Fundamental individual liberty and rights are central to our Constitution, and protection of the same from governmental infringement. Yet we see on a nearly daily basis, attempts by sometimes well-intentioned politicians, locally and nationally, to trample those fundamental rights in the name of a “greater good.”

The latest case in point, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed Congress with broad bi-partisan support, (proving once again that there is little difference between the two major political parties), and will reportedly be signed into law this week by President Obama.

The Act states, “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war.” And just who are those “covered persons” that can be so detained? Section 1031 seems innocuous enough by identifying anyone who had a part in the 9/11/01 attacks or “A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities,” against the U.S. But then this Trojan Horse language follows, “including any person who has committed a belligerent act.”

A broad interpretation of “belligerent” includes “hostile and aggressive,” and is not limited to the more specific acts of war, which the drafters of the legislation may have intended. This language swings the door of interpretation wide open to include any threatening, antagonistic, contentious, or confrontational conduct perceived to be a threat to the nation. It is not beyond the realm of possibility to see this president or any future president use this provision as justification for military detention without due process of Tea Party protestors or Occupy Wall Street activists.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution has served to enforce due process and habeas corpus by preventing unlawful arrest and detention, yet this one Act (NDAA) grants virtually unlimited power to the president to detain potential “terrorists” indefinitely, with all the ignominy of a military Guantanimo-like detention. And one of the most striking components of the legislation is that the “battlefield” of the “War on Terrorism” is expanded to include the homeland of the United States of America.

The Act, itself a violation of law since it was drawn up, debated, and passed in closed committee sessions without a single hearing, is clearly a violation of posse comitatus, established in 1878 which proscribes the use of the military on domestic soil to enforce the laws of the land.

While I rarely find myself in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on this issue we’re of one accord. In their write-up of the NDAA they averred the Act “will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians.” They continue, “The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”

Section 1031 of the Act concludes with an attempt at assuaging civil libertarian concerns by stating, “Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” It may not be “intended,” but the act does precisely that.

Section 1032 further attempts to mitigate the far-reaching affects of the legislation by stating that the, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” While not “required,” it clearly leaves the door wide open for the possibility of military detention of citizens.

For students of history, this legislation eerily has a parallel in the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, where rights enumerated in the Weimar constitution were repressed or precluded by expanded central government control. The subsequent staged attack on the Reichstag or parliament building, led to the Reichstag Fire Decree, finalizing the transition of Adolph Hitler from Chancellor of the Republic, to Fuhrer. Is that all it would take to make that final transition here?

At what point do we as citizens reject and stand up against such trampling of civil liberties? There was so much disapprobation over the Patriot Act, and this goes so much further. It’s impossible to not see another parallel from 20th century Germany in the words of Martin Niemoller, “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

I find myself in absolute agreement with one component of the demonstrators defining themselves by the acronym OWS (Occupy Wall Street). The government bailouts which buoyed up failing bank, brokerage, and insurance firms, as well as the auto industry must stop. Bailouts of states, of education entities, and unions must stop as well. Which leads me to wonder, why are they demonstrating on Wall Street rather than Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill?

Bad government regulation and bad corporate decisions led to the recent recession, which is statistically over although it doesn’t feel like it. One of the best protest signs from the OWS people read, “It’s wrong to create a mortgage-backed security filled with loans you know are going to fail so that you can sell it to a client who isn’t aware that you sabotaged it by intentionally picking the misleadingly rated loans most likely to be defaulted upon.”

The protestor in front of that hand-made sign, in the spirit of full disclosure, should’ve gone to the root of the problem with a poster reading something like, “It’s wrong for the government to force lenders to make loans to people they know are going to default on, and for the government to implicitly guarantee those loans through their mortgage agencies which forces securities companies to do everything listed on the next sign.”

Wall Street firms didn’t create the regulation that brought us to this juncture; they had to live with it. And they didn’t do the bailing out, they benefited from it. So why not go to the source of the bad regulation and the bailing out nonsense? Blaming Wall Street firms for the bailouts is like blaming the vagrant for accepting a handout or blaming parental overindulgence on the child that accepts his umpteenth iPad.

Bad behavior, whether on Wall Street or in the walls of our own homes should never be rewarded, regardless of the causal elements that contributed to it. Yet that’s precisely what the bailouts did. And if the OWS crowd could look past their ideological underpinnings they could see the causal forces of bad government regulation which led to the bailouts. Which when you think about it, actually represented a congressional bailout of their own failed policies related to the mortgage industry.

The illogic of the OWS folks gets even more interesting and hypocritical from there. Many of the protestors express the sentiment that their higher education should be given to them, or decrying the income gap between the rich and the poor. So what are they asking for? Money? A block grant for educational expenses? That sounds a great deal like a personal “bailout.” This duplicity shouldn’t surprise us, as logical homogeneity has never been a characteristic of the radical left.

The theme for the occupiers is straight out of a Socialism 101 textbook, “We are the 99%.” Lamenting the fact that they’re losing their jobs, losing their homes, and not getting paid enough, they aim their scorn in typical socialistic class-envy fashion to the “wealthy.” Considering that it was Washington regulation and policy that created the housing crisis, and it’s Washington politics the past five years that have turned off the spigot of private sector jobs, the fact is underscored that they should be protesting on the steps of the capitol rather than on Wall Street. If they wanted their protests to resonate with mainstream Americans, they would focus their efforts on the causal influences of their discontent, rather than the symbolic representations of what they don’t have.

This practice of demonizing the “haves” by the “have nots” is characteristic of all the socialist revolutions and is usually couched in terms like “social justice” in U.S. politics. Based on little more than covetousness, the notion is that the assets of the “haves” should be taken and redistributed to the “have nots.” While theoretically appealing from an egalitarian perspective, it is a classic Nirvana logical fallacy, for it assumes that such wealth redistribution is possible, even though it’s never succeeded even when it’s been attempted.

And to illustrate the inanity of such “social justice,” what happens when those who think, create, and produce are penalized inordinately for doing the very things that earned them their pecuniary reward? As with any legal activity for which there is a punishment, it will reduce its occurrence. And what happens to incentive, initiative, and productivity when all workers are compensated at the same level, regardless of output? What happens to individual self-worth and self-affirmation when compensation levels are equal and have no connection with productivity?

Clearly the Wall Street occupiers are little more than 21st century Bolsheviks, embracing and advancing an ideology based on egalitarian class-envy, narcissism, and covetousness, all of which are distinctly antithetical to the American tradition.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Isn’t it enough that our federal government is bloated with corrupt and self-serving “elected officials”? Yet even in Idaho…a state noted for its position supporting state sovereignty, individual responsibility, and supposedly, a respect for our laws and Constitution… we have a mirror image of our national government albeit on a smaller scale.

Elected officials use their position to prevent legislation from receiving an “up or down” vote just as the crooked Reid and Pelosi have been castigated for doing. Legislation is being manipulated to protect some of our elected officials’ personal interests. Spousal/child abuse and animal cruelty laws are archaic yet even these laws often go unenforced at the whim of local officials. Idaho, who led the nation in opposition to Obamacare, remains curiously silent about our illegal immigration problems. (I’m told by several sources that some of our “own” are benefiting from illegal workers. Do you think your neighbors don’t know what you’re doing?) We have state officials who have sold us down the “Huang Ho” River. And we have a legislator using state resources to encourage schools to promote her agenda of opposing laws passed by our elected representatives. (I understand she says she’s “sorry” …like Weiner??? There’re sorry alright…they’ve got a “sorry” character and are “sorry” they got caught.)

Whose interests are being promoted and whose pocketbook is being “lined”? Where are the men and women who place patriotism and duty before self? Where are those who will simply do what is right?

Andi Elliott
Hamer, ID

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

The media reports that a slew of San Francisco businesses received special relief from the burdens of ObamaCare. Clearly it is good to be Nancy Pelosi’s friend.
Of the 204 new “waivers” granted by the Obama Administration last month, 38 are for nightclubs, swanky restaurants and hotels in Nancy’s district. Given Pelosi’s penchant for the privileged life, it is easy to imagine that she traded guaranteed seating for a little influence with her pal, Kathleen Sebelius.

But that is all vanity and petty corruption.

What should be obvious here is that we are witnessing another element of why ObamaCare is so dangerous for the nation and the cause of liberty. Buried in the thousands of pages of this law are heretofore unknown powers delegated to bureaucrats to dispense favors, like medieval barons with the power to terrorize or lift burdens. This is dangerous. This is not America.

The monumental achievement of the Founding Fathers was to place all men under the rule of law – written law. Rich, poor, bright, dumb or powerful: All would be subject to the written constraints and protections of the Constitution. The immense and arbitrary powers granted an unelected bureaucracy sorely undermines those historic principles and jeopardizes the liberties of every American.

Let us continue to pray for relief from this whole mad scheme.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

With the arrival of Easter, perhaps the most significant of Christianity’s holy days, comes an opportunity to reflect on our own lives and what we do to magnify the message of Jesus. It also affords an opportunity to reconcile our core beliefs with the political machinations of the world we live in.

There is obviously much need for the latter, especially in light of an article in USA Today this week which proclaimed, “A new poll released Thursday found that more Americans (44%) see the free market system at odds with Christian values than those who don’t (36%).”

To those of us who work through our faith intellectually and logically, such poll results are disturbing for the obvious logical superficiality of their viewpoint.

Let’s start with the most obvious issues. Did Jesus go to the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas, or Pilate to advance his teachings as a new system of governance? No! His message was not one of collective governance, but one of individual, personal governance. Governments have no soul to be saved, no salvific ordinances can be performed in their behalf, and have not the promise of a resurrection on some distant Easter morn. Christ’s message was to individuals, not a political system by which to govern.

Secondarily, and perhaps most theologically important, is the eternal concept of free agency or free will. To understand this in political context, it may help to take a brief look at the simplified political spectrum, which applies to individual ideological alignment as well as governments, and goes from left to right, most tyrannical and un-free to least tyrannical, or freedom.

All variations of socialism are on the far left of that spectrum right along with dictatorships. They are coercive and trample individual freedom as they reduce individuals to tools of the state. Yet the Lord’s entire plan is based on freedom of choice, or free agency. Socialism is irreconcilable and heterodox to Jesus’ message for it is based on coercion, the elimination of freedom and free agency. It is both illegal and immoral for individuals to forcibly take from one to give to another, so why is it not immoral when governments do it? It certainly has no redeeming value to the forced “giver.”

Jesus taught many divine principles by parable. One of the most relevant dealing with economics is His “Parable of the Talents.” You’ll recall that the master gave five talents (a measurement of weight and also of a silver currency in biblical times) to one servant, two to another, and one to a third, based on their respective abilities. He was not egalitarian in his distribution, but he expected results, namely that each would increase what was entrusted to them. The first two doubled their talents and were rewarded; “Well done thou good and faithful servant…” while the third buried his in the ground and returned it to the master with no increase, and was punished for his indolence.

The fundamental tenets of free agency and free enterprise were affirmed as none of the servants were told how to increase that which was entrusted to them, or by how much they were to increase the master’s wealth. But the tenet of increasing what is given to us, either as financial talents or talents as we employ the term today, is clear.

Not only are we accountable for what we do to develop character through our industry and acumen, but we are to be sensitive to the needs of others. As Jesus said, “I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me… Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” And this we do individually, exercising our free agency as evidence of our professed religious beliefs, not by force, coercion, or compulsion from a government that mandates it. For coercion is to Jesus’ teachings as negative is to positive in physics: polar opposites.

Socialism is an amoral (if not immoral) secular governmental system, while free enterprise or capitalism is the freest, most ennobling and affirming to individual worth. Free to pursue our own interests, free to buy, trade, barter, whatever we legally choose. It is not a perfect system, but it is the most true to the fundamental tenet of free agency and provides best for individual altruism.

In our reflections of the meaning of Easter, let us be cognizant of how we use our talents, monetary and otherwise, in the service of others, not counting on forced government programs to do what we as individuals are called to do.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

There are so many disturbing elements to last week’s last-minute federal budget agreement that it’s truly difficult to know where to begin. Especially when we consider that such budgetary brinkmanship would not have been necessary if Nancy Pelosi’s congress had done what they were supposed to last year: have an operating budget for 2011. But because the political backlash would have been even more devastating at the polls last November, she forsook her responsibilities for perceived political advantage.
Instead, we waited through last-minute theatrics on both sides, and we still got an illogical, break-the-bank kind of budget that we can’t afford, while apprehension continues to increase over the cost and scope of government. The compromise arrived at with two hours to spare before the government “shut down” trimmed a scant $38 billion from a $3.7 trillion budget. A mere 1% cut to the proposed budget was enough of a stumbling block to some congressmen that they nearly let the government shut down.

And yet, playing to the politics of fear in grand theatrical fashion, many in Washington were lamenting in apocalyptic Jeremiads, what a devastating effect such a small reduction would have on the nation. At the center of the budgetary battle was whether the relatively minuscule $75 million appropriated to Planned Parenthood, seen by many as the primary social advocate for abortions, should be halted. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the floor of the Senate told about the health risks to his wife and daughters and nine granddaughters if he agreed to the proposed cuts. Makes one wonder what he thought Planned Parenthood would do for them.

Not to be outdone in the politics of fear, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton called the potential government shutdown “the equivalent of bombing innocent civilians.” The Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, Daniel Inouye, said in a news release that some of the cuts would be “especially painful.” Collectively they were saying the proposed cuts were “draconian.” If they act like this with these minor spending reductions, we know they will never have the political backbone to make the necessary major cuts to ensure fiscal soundness of the republic.

The Democrats were willing to shut down the government over a scant $75 million for their abortion purveyor of choice. Yet the Republicans let them get away with holding the nation hostage based on ideology over a minuscule part of the budget, and not pushing for some serious spending reductions which may actually make a difference in the future solvency of the country. I don’t know what to be more outraged over.

The Democrats obviously have no will or backbone to make serious cuts, and are willing to sacrifice the entire operation of the government over relative pennies in the budget. But the Republicans, proving they are little more than “Democrat-lite” seem to lack the courage to seriously reduce spending as they boasted of the “historic” 1% spending cuts. Truth be told, the actual cuts are much less than 1%. The $38 billion figure was little more than figurative, since the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has now said that most of the $38 billion was accounting trickery, and that the actual cuts amount to a mere $352 million under 2010 spending levels.

President Obama has called for addressing the spending boondoggle like “adults.” Since much of it is a result of his and his party’s profligacy, that’s tantamount to calling for his replacement next year by a real adult. And based on all the posturing, theatrics, and budgetary trickery that resulted from such a minor figure in last week’s showdown, it appears we don’t have many adults in Washington.

There are a few exceptions, like Congressman Paul Ryan who is developing a long-term budget proposal that will actually reduce the deficit, pay down the federal debt, and increase the solvency of some of the core entitlement entities like Social Security. There is a little glimmer of hope for the nation since the House passed Ryan’s 2012 budget on Friday. If 1% cuts were “draconian” I can only guess the posturing they’ll pull on this one.

Considering the umbrage expressed by the left with George W. Bush’s $267 billion deficit, they should be outraged at Obama’s $1 trillion plus deficit. And Republicans, seemingly content with a 1% budget cut, obviously have no clue either. Our current spending trajectory is simply unsustainable, and portends serious consequences for the steadily declining value of the dollar, the viability of our debt instruments as investments, and our national security. Perhaps our only hope is if all those who voted for the budget resolution last week, and those who voted against it believing the cuts were too much, are replaced with people of common sense and a commitment to live within our means, like all of us real people have to.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

So many unanswered questions; so few straight answers…but I guess an unasked question will never receive a response. So….

How many soldiers will die fighting wars that we don’t aim to win”? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya come to mind.

How will Obama circumvent the states who have implemented a new law that citizenship must be proven before being on the ballot in their state? Wouldn’t it have been easier to produce the darn birth certificate and have saved $2 million dollars?

Why do we expect educational improvement when we keep doing the same thing? The NEA is the most powerful union in the country and continued failure is what we get. Don’t we need to try something different to get different results?

And tell me why my Democrat and law abiding friends support a party noted for voter fraud/intimidation and street violence tactics? Puzzling.

When will parents demand that their children be taught accurate history? We still allow them to learn that the Civil War was begun over the slavery issue and do they even know that the Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln was acting illegally when he invaded the South?

Why should we be “tolerant” of a religion whose “religious” book instructs them to kill or subjugate the “infidels” (us) and dictate that women are second class citizens? I’m not liking this at all.

Why do many Idahoans support Arizona’s stringent illegal immigration laws yet we have done little about the illegals in our own state? Cheap labor?

Andi Elliott

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

In 1986, Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil declared President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 Budget “DOA,” or Dead on Arrival because it recommended “draconian cuts” of about 3% off of a $994 billion budget. In a facetious twist, the Office of Management and Budget delivered the budget to Capital Hill in an ambulance on the chest of a supine OMB public affairs assistant, who, when delivered to the House Budget committee room, sat up, Lazarus-like, to prove that the budget was still alive.
Now fast-forward to the 2012 edition of the presidential budget request, and we see numbers which the House Speaker should have delivered to the House, perhaps not in an ambulance with flat-lining EKG monitors, but rather in a hearse. And just for good measure, with a stake driven through the heart of it.

Words cannot accurately describe the staggeringly outrageous figures themselves or the disconnect with economic realities in that massive document. It’s further clear that the president didn’t get the message from the November election.

With proposed spending of $3.7 trillion, and projected revenue of $2.6 trillion, the projected deficit for 2012 is a whopping $1.1 trillion. Based on the president’s own budget figures, the FY 2015 figures are $4.2 trillion in spending, $3.6 trillion in revenue, and a deficit of $768 billion.

The spending figures are astronomically illogical and unsustainable, but even more alarming is the projected increase of 65% in revenue. Where is that mythical 65% increase in revenue coming from that allows Obama to brag that the deficit will be reduced over the next five years? For those of you who subscribe to the notion that we’re “taxed enough already,” brace yourselves, for there’s only one way that revenue can be increased by 65%. And it brings to mind the classic idiom of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

As incomprehensible as the budget recommendation is, even more disturbing is the way the president represents it. In his press conference when he rolled it out (should’ve been on a morgue gurney), Obama shockingly declared, “On the budget, what my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts so that by the middle of this decade our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt. It’s — so, to use a — sort of, an analogy that families are familiar with, we’re not going to be running up the credit card anymore. That’s important; and that’s hard to do. But it’s necessary to do, and I think that the American people understand that.”

Such a statement, in light of figures taken directly from his own budget, can only be characterized as an immense detachment from reality. Where are the “spending cuts” if total spending increases from $3.7 to $4.2 trillion? There is no cut in spending, perhaps only a cut in the rate of growth of that spending. And thank heavens for that, since the total government debt has increased by nearly 100% in just four years, having just surpassed the $14 trillion mark.

And yet still he has the audacity to declare, “we’re not going to be running up the credit card anymore,” Remember, this is his own budget. Either he didn’t know what was in it and was just saying what he thought we wanted to hear, or he knew full well what was in it, and still told us what he thought we wanted to hear. I’m convinced the latter is the case, and he just thinks we’re oblivious to the facts or that we’re too illiterate to know that he’s obfuscating the truth. That makes his statement no less than a prevarication, of the bald-faced variety.

It is with regret that I’ve come to the conclusion that there is little connection between reality and what this president says. We saw it through the health care debate, consistently making assertions that we know now were just not so. He gives new meaning to the old quip, “How do you know when a lawyer is lying?” Answer, “When his lips are moving.”

The President’s budget is supposed to be a blueprint of what the executive branch foresees from a spending and revenue standpoint. It is not enacted, unless adopted by Congress. The House of Representatives creates the budget that the government lives by, and we can only pray that our Congressmen are smarter than the president thinks we are.

We make a mistake if we assume that what he says is true and reliable. Don’t accept the sound bites at face value. A new level of scrutiny is required of all of us as citizens to sort out the facts from the propaganda that the president and the still-doting press spin for public consumption.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Next target…America! Multiculturism has failed…and this is according to some of our world leaders. Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Australia…all have declared their efforts to incorporate “multiculturism” as an abject failure that is leading to the destruction of their country. They, as the United States is in the process of doing, have been too concerned with the feelings of those immigrating into their country and have not focused on those already there. Far too many are not assimilating and have formed their own “mini-country” far from their country of origin. Doesn’t it make you wonder why they didn’t stay home?

For example, the accommodations made for Islam by many countries have resulted in open claims by Muslims that they are dedicated to taking over the country and imposing their own religion and system of laws…a system dating back to the 600’s that reflects few if any peaceful periods. Was I the only one bothered when after the election of Obama that on the CAIR (the Council of American Islamic Relations) webpage in very large letters the following was stated: OUR TIME HAS COME. What do you think that meant?

And, did you know that AIG used more than “$100 million in federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the funding and promotion of Shariah-compliant financing. … SCF is financing that follows the dictates of Islamic law”. The Islamic Valley website lists mosques in Idaho. Just how stupid are we? Maybe being ethnocentric isn’t such a bad idea after all.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Could this be treason? Idaho, China is coming to town. The Communists are coming and not by stealth but by open invitation from our Governor whom I have strongly supported…until now. I was personally able to thank Governor Otter for standing strong against the federal government regarding the unconstitutional health care law. Using his own example, I now am taking a strong stance against “the Communist-Connection” that he has invited to Idaho.

Our state officials during their taxpayer funded 2010 June trip, have “courted” and “won the hand” of the Chi Coms…and we won what? So, what does Idaho get from this deal? We get a 10,000-30,000 acre self-sustaining community of Communist who will be hiring “their own”…and yes, I’m sure there will be some crumbs for Idahoans. Will they be flying the Red China flag? I wonder.

While I realize that money is the “raison d’etre”, let’s set financial considerations aside for the moment. What do you think will be the unintended consequences (or perhaps “intended”) to the culture and sovereignty of our Idaho. This very day, China’s president is conferring with Obama about a “post-America” world. They are coming and they won’t be leaving.

In fact, Governor Otter has arranged “fast track” citizenship for them. Are we selling our much coveted “American citizenship” for financial gain…you know, the one that people are willing to die for while trying to come to America for the freedoms that only Americans enjoy? Is American citizenship being used as a pawn much as the pull-string game at a carnival to which a Chinese-made toy is attached? It certainly cheapens the coveted “prize”, doesn’t it?

Come on folks…remember about the Communist Chinese…where throughout history people have been rounded up and then disappear, or where educators have been sent to the fields to labor, or where tanks run over dissenters, where people routinely starve to death, where forced abortions occur…you know…that China. This is the China that steals our secrets and pirates our intellectual property. The China that makes over 16,000 attempts each year to hack into our security systems. The China whose environmental record is a disgrace even to the most indifferent of environmentalists. The China which literally stuffs crates with small dogs then cruelly “skins them alive”. You know…Wal-Mart China.

So, tell me again why we are allowing this? Oh, that’s right…it’s the money “stupid”.
America is in the crosshairs of Red China and they are out maneuvering us by quantum leaps condoned by our pro-Communist administration. This is about the best shot that China has ever had to make their long-awaited goal come to fruition. Tell me, why would you invite a stated enemy into your home? Could this be treason?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.