Right Coast Job Inteveiw: Chris Lewis Wicomico County At Large

Important Message from the White House on Racism

Will Washington’s Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?

The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most “consequential” president ever.

The Wall Street Journal’s steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is “an alien in the White House.”

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him “anti-business.” Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced “redistribution of income” in history.

Read more here.

Rush Limbaugh on Arisona Law ruling by Judge Susan Bolton

Expanded FBI Access to E-mail and Web Records Raises Fears

WASHINGTON — Invasion of privacy in the Internet age. Expanding the reach of law enforcement to snoop on e-mail traffic or on Web surfing. Those are among the criticisms being aimed at the FBI as it tries to update a key surveillance law.

With its proposed amendment, is the Obama administration merely clarifying a statute or expanding it? Only time and a suddenly on guard Congress will tell.

Federal law requires communications providers to produce records in counterintelligence investigations to the FBI, which doesn’t need a judge’s approval and court order to get them.

They can be obtained merely with the signature of a special agent in charge of any FBI field office and there is no need even for a suspicion of wrongdoing, merely that the records would be relevant in a counterintelligence or counterterrorism investigation. The person whose records the government wants doesn’t even need to be a suspect.

The bureau’s use of these so-called national security letters to gather information has a checkered history.

The bureau engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority to issue the letters, illegally collecting data from Americans and foreigners, the Justice Department’s inspector general concluded in 2007. The bureau issued 192,499 national security letter requests from 2003 to 2006.

Read more here.

Memo outlines backdoor ‘amnesty’ plan

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants – what a draft government memo said could be “a non-legislative version of amnesty.”

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to “reduce the threat of removal” for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

“In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear,” the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Read more here.

Allen West on Islamic Fundamentalism

Obama calls black people ‘a mongrel people’

Barry’s turn on “The View” daytime show evinced some interesting comments from the president, including his anthropological observation that African Americans were “a mongrel people.

Sam Youngman writing in The Hill:

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: “We are sort of a mongrel people.”

“I mean we’re all kinds of mixed up,” Obama said. “That’s actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it.”

What did the president mean? Mr. Youngman covers for Obama’s little gaffe by explaining what he really was trying to say:

The president’s remarks were directed at the roots of all Americans. The definition of mongrel as an adjective is defined as “of mixed breed, nature, or origin,” according to dictionary.com.

Obama did not appear to be making an inflammatory remark with his statement and the audience appeared to receive it in the light-hearted manner that often accompanies interviews on morning talk shows.

Well, gee Sam. Thanks for that convoluted, twisted, forced explanation as well as your interpretation of audience reaction:

The president was referring to the fact that there are very few “pure” members of the African race in America. Nearly 300 years of mixing black and white, largely as a result of the “freedom of the slave quarters” granted the master of the plantation – a legacy of rape – most African Americans are of mixed race. His comment about white Americans as mongrels is problematic and more of a stretch.

Holder puts felons over soldiers

Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.

Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won’t have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 – but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.

Read more here.

Federal judge issues injunction against parts of Arizona’s immigration law

Welcome back to the Wild West America! “Federal Judge Bolton” blocked Arizona’s claim to enforce laws today, whether federal, state, or local.

If this decree is allowed to stand, then I demand that Florida become a “sanctuary state” in regards to drilling for oil. Why not? We could be richer than Kuwait in a matter of months! Scofflaws are to be held in a higher esteem by judges than those who would dare to enforce the laws.

We have just witnessed dyslexic liberal logic at its finest folks. Judge Bolton has decided that actual enforcement of federal laws somehow interferes with the federal government’s prerogative to ignore federal law.

Bolton has pulled yet another thread from the fabric that holds our society and ordered liberty together; The United States was grounded on being a nation of laws and not of men and their current fashions. When illegal becomes fashionable are we to ignore unfashionable laws already on the books? If the AZ law is so outside the bounds then where is the clamor to repeal the federal laws that it simply mirrors?

If this ruling stands, then all bets are off in regards to the rule of law. Far away men in black robes shall decide our fate, safety, and lives from the comfort of their benches. The ACLU runs our legal system along with our wars. Do we have to ask the ACLU permission to go to the bathroom? Apparently, we better check with our guardians of civil rights.

Federal laws against marijuana are flouted in California yet that never seems to collide with State Vs Feds authority of enforcement. Do federal kidnapping laws trump enforcement of state and local law enforcement of kidnapping? If the feds will not enforce kidnapping laws or bank robbery are we all just to throw up our hands and give up and give in to crime? Ignorance of the law or ignoring the law does not make something legal.

Decriminalization of law is practiced everyday by liberal judges. They smite mandatory minimum sentencing laws, reduce sentences for the alleged problem of “overcrowding” in prisons, and generally turn out menaces to society on a daily basis. (Hello Lindsey Lohan!)

It was once said that God created all men and Sam Colt made them equal. But don’t worry; the feds are wasting no time in decriminalizing illegality and criminalizing the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. No wonder ammo & gun sales are up in the downer Obama economy. “Does hope & change” really mean the return to the Wild West where the rule of law came at the point of a gun?

Judge Bolton’s decree invites Arizonans to ignore her very own decree in the instant case. Why not? It’s all the rage, it is very fashionable, and everyone else is doing it.