From the beginning, there has been speculation that Barack Obama has been an apologist for the Islamic world. His campaign rhetoric during the 2008 presidential campaign in which he indicated that he would sit down with leaders of Islamic nations such as Iran without precondition drew the ire of many who viewed him as soft on the war on terror.

Then, once in office, the dynamics of our battle with the forces of Islamic extremism took an even darker turn when the terms used to describe the conflict were changed. No longer were we fighting a war on terror. We were now involved in an "overseas contingency operation", with terrorist attackes now labeled as "man-made disasters".

Obama's wavering support for Israel in the wake of credible threats from Iran and the Palestinians against this great nation gave many Americans pause, as they wondered how this administration could have abandoned our ally in favor of nations that would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the planet Earth.

The latest salvo to be fired across the bow of patriotic Americans still hurting from the horrible attacks of September 11th, 2001 is this president's support for the mosque being planned near Ground Zero. His endorsement of this abomination, an insult to the collective conscience of our country, is both stunning and quite telling.

The reaction to Obama's nod of approval has come swiftly.

Senator John Cornyn R-Texas, said "I think it does speak to the lack of connection between the administration and Washington and folks inside the Beltway and mainstream America. And I think this is what aggravates people so much.Whether you're connected with people, whether you're listening or whether you're lecturing to them, I think this is sort of the dichotomy that people sense, that they're being lectured to, not listened to, and I think that's the reason why a lot of people are very upset with Washington".

Representative Peter King, R-N.Y. said in a written statement that the president is "wrong".

"It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero", King said. "While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much," he said. "The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from ground zero. Unfortunately, the president caved into political correctness".

Obama has said that if all local laws and ordinances are followed, the right to build the mosque should not be infringed.

But House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a written statement, "The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding. This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect of a tragic moment in our history".

Adding even more insult to the American people, are plans to dedicate the mosque on the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks.

Questions have been raised about where the money to build this $100 million dollar monstrosity.

Claudia Rosett of the Weekly Standard has reported that the State Department is sponsoring a junket to the Middle East, supposedly to "help people overseas understand our society". However, is this really not an opportunity for Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to raise the capital to make this mosque and Islamic cultural center a reality? 

Follow the money.

Democrats have been left reeling from Obama's comments, especially in an contentious midterm election year, in which they had hoped to be discussing issues such as Social Security.

The American people are very tolerant of religious freedoms, as they should be. And if all of the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s crossed, then legally, the Imams have the legal right to build this mosque on private property, even in the shadows of hallowed ground.

But having the legal right to build it, and the common sense to make a decision sensitive to the families and friends who lost loved ones on 9-11 are two completely different things.

This president could have used his powers to persuade the Imams to build this mosque somewhere else. Obama chose through his endorsement, however, to slap the face of the American people. He further insulted them by implying that the opposition to it is based solely on an emotional trauma left over from the 9-11, and not on rational thinking by a patriotic electorate sick and tired of seeing their commander-in-chief bowing to the very people who would do us harm at the earliest opportunity.

For that, Obama should be ashamed of himself.

Listen to America Talks weekends at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks, or at www.americatalks.com.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling striking down California's ban on same sex marriage, is a slap in the face to states' rights in this country.

Every man, woman and child living in the United States should be outraged that with a single swipe of his pen, Walker has ruled that the will of over seven million voters was deemed null and void.

In his 136 page opinion, Walker wrote "because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same.  The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

The problem is, our founding documents, including the United States Constitution, are based on Judeo-Christian principles. Walker, who himself is openly gay, seems to have forgotten that. By ruling the way that he did, he has opened the door to all manner of abomination.

Yes, the slippery slope argument applies here. What is stop someone from wanting to marry several partners? Or from wedding an animal?

Sounds silly , you say? Just wait. If this ruling is allowed to stand, these types of unions will be attempted.

More to the main issue is the fact that the people of California, and by extension 45 other states which have laws defining marriage, will be told that their citizens are not allowed to determine what constitutes the most sacred union between two people. These states will be forced to grant rights and privileges to any two or more entities that walk through the door of their city halls.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

And that is how it should be. Yes, that is how it should be.

If these states choose to recognize same-sex marriage, that is their right. It should be left to individual states to determine what they will recognize as marriage.

There have been several proposals over the years to make the definition of marriage a Federal issue. Some have even proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution to define marriage as between one man and on woman.

But amending the Constitution is a long, difficult and arduous process, as it should be. This is not an issue to be addressed at that level. The states can handle it. But by ruling as he did, Vaughn Walker has made it a Federal case, on that is sure to make it to the highest court in the land.

California has appealed Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in all likelihood will uphold his ruling. Then it goes to the Supremes, which will have to decide if they will even hear the case.

This will drag out for awhile. In the meantime, gay marriage in California is on hold.

And seven million very dissed voters are awaiting the next step.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks, or at www.americatalks.com.

The clock is ticking. One hundred days and counting until the largest shakeup in American political history.

The Democrats are in full meltdown mode. Their party is collapsing under its own weight, as it becomes increasingly clear that Republicans, if they play their cards right, have an opportunity to take back not only the House, as has been widely predicted, but the Senate as well.

How did we get to this point?

Eighteen months ago, the party of tax and spend was all aglow, basking in the glory of knowing that not only did they control both houses of Congress, but the first black president had been elected with a pretty good majority of the popular vote, and that this president was one of them. He was, in fact, much more far to the left than many of them, with an agenda so radical that some of his policies would make even the most liberal among them reel.

The highest priority for this new regime was the passage of the Health Care Bill. An unprecedented chance existed to transform the health care system in this country into something akin to what exists in Europe and Canada. Barack Obama and the Democrats went to work on what should have been an easy achievement in the passage of this landmark legislation. They felt assured that the American people, anxious to see their health care costs diminished, would embrace this change with open arms.

But then something unexpected happened. The American people pushed back. When the specter of diminished care threatened to overshadow diminished costs, combined with the real possibility that bean counters in Washington would be determining who lives and who dies, a revolt ensued. What followed were very contentious town hall meetings, where arrogant politicians were confronted by angry constituents opposed to this legislation. Even after the bill passed, with virtually no one having read it, the Dems continued to post-sell it.

At the same time, the economy was in free-fall. The stimulus was not doing what the Democrats were saying it was: generating employment from the private sector. Unemployment was supposed to be reduced to eight percent. Instead, it hovered at ten percent, with many areas of the country hit much harder in numbers when those who had fallen off the rolls and who stopped looking for work were factored in. A massive deficit also created angst among voters, who felt Washington was being reckless with regard to spending.

Obama and the Democrats claimed that everything they were doing was staving off another Great Depression. Tell that to the those trying to put food on the table. The only jobs generated by the stimulus were government jobs, most of them temporary. The Census made it appear as though the job picture was getting brighter. It wasn't.

Another heated and controversial issue, that of immigration and border security, is fresh in the minds of many Americans. And although it is the Obama regime that is suing the state of Arizona over its recently passed and soon to be enacted immigration law, the public is concerned that the federal government as a whole is not doing its job with regards to protecting our borders. Many are concerned that their state legislatures will be thwarted in protecting their citizens if the feds, who aren't doing their jobs, go on the attack. Obama himself has said he will not secure the border unless and until comprehensive immigration reform is passed. In doing so, he is holding the American people hostage. And since he is not up for re-election for another two years, the folks will take it out on the Congress.

Obama has been reckless, acting like a man who knows he may very well be a one term president. He even stated in an interview, that he would rather be a "really good one term president than a mediocre two term president". One can only assume from his actions, that 'really good' means ramming as much of his agenda down the throats of the American people in four years as he can, and to hell with the consequences. Even at the expense of his own party.

Now, in these one hundred days leading up to the midterm elections, what can Republicans do to capitalize on the damage the Democrats have done to our country?

The first thing they need to do is go on an aggressive attack against the failed policies of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. They can point to the continuing high unemployment rate, the out of control deficit, the plans to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, all further hurting the economy.

Then they can point to Obamacare, and vow to repeal it. They can assure those concerned about their health care costs that they have a plan that will help those truly in need, while not forcing everyone on what will eventually be a single payer system that will put insurance companies out of business, while forcing Americans to buy something they don't want.

Republicans can also kill any climate change legislation that the Democrats have put forth. Although investing in clean energy to help the country reduce its dependence on foreign oil is wise, it must be combined with a renewed effort to drill domestically (on land as well as offshore), the Gulf oil spill notwithstanding. More damage to our nation's economy will occur as a result of a moratorium on drilling for oil whether temporarily or permanently, than anything the spill has caused.

The stage is set. The Democrats have 255 seats in the House, with 178 Republicans and two vacancies. In order for the GOP to recapture the House, they need to gain 40 seats. With one-third of the Senate up for re-election, Republicans must find a way to get to 51 from the 40 seats they now hold.

It can be done. It must be done. But Republicans must be diligent in the rhetoric and the strategies they put forth in the remaining weeks. If they play their card right, they can repeal the damage done to our country, and replace those who allowed it to happen.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks, or at www.americatalks.com.

Vice President Joe Biden, appearing on "This Week", said Democrats are going to shock everybody with how well they do in the November elections. Paraphrasing Mark Twain, Biden said that reports of the 'demise' of the Democrats are "premature".

Biden must be living in an alternate universe.

Polls indicate congressional job approval is at an all-time low. The passage of the health care bill despite overwhelming opposition to it has angered many Americans. Failure to control the borders while attempting to shove amnesty down the throats of the American people in the guise of comprehensive immigration reform  has also soured the voting public. Fiscal irresponsibility and failed stimulus packages that do not generate real jobs is causing major angst with those who have been hard hit by the economic malaise.And the flippant attitude by elected representatives at town hall meetings where these topics are raised show that our leaders in Washington are completely out of touch with reality.

When Robert Gibbs let it slip that Republicans have a decent chance at making significant inroads in this fall's midterm elections, he was roundly chastised by Nancy Pelosi. Yet all indications are that a sea change is coming this November, and many Democrats are going to be swept away by the tsunami of voter dissatisfaction. 

It doesn't help that Barack Obama has thrown his own party under the bus.

The radical agenda that Obama has attempted to foist on the American people have left even some very liberal Democrats in the House and Senate reeling. Democratic governors have expressed "grave" concerns over the administration's suit against Arizona over their illegal immigration law, saying it could cost the party crucial elections in the fall. The recent recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to head up Medicare and Medicaid has sent shivers up the spines of even some Democrats who fear his wealth redistribution philosophy with regards to medical care will unravel the hard sell the Obama administration has been doing post passage of this legislation. This could translate into more lost votes for the Dems in November.

And yet, Pelosi, Reid and now Biden swagger with a confidence about the midterms that seems almost euphoric. Why?

Because liberals don't live in the same world, or the same reality as the rest of us. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the American public would call themselves traditional if not conservative, liberals believe people actually want bigger government, more regulation, higher taxes and tons of uncontrolled spending. Liberals think that folks want a cradle-to-grave nanny state, that equals the playing field for everybody by taking from those who have and giving to those who have not.

In his outstanding book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, Dr. Lyle Rossiter exposes the mindset that fosters such thinking.

He writes "The need to dominate others arises from the tyrant’s need for absolute assurance that the catastrophic loss of dependency or the pain of abuse so devastating to him in his earliest years will not be repeated. In his determination to control the world, he constantly defends himself against what Karen Horney aptly described as the most basic of human fears: being alone and helpless in a dangerous, indifferent world, the nightmare of the abandoned, terrified child. Persons plagued with such fears easily conclude that it is in their greatest interest to dominate others, or to imagine that they can, and to set about achieving that goal through the manipulation of government power".

So the liberals compensate for their fears by imposing as much government control as is humanly possible, then pretend that they have created an Utopian environment,  one in which all will be right with the world as they have created it.

This thought process then leads them to conclude that there is no possible way that any form of resistance could possibly take place, and that now that everyone is equal and on a level playing field, their jobs as politicians are secure.

Of course what they fail to realize with their heads traveling in the fog of the unknown, is that most people, at least in America, long to be free. That's what the Founding Fathers understood when they helped to create this great nation. Most want freedom from high taxes, overburdening regulation,  and costly entitlement programs. Most people want the government to secure the borders, protect our country from terrorist attacks, not bow to our enemies, and respect our sovereignty.

Come this November, the Democrats are going to receive a huge wake-up call. They will be forced to accept reality as it is, not as they would like it to be. They will see the country restored to the people, our Constitution dusted off and put back where it belongs, as the foundation of our nation.

And they will awaken to find themselves where many Americans are now.

Unemployed.

Listen to America Talks Saturday at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Ed Schultz, the lib talker radio and television host, recently postulated that Barack Obama may not really desire to be president. Schultz said it may just not be his "gig".

In an interview with ABC News, Obama had told Diane Sawyer that he'd rather be a really good one term president, than a mediocre two term president. Instead, what we're dealing with is a man who would be happy to serve only one term, provided that he can push his radical agenda on the American people.

Three examples stand out as to what Obama is trying to accomplish in his first (and perhaps only) term as president.

First and foremost, Obama used a recess appointment to make Dr. Donald Berwick the new health-care rationing czar.

Ludicrous, you say?

Berwick is a single-payer proponent, who is enamored with the British model of health-care. He praised what Great Britain has done with their health-care system and said "that any health-care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane, must...must redistribute wealth, from the rich among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition re-distributional".

This is the guy who is going to be heading the $800 billion Medicare and Medicaid agency. He wants to remake the U.S. health-care system from the ground up.

Second, Obama's pick for NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, in an interview with Al Jazeera, said his top priority, was to "find ways to reach out to dominantly Muslim countries." He was supposed to make them feel good about themselves and their contribution to science and technology.

Now there's a great idea. Let's make them feel good about themselves, then perhaps share some missile technology with them, so they can conduct holy "star" wars in space.  Why is Obama so obsessed with kowtowing to the Islamic world? Why does he placate the radicals who are hell-bent on destroying us, while throwing Israel under the bus?

Why indeed.

Third, Obama is holding the American people hostage with regard to the problem of illegal immigration in this country.

Arizona recently passed a strict new illegal immigration law which mirrors Federal law. It requires law enforcement to check the citizenship status of anyone being detained or questioned regarding another possible violation of the law. It has more stringent guidelines in place to prevent racial profiling than the Federal law. And it is a measure that was passed by Arizona's state legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer because the Feds have failed to do their job of securing the border. The Obama administration is suing Arizona over the passage of this law.

Recently, Senator John Kyl (R), met with a group of his constituents from the North Tempe, Arizona Tea Party. He informed them that in a private, closed door Oval Office meeting with the president, Obama told him that the reason the border was not being secured, was that if the Feds did that, then Republicans would have no reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.

Again, Obama's radical agenda is put ahead of the will of the American people. Recent polls indicate that a vast majority support Arizona's law. And at least 17 other states have introduced similar legislation.

It matters not to Obama. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Three things will be on the minds of Americans when they take to the polls in November. They will be thinking about the massive health-care plan that was rammed down their throats despite overwhelming opposition to it. They will be remembering the contentious town hall meetings in which their elected representatives mocked them and pushed back on Obamacare and the failure of this administration to secure the borders.

And still front and center on the minds of the American people is the war on terror, which over the course of the last year and a half has become an "overseas contingency operation", with terrorist attacks being labeled "man-made disasters".

And now Obama bows before other world leaders, including those of Muslim nations, and charges the NASA administrator with reaching out to Muslims, and making them feel good about themselves. Again, over the objections of the American people.

Does this sound like the agenda of a president who plans on running for a second term?

Don't count on it.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com. 

It is now evident as we approach day 70 of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that this is a disaster of monumental proportions.

Clearly BP is responsible for the explosion that killed eleven workers and spewed countless gallons of crude which have damaged the environment, hurt wildlife and threatened the lives and livelihood of those in the region.

But who is responsible for the aftermath? Who is charged with leadership in seeing to it that this crisis is addressed, that the citizens of the affected states receive the help that they need, and that this help comes as quickly as possible?

Barack Obama.

As President of the United States, it is his job to put the full resources of the Federal Government to bear as this incredible tragedy unfolds. And yet, he has failed to do so.

There are many who have said the oil spill is Obama's Katrina. Others have compared it to the Iranian hostage crisis. The latter comparison is more accurate.

Obama could have acted swiftly and decisively in the aftermath of the spill to waive the Jones Act, in which Congress restricts coastal shipping between U.S. ports to U.S.-built vessels owned by U.S. citizens; related laws require U.S. crews. Seventeen nations have offered help in cleaning up the spill, but by refusing to lift these restrictions, Obama is thumbing his nose at these countries.

Why? Because Obama is in bed with the unions.  In other words, to protect the pocketbooks of his union cronies, Obama is holding the citizens of the Gulf region and the entire country hostage.

But wait, there's more.

Several United States companies with the technology to expedite the cleanup of the oil spill have been rebuffed by the Feds in their attempt to help. One such company, Oil Spill Eater International Corporation, offers and environmentally safe product, which in effect speeds up the natural breakdown of the oil, to the point where the process is cut in half. The Environmental Protection Agency, although fully aware of this company and its product, which has been around since the late 1980s, has so far refused to allow OSEI to help, because they are still "studying the issue".

Once again, the Gulf residents and the country are held hostage by Obama.

Why? Simple. As Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told Charlie Rose, the Gulf oil spill crisis presents an opportunity to push Obama's environmental agenda and cap and trade.


At the same time the oil continues to gush into the Gulf, another pressing problem faces our country.

Illegal immigration.

Arizona recently passed a strict new illegal immigration law which mirrors Federal law. It requires law enforcement to check the citizenship status of anyone being detained or questioned regarding another possible violation of the law. It has more stringent guidelines in place to prevent racial profiling than the Federal law. And it is a measure that was passed by Arizona's state legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer because the Feds have failed to do their job of securing the border. The Obama administration is suing Arizona over the passage of this law.

Recently, Senator John Kyl (R), met with a group of his constituents from the North Tempe, Arizona Tea Party. He informed them that in a private, closed door Oval Office meeting with the president, Obama told him that the reason the border was not being secured, was that if the Feds did that, then Republicans would have no reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.

Again, Americans are being held hostage. Do you sense a pattern here?

This president is agenda driven. He will do anything in his power to ram his political ideology down the throats of the American people, even if it means countless suffering in the process.

Obama once said he isn't too concerned with whether or not he is a one term president. It is more important to him that he accomplishes the goals he has for this country.

His inaction with regard to the oil spill and border security clearly prove that he puts agenda over the best interests of our nation.

And we're all being held hostage in the process.

Listen to America Talks Saturday at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House press correspondents, embarrassed herself, her employer, and the journalism profession itself with her repugnant remarks that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine."

Thomas was present on the sidelines of the White House Jewish Heritage Day event on May 27, when she was asked her opinion of Israel by Rabbi David Nesenof. When pressed on the matter, she added that Palestine is a country of occupation, whose occupiers should leave the region, returning to "Poland, Germany and America and everywhere else".

Thomas issued an apology on her website, writing  “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

It's too little too late. 

These comments are morally reprehensible, and reflect the views of a woman who is obviously anti-Semitic. Even some of her closest colleagues have noticed this over the years. The day after the Israeli Defense Forces boarded the flotilla, Thomas questioned White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs as to how the administration could stand by the blockade of Gaza and the broader treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government.

But this latest, blatant set of remarks were clearly over the top, and it is incumbent upon Hearst Corporation to fire her.

Ari Fleischer, who claimed to have a close relationship with Thomas during his tenure as Bush's Press Secretary, put it best.

"She should lose her job over this," Fleischer said in an email. "As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling. She is advocating religious cleansing. How can Hearst stand by her? If a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs."

Fleischer is correct. But if Hearst refuses to dismiss her, the following is a scenario that would be ideal.

At Barack Obama's next press conference, when tradition dictates that he call on Helen Thomas to ask the first question, Obama should take the question. Then, before answering it, he should say "Before I answer your question, Helen, let me just address some remarks you made on May 27th of this year, when you said that Jews should get the hell out of Palestine. I find those comments to be anti-Semitic, morally repugnant, and irresponsible. Further, let it be very clear that your remarks were an embarrassment to your employer and your profession."

It won't happen, but a dressing down like this in front of the entire White House Press Corps and the rest of the world is what Helen Thomas deserves.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

There is a new report out that that refers to patriotic Americans who support the tea party movement in this country as "insurgents". This report comes to us from none other than the Associated Press.

In analyzing several early primaries, which were won mostly by incumbents even though some were challenged by candidates supported by tea-party activists, the story by the AP says the "tea party-backed challengers and other outsiders were shut out in competitive House and Senate primaries" and then declared the results "renewed a debate about the clout of the insurgents in the remaining primaries."

"Insurgents" largely has been used by the media to refer to terrorists such as those battling American and NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all part of the current administration's retooling of what was once referred to as the war on radical Islamic terror. It is now known as an "overseas contingency operation", and terrorist attacks are now called "man-made disasters". I suppose this overseas contingency operation doesn't take into account the recent attempted attack in Times Square in New York City, or the shootings at Fort Hood.

Who is the enemy here?

This is not the first time those of us who are patriotic Americans and who only wish to return our country to what the founding fathers intended have been vilified and demonized. When Rep. Andre Carson (D) Indiana gathered Capitol Hill reporters together and said that menacing crowds hurled rocks and shouted racial slurs during the recent tax day tea party protests, he also said that the protesters were not just racists, but a terrorist threat.

Then there's Nancy Pelosi. Remember when she was asked by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter if she thought the tea party movement was a "legitimate grass-roots opposition" to the Democrats' health-care reform plan? Pelosi said: "I think they are Astroturf. "She also said "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care". This was of course an out-and-out lie, as was what Carson said about the racial slurs and rock throwing.

Even earlier, a Missouri state report cited 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists. Many of these characteristics mirror the concerns of tea party patriots. The Americans For Legal Immigration PAC wrote at the time that "Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancy novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!"

"When many of us read these Missouri Documents we felt that the false connections, pseudo research, and political attacks found in these documents could have been penned by the SPLC and ADL," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "We were shocked to see credible law enforcement agencies disseminating the same kind of over the top political propaganda distributed by these groups."

And then there's the Department of Homeland Security report from April 7, 2009 warning against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. The report singled out returning war veterans as particular threats. The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," stated "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

 But the document suggested worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

 And how did the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis define right wing extremism?

 Extremists are "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Talk about painting with a broad brush.

A professor from UCLA has called for a Mexican revolution within the United States. In his diatribe, he says “We are a revolutionary Mexican organization here. We understand that this is not just about Mexico. It’s about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism… At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is  La Raza.We will no longer fall for these lies called borders. We see America as a northern front of a revolutionary movement… Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism.”

You can see the video of his remarks here.

Where is the Department of Homeland Security with regard to this serious threat? Simple answer: AWOL.

Again, the question must be asked, who is the enemy here?

Apparently, according to the Obama administration, it is patriotic Americans who are only concerned with what is happening to our country. And they may be planning for "dealing" with those they see as "right wing terrorists".

According to a report from the Army Times, in October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as 'Consequence Management Response Force' will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President and "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

Read the full story here.

One last time: who is the enemy here? Who is really trying to destroy our country? Who is guilty of treason? Who is subverting and trampling upon the Constitution?

The answer is Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats in Washington.

Remember this between now and November.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays and Sundays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

This week, instead of my usual column, I am directing your attention to an article that I found on Examiner.com, in which it is revealed that the Obama administration is planning to deploy the Army on U.S. soil as early as October of this year, prior to the midterm elections,  in an effort to quell any potential civil unrest which may occur.

Apparently the Obamacans fear riots, violence and perhaps some sort of attempt to overthrow the government. They could use this as an excuse to implement martial law, impose curfews and suspend the elections.

Read the full article here.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays and Sundays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Governor Jan Brewer and the legislature of the great state of Arizona have set a shining example to the rest of the United States with regards to the rule of law when it passed and signed into law a bill cracking down on illegal immigration.

The new law, which takes effect by August of this year, gives more power to law enforcement in containing what is clearly an out-of-control influx of people crossing our borders and getting into this country without the proper documentation. It has been applauded by many, including Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose tough crackdowns have made him a hero in the anti-illegal immigration community.

Its detractors say it will result in racial profiling. So what?

The fact of the matter is that we don't have blond-haired blue-eyed people sneaking across the southern border to get into this country, just as we don't have 80 year old grandmothers attempting to hijack planes and slam them into buildings.  The fact is that it is Mexicans breaking the law to cross the border illegally, so they are the ones who are going to be scrutinized under the new Arizona law, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Brewer has vowed to implement training courses for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion someone is in the U.S. illegally. But civil rights advocates vowed to challenge the law in court, saying it would lead to racial profiling despite the governor's assurances.  Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, the sponsor of the bill, said "This is not about profiling. They're worried about the laws being enforced."

Current law doesn't require police officers to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and in many departments they are actually prohibited from inquiring out of fear of offending Hispanics and that they will not cooperate in criminal investigations or report crimes. This new Arizona law unties the hands of law enforcement officials, giving them a greater opportunity to nab violent criminals and drug dealers.

The new measure also toughens restrictions on hiring illegal immigrants for day labor and knowingly transporting them. When one takes into account that there are roughly 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and that it is the state with the most illegal border crossings, the new law was long overdue in protecting the citizens.

Barack Obama has referred to the legislation "misguided", and has instructed the Justice Department to examine it for its legality. . He said that the failure to enact immigration reform in Washington left the door open to the "irresponsibility by others." But Obama and the Democrats idea of immigration reform is to fast-track citizenship of illegals and to put them on the public dole. Obama and the Democrats also do not want to offend their Hispanic voter base.

One cannot of course lay this entirely at the feet of Obama. President Bush was also in favor of this type of amnesty, as was John McCain, who, now that he is fighting for his senate seat, has changed his tune and is calling for the military to be placed on the border.

The Mexican government has condemned the approval of the law" and "the criminalization of migration." Mexican President Felipe Calderon's office said in a statement Saturday that the law will serve as an obstacle as Mexico and Arizona try to solve the shared problems along the border.

Not so.

If anything, this new law should serve as a warning to Mexico that it's time for them to get their act together and do more to keep their people from crossing our borders illegally.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays and Sundays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

Barack Obama, reacting to the tea parties of last week, said he found them amusing, and that those who participated should be thankful to him.

He was right. The people of this country who elected the most radical individual ever into the White House in 2008, should be thankful that they have been given a huge wake up call. They have, as Ron Paul stated, awakened to the fact that their country is systematically being destroyed by this man and his minions.

He's doing it by excessive taxation, killing off businesses, demolishing the finest health care system in the world, and bowing down to our enemies. And yes, this gives us reason to be thankful.

Until now, Americans have been rather apathetic about the wonderful nation that the founding fathers helped to create. We have taken our Constitution and the rights it enumerates given to us by our Creator for granted. Over the course of the last 200 years, we have slowly forgotten what these men did when they staked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to break away from the oppression of a tyrannical government, to form a union that would allow people the right to pursue happiness through achievement unfettered by statist intervention.

During the presidential campaign of 2008, Americans paid very little attention to the promises Barack Obama was making if elected. Oh, they listened to him speak so eloquently to prepared speeches easily read from a teleprompter. They listened, but they didn't hear words other than 'hope' and 'change'. And yes, they wanted change. In some cases, they wanted to elect the first black president, just for the purpose of making history. In others, they were tired of the policies of the Bush administration, which they felt had betrayed the common values most Americans hold including acting with fiscal responsibility. Some were weary from the Iraq war, even though the war was the right thing to do, and which the surge proved winnable. Still others felt that the Republican candidate, John McCain would be more of the same, and were just not excited by his lack of core conservative principles.

If people had actually paid attention to what Obama was saying during the campaign, if they had paid attention to the 'steak' and not the 'sizzle', they would have realized that everything that has happened to our country over the course of the last year he has been in office, was predictable. Obama talked about cap and tax, he talked about health care reform which would eventually include a single payer option (which by the way it will if it is not overturned in the courts or repealed by a future congress). They would have understood that Obama is a student of  Saul Alinski, and wishes to redistribute the wealth of this nation. They would have heard the apologetic attitude Obama had toward the rest of the world, and his plans to negotiate with our enemies without pre-conditions. They would have recognized that Obama wishes to downgrade our status as the leader of the free world, a superpower, and the shining city on the hill which Ronald Reagan spoke of in such heartfelt and eloquent terms.

Now, however, the American people, the same people who put this man in the Oval Office, are suffering from buyer's remorse. They get it. And they're thankful. They are thankful that the one miracle this god-like figure has performed, is opening the eyes of those so blind they could not see what was about to take place.

The American people, the hard-working, God-fearing, taxpaying people who believe in this nation and everything it stands for, are thankful that they are fully awake and cognizant of what is happening to them, as well as their children and grandchildren.

And they will show their gratitude this November, by voting out those who helped Obama do the damage that has been done to this country. They will replace them with men and women who will realize that the purpose of our elected officials is to serve the people, not make servants of them. They will vote to repeal the health care bill, cripple any future part of Obama's agenda to make the United States into a third-world country. They will thank Obama by making him a lame duck president in his first term. And then in 2012, they will vote in a president who reflects the values that they hold dear, and which the founding fathers fought and died to help make possible.

They will say 'thank you, Mr. President', and soon after that, they will say 'goodbye'.

Listen to America Talks every Saturday and Sunday at 9 am eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

The GOP is at a crossroads. One of the biggest midterm elections in American history will be taking place this fall, with the future of our existence as a nation at hand. Whether we completely devolve into socialism, or restore our country to that which the founding fathers intended will finally be determined.

Barack Obama and his minions have succeeded in awakening a sleeping giant. A voting populace which for far too long has taken their freedoms and liberties for granted, has begun to see that those freedoms are being threatened by a regime the likes of which the United States has never witnessed.

The Tea Parties are the finest example of people expressing their disgust for a government out of control, hell bent on growing ever larger, consuming power as thought it was the very energy it needs to survive. Massive entitlements, such as the Health Care Bill, threaten to destroy the very fabric of our society, and turn us into a European-style state which will hurt the very citizens the left claims it is trying to help. Illegal immigration is out of control, unemployment is at an all time high, our deficit is ballooning out of control, and the high cost of oil threatens to hinder any recovery.

At this point, conservatives need real leadership to ensure victory at the polls come this November. People such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann have emerged as energizing forces, rallying the people behind an effort to win back our country, and return us to a nation of principles on which we were founded.

But the leadership at the very top of the GOP, Michael Steele, is threatening to destroy the very inroads we are making in those efforts to restore the country.

Many conservatives Republicans have begun to recognize the ineptness of Steele, his lack of true leadership, and the distraction he is causing to the party's attempts to make a serious comeback.

Many prominent people within the RNC, including some big time donors, are bugging out. Mark DeMoss, a huge RNC donor contributing $15,000 in 2008, said he would not contribute to the RNC this year because of Steele's poorly handled leadership efforts. Sam Fox, a U.S. ambassador to Belgium under former President George W. Bush and a huge fundraiser for the GOP has left his post, according to a report by Politico's Ben Smith. The recent nightclub scandal which rocked the RNC has also added fuel to the fire of those calling for the head of Steele on a silver platter. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, e-mailed several hundred thousand supporters last week urging them not to give money to the RNC. "What I see is a pattern that suggests that they're tone deaf to the values and concerns of so many of the people they're looking to for financial support," Perkins said. "There are some cultural issues at the RNC."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday that "anytime the chairman of our party becomes a story, that's a distraction for our candidates. I would encourage the chairman to do things that make it easier for candidates, like raising money, updating the technological base of our party and focusing on getting Republicans elected. I'm not going to give advice about his career, but I'm going to give advice on how to lead the RNC at this point,"

For his part, Steele is going into damage control mode. Speaking Saturday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, he said  "I'm the first here to admit that I've made mistakes, and it's been incumbent on me to take responsibility to shoulder that burden, make the necessary changes and move on," Steele told GOP activists and party leaders in New Orleans, drawing a standing ovation. "The one mistake we cannot make this November is to lose."

But recent charges of racism by those who oppose him have become a slap in the face to the Republican party. During Steele’s appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America” this week, George Stephanopoulos asked the RNC head whether his race gives him a “slimmer margin for error.”

“The honest answer is yes,” Steele said. “It just is. Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. We all — a lot of folks do. It’s a different role for me to play and others to play, and that’s just the reality of it.”

With this playing of the race card, combined with his true lack of leadership at a time when the RNC really needs it to cripple efforts by Obama and his minions to march this country into socialism, it is increasingly clear that someone new is needed at the top.

It's time for Michael Steele to go.

Listen to America Talks every Saturday and Sunday at Noon eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

The other day in Iowa, Barack Obama laid down the gauntlet with regard to his health care reform package. He indicated that GOP lawmakers are already threatening to repeal this massive entitlement package which will cripple this country financially and destroy medical care for millions of American citizens.

His exact words: "Go for it!"

Obama is in for a rude awakening as plans are already in the works to do exactly that. attorney's general from at least 13 states have already filed legal challenges to Obamacare, claiming the landmark health care overhaul bill is unconstitutional. “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit says.

Although legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws, at least one prominent legal analyst says that eventually the United States Supreme Court will overturn this law.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior legal analyst, says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

"That's called commandeering the legislature," he says. "That's the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That's prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”


 While trudging through the legal system may eventually result in a favorable decision with regards to states' rights, a better chance to undo the damage caused by Obama's plan would be for a new Congress to repeal this socialization of our healthcare system. And this will require a bloodbath at the polls come this November.

The Democrats, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are counting on the electorate to adapt and adjust to this new entitlement just as they did Social Security and Medicare. It will, according to them, become so ingrained the in the psyche of most Americans that any attempt to take it away will result in a push back similar to the ones that come about any time a threat is made to eliminate these other albatrosses hanging around the necks of our economy.

What these same Democrats fail to realize, is that what they have done is awakened a sleeping giant which for the longest time has been apathetic to the slow attempts to turn our country into a European-style nation, with a medical system that leaves most without adequate health care and has many clamoring to come to the United States to get proper treatment.

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams underwent heart surgery in the United States in February, due to the lack of care under the Canadian health system. Williams is not alone. Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz is known to have his checkups at the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had heart surgery at the Cleveland Clinic in 2006 . Even middle-class Canadians are utilizing their proximity to the United States to seek treatment here.

Under the new Obamacare plan, our nation will become a third world country with regard to health care. Yes, there will be 'death panels'. Bean counters in Washington will make the decision as to who gets treated and who does not. No longer will the doctor-patient relationship be sacred in deciding the proper course of action in a medical situation.

This will result in many doctors and other health care providers leaving the medical profession. This shortage will result in even further suffering. Nonetheless, the Democrats will gloat that they have finally taken the long overdue steps necessary to provide health care to millions of Americans they claim are getting screwed by the current system, while punishing the insurances companies at the same time. Many major companies, including AT & T, John Deere and Caterpillar will suffer huge losses due to the new law.

Deere & Co. said it would take a $150 million one-time charge in the current quarter related to the loss of deductions. Earlier in the week, Caterpillar Inc. reported a $100 million charge and AK Steel recorded a $31 million charge. The new bill will force AT&T to change some of the benefits that they offer both current and retired workers.

 An overwhelming majority of the American people are opposed to what Obama and his minions have done with the passage of this healthcare bill. The anger, despite what the Democrats would have us believe, will not subside as the spring and summer months roll along. And come November, there will be a sea change in Washington.

It may take time. But whether through the courts or the ballot box, this unhealthy backroom monstrosity that Obama and the Democrats shoved down the throats of the American people will be undone.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays and Sundays at Noon eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.

The far left had two very extreme cases of complete meltdown this past week.

First there was Eric Massa. He was forced to resign his congressional seat last Monday over allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct before the House Ethics Committee, although he claimed in three very bizarre media appearances that he was strong-armed by other Democrats over his refusal to support Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Massa claims he supports some sort of a health care reform plan, but prefers a single-payer health care system instead of the one proposed by Obama.

In his weekly radio address on WKPQ, Massa accused White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel of orchestrating the investigation into his sexual behavior in order to intimidate him and other first-term Democrats who oppose Obama's plan. Massa was quoted as saying that "I am sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget," Massa said. "He goes there to intimidate members of Congress... He's hated me since day one, and now he wins. He'll get rid of me, and this bill will pass."

In two other interviews, one on CNN's Larry King Live and the other on Fox's Glenn Beck Program, Massa both denied he had acted inappropriately while confirming he groped other men. This was both riveting and confusing television.

Then there was the case of Patrick Kennedy.

During a rambling speech on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, he ripped into what he called “despicable” media coverage of the war in Afghanistan. He sounded incoherent and at moments intoxicated, as he railed against the press and its failure to properly report on what he considered to be an important issue.

Had either of these two incidents involved a conservative Republican, they would have been labeled as right wing extremists who had completely lost their minds and who should have been locked up in some insane asylum. The press would have been all over this like a cheap suit. Instead, correspondents like NBC's Brian Williams referred to Kennedy's tirade as 'gripping', while the mainstream media virtually ignored the Massa incident.

Just another indication that L stands for liberal, left and loony.

Listen to America Talks Saturdays and Sundays at 12 noon eastern time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks. Visit our website at www.americatalks.com.