classifies these crossing our borders without proper clearance and certification as criminals, but stay tuned for the left to attack that next.

Then again, opponents of the bill didn’t read those measly ten pages, so I’m making a rather large assumption that they will read the District Court’s ruling. Silly me.

If you would like to read the opinion for yourself (and spare some snide comments from myself) you may do so here. Credit goes to Gavel Grab and The Blog of Legal Times for the link to the ruling.