It’s that time of year again. The White House Correspondents Dinner. Traditionally this is the one time each year that the President attepts some stand up comedy. If there’s one thing good about Obama it’s the fact that he can make fun of himself with the best of them. Sure he dropped some cheap shots and his political bias was obvious but that’s really to be expected of anybody in this position. I’ll give credit where credit is due and I for one thought that his portion of the dinner speeches was pretty funny. Wanda Sykes however went overboard, but for the sake of keeping this post light hearted, I won’t even bother addressing her.

Here is the video of Obama’s speech:

I think the New York Post said it right. Obama made his sugar coated generic 100th day speech yesterday but I’d like to think most people can see through the smoke screen.

NYP: 100 Days, 100 Mistakes

To add my own thoughts on Mr. Obama’s first 100 days, here’s the top 10 things I think are worth noting:

1. He’s using tax dollars to fund abortions (which I view as freedom of murder).

2. He’s pushing for the US acceptance of the UN Child’s Rights Treaty which will force parents to raise their kids how the government thinks kids should be raised.

3. He’s shown significant weakness and in his dealings with foreign leaders.

4. He’s calling people who are pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, war veterans, conservative, etc potential domestic terrorist threats.

5. He has some very scary gun control legislation ideas. The first step to a dictator type socialism if you ask me.

6. He’s doing his best to demonize President Bush and the tactics that kept America safe since 9/11.

7. He’s continuing to support absurd stimulus packages, completely wasting taxpayer money.

8. He’s not paying any attention to the primary tax payers, but is quick to pass them off as greedy and unpatriotic.

9. He’s continued to bail out companies that are failing miserably, completely wasting taxpayer money.

10. He goes around and apologizes for America to the internatinal community. Not only is it clear that he is not proud to be an American, but it’s obvious he is quite ashamed.

I was thinking about the state of the union recently and a phrase came to mind: “If you’re not with us, then you’re against us.” This is a commonly used phrase and we’ve all heard it before. It seems to me that the Obama administration is using a distorted version of this phrase to reframe the concept of patriotism.

“If you aren’t with us, then you’re against us.” It’s becoming more and more clear that the mentality of the left is “If you aren’t with US, then you’re against U.S.” There is a big difference. It’s not just the “left” though, the Obama administration itself has put out memos labeling those who disagree as potential domestic terrorists.

Since when was patriotism defined simply as being a fanboy of the current administration? Is it possible to love your country but not those who are running it (into the ground, in some cases)? More and more I hear right wing conservative talk show hosts stating that they hope the Obama administration fails. The left is quick to blast these people, stating that it’s abusd for anybody to hope the U.S. fails. There’s the catch though. The left is grouping Obama and the U.S. as one entity. If Obama fails, it could very well be a great thing for the U.S. After all, we might have a better chance of recovering from 4 years of damage than 8.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. No true patriot is hoping the U.S. fails. However, I am pretty sure there are millions of patriots who hope Obama fails. If Obama has his way, we’ll surrender more and more of our sovereignty to the U.N., we’ll give up more and more individual rights, and we’ll have a government that is bigger than it’s ever been in the history of our nation.

Ever since Obama released (leaked) the classified CIA documents outlining and chronicling “enhanced interrogation” techniques used on top terrorist suspects, the left has been reacting with shock and disapproval. They don’t mind the fact that America has been kept safe since the 9/11 attacks, but they don’t want to accept the fact that “enhanced interrogation” techniques are responsible for said safety. Ideally, the CIA would have just asked the terrorists nicely if they were planning any new attacks against the US. Ideally the terrorists would have been more than happy to have that conversation and explain their plans in full. Realistically, however, these terrorists are trained and radicalized to the point of accepting their own death before giving up such information.

Here’s one for the books. The CIA has recently confirmed that reports of a 9/11 style attack against a building in L.A. How did they come across this information? Through an “enhanced interrogation” technique commonly referred to as waterboarding. The room just went quiet, I know, but here’s what happened. 

A previously classified memo from May 20, 2005 confirms that an attacked dubbed “The Second Wave” was thwarted by the CIA after waterboarding top al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad. The report goes on to describe how Mohammad was not cooperative at first. CIA documentation on waterboarding taken from an August 2, 2004 memo states that “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits. It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

Before I get too far into this post I’d like to preface it with a bit of history. The U.S. has seen its fair share of security breaches. Some of these are accidental, while many are the direct result of espionage or treasonous activities. The number of reported security breaches may or may not reflect the actual numbers, but it’s still something not to be brushed aside.

The American people and the American government generally have not taken lightly to security breaches or treason in the past. Guilty parties are often sentenced to significant prison time, life sentences or in some cases execution.

A particularly interesting example of espionage in U.S. history happened in April of 1998. Ex-CIA employee Douglas Frederick Groat was arrested for giving classified information to foreign governments. Most people can agree that this is a bad thing for an ex-CIA employee to do, right? It’s safe to say that it would have been difficult for him to find a jury of his peers. Leaking classified government information is something that simply should not be tolerated by ANY American from any political party, for obvious security reasons.

Where am I going with this? Well, recently there was a big debate on whether or not the U.S. government should open classified CIA documents to the world. How this was even considered is beyond me. Internal affairs should be kept internal if you ask me, especially when it comes to national security documents filed during a time of war. A war that is still going on, might I add.

President Obama sent a letter to homeland security on April 14th warning of a growing threat from “Right Wing Extremists”. I got ahold of the PDF of the 10 page letter today. Here’s my take on it. In a nutshell, the letter warns that people in the following groups may potentially be domestic terrorists and should be watched. And yes, the word “terrorist” is used. People who are:

• Antigovernment (no reasons specified)
• Rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority
• Rejecting government authority entirely
• People dedicated to Pro-Life causes
• People who are against illegal immigration
• People who believe the 2nd amendment guarantees their personal right to own guns
• People who take gun lessons or undergo paramilitary weapons training 
• Returning veterans from the U.S. military
• People who warn against the U.S. heading towards Communism
• People who warn against a “New World Order” one world government
• Religious people (implied Christian) who speak of “end times” prophecies

Sounds like our founding fathers to me, with a few fair exceptions. The founding fathers were not antigovernment or anarchists and neither are a large majority of the people Obama just grouped together in this category.

In the letter, these people are also unfairly grouped and labeled as:

• People who are spreading propaganda
• People who are recruiting for violent purposes
• People who are out to radicalize others
• People who are antigovernment
• People who are “white supremacists”
• People who are against the “first African American president”
• People who create Conspiracy theories
• People who would take in and support the likes of Timothy McVeigh

Is this really fair? This “report” was sent out the day before the April 15th tea parties took place across the nation. These were non-violent demonstrations, which last I checked was still legal in the United States of America under our first amendment:

Imagine this. Your kid stays out too late or hangs out with the wrong crowd. As a parent it would be your responsibility and duty to punish your child in some way, perhaps grounding them from their cell phone for a week. Right? Well, what if your decision to ground your child could be appealed? Obama is pushing for approving a U.N. treaty that would allow your child to appeal all of your parental decisions to the government. The government could literally reverse your decision to ground your child. Sounds “too bad to be true”, right? Not only is it true, but Obama has described our failure to ratify this legislature by now as “embarrassing”.

This is something that every parent in the U.S. needs to see. If you feel that the government should tell you how you have to raise your kids then you might be ok with this. However, if you are one of the millions of parents out there who do not want the government to tell you how to raise your kids, then you need to see this. Call your representatives today and tell them that you will not be told how you can and can’t raise your own kids.

If your kid tells you they want to join a cult do you want the government telling you that you have to stand by and allow it?

This piece of legislation has been around since the 90’s but thankfully the US has stayed away from it until now… Here’s the full text of the U.N. Council on the Rights of the Child.

The text of the bill is littered with good things such as feeding children properly, giving them proper care, etc. This all seems good and well but it is all an attempt to mask its bigger goal, letting the government tell us how to raise our kids. Some parts that I feel are important to point out. I’ll bold the key parts.

CNN, MSNBC and the other big news networks passed off the “Tax Day Tea Parties” as nothing to be too concerned with. The New York Times called the people attending such parties “idiots”. Here’s CNN’s “fair reporting”:

MSNBC took it a step further:

Seriously? So it’s idiotic to be concerned with where your hard earned tax dollars are going? It’s idiotic to send a message to your government that you are fed up with pork spending?

I went to one of these Tea Parties and I was greeted by polite people who care about their country. Granted, some of these people got pretty worked up during the rally but is that really so wrong? When you give a homeless person some money and they spend it on beer, is it wrong to be annoyed? How about when you give your government a few trillion dollars and they literally flush it down the toilet? I think the statement that rang true for many people today was “Enough is enough” and “NO MORE SPENDING!” We simply don’t have any plan whatsoever for paying this money back. Last I checked, this means we probably shouldn’t be spending anythng extra.

A lot of people are furious with what seems to be President Obama bowing to the Saudia Arabian King.

If I had to say yes or no on the bow. I’d probably have to agree that it was in fact a bow. If it wasn’t a bow then what was it? I know “change” and “hope” have been redefined to mean “socialism” and “nope” so perhaps when the White House said it wasn’t a bow it was because they have a new word for bow that they haven’t yet released yet. Perhaps that new word describes what we currently understand to be “bowing”. Seriously.. either he bowed or he is the worst hand shaker in the history of mankind. The White House claims it was a double hand shake. I’ve double hand shaked before. Not like that.

Obama sent out this newsletter earlier today. I’ve taken the liberty of translating it into common English. First his letter and then the translation below. I also bolded one part in particular that I found to be a relief…..