Congrats on getting sworn in, I’m proud of you. I enjoy reading your posts here at S&L and understand that your time will be severely constrained and the fear of appearing subordinate. Please post when you can and keep us informed on how things are going for you.

“Imagineers traveled to the Washington, D.C., to record Obama’s voice for the show. They also worked with White House staffers to make sure his wardrobe, hair and mannerisms were portrayed as accurately as possible.”

I’ve been busy blogging about a nasty child molestation trial here in the Bay Area …

http://sprocket-trials.blogspo.....am%20Ayres

I’m gone all day. I get up, get on the train, go to the courthouse, sit there, get back on the train, go home, write, go to bed.

But I stop by and check the news, ’cause I refuse to read or watch anything from the usual sources!

To the patriots here at S & L: Let’s take this time to remember what the United States is all about. Independence and independent thinkers. Our nation can be what it was again … 2010 is coming quickly! Stay safe and don’t drink and drive!

Ha! Good luck with that! Are they planning on changing out his wig every time he wants to appear to be young and vibrant with black hair or when he wants to appear to be “mature and wise’ with graying hair?

Hi Caligirl…haven’t heard from you for a while…Hope all is going well for you! ;-D

BTW…I wish all my S&L family and especially Steve a blessed 4th of July! This is our day to celebrate the freedoms that we hold so dear, and will continue to work for their continuance.

Disney adds robotic Obama to attraction

He looks like President Barack Obama, speaks like him, and even gestures like him, but he is not exactly the president of the United States.
This president is an audio-animatronic Obama surrounded by the 43 other U.S. presidents at Walt Disney World’s newly revamped Hall of Presidents in Orlando, Florida.
Disney gathered a team of what it calls “Imagineers,” each trained in various disciplines such as artistry, design and engineering, to update the attraction that has been around since 1971…
Disney calls the new President Obama figure “the most dynamic figure Disney has ever created.”
… Imagineers traveled to the Washington, D.C., to record Obama’s voice for the show. They also worked with White House staffers to make sure his wardrobe, hair and mannerisms were portrayed as accurately as possible.
… The retitled show is called “The Hall of Presidents: A Celebration of Liberty’s Leaders,” and it focuses on the bond between the president and the people.
Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin consulted on the project and said people who see the show should feel a greater sense of closeness to the presidents.
“These presidents are human beings with their own need to withstand adversity, sometimes to conquer fear,” Goodwin said. “Yet the other side of it is that mystery of leadership. The best ones are able to give confidence and hope to the American people themselves.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL.....index.html

There is already a huge inaccuracy noted in this exhibit.
Where is the TOTUS? Es muy importante.

“I blogged about Michelle Obama’s role in creating a patient-dumping scheme for the University of Chicago Medical Center back in March….my syndicated column today revisits the kind of “reform” the Obamas and their Chicago cronies champion — and who benefits.

Here’s a challenge to the ABC News Obamacare infomercial producers. I dare you to ask President Obama this question: What have you done for Dontae Adams, lately?

The White House, Democrats, and MoveOn liberals are spreading health care sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there’s one health care policy nightmare you won’t hear the Obamas hyping. It’s a tale of poor, minority patient-dumping in Chicago — with First Lady Michelle Obama’s fingerprints all over it.

Both Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democrat Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago have raised red flags about the outsourcing program, run by the University of Chicago Medical Center. The hospital has non-profit status and receives lucrative tax breaks in exchange for providing charity care. Yet, it spent a measly $10 million on charity care for the poor in fiscal 2007 when Mrs. Obama was employed there—1.3 percent of its total hospital expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the non-partisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability.

Rep. Rush called for a House investigation last week in response to months of patient-dumping complaints, noting: ‘Congress has a duty to expend its power to mitigate and prevent this despicable practice from continuing in centers that receive federal funds.’

Don’t expect the president to support a probe. While a top executive at the hospital, Mrs. Obama helped engineer the plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. Under the Orwellian banner of an ‘Urban Health Initiative,’ Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to ‘dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents.’ The program guaranteed ‘free’ shuttle rides to and from the outside clinics.

In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (i.e., more lucrative) patients….

Joe Stephens of the Washington Post wrote: ‘To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Axelrod’s firm recommended an aggressive promotional effort modeled on a political campaign—appoint a campaign manager, conduct focus groups, target messages to specific constituencies, then recruit religious leaders and other third-party “validators.” They, in turn, would write and submit opinion pieces to Chicago publications.’

Some health care experts saw through Mrs. Obama and her public relations man, David Axelrod—yes, the same David Axelrod who is now Mr. Obama’s senior adviser at the White House. The University of Chicago Medical Center hired Axelrod’s public relations firm, ASK Public Strategies, to promote Mrs. Obama’s Urban Health Initiative. Axelrod had the blessing of Chicago political guru Valerie Jarrett – now White House senior adviser.

Axelrod’s great contribution: Re-branding!…” Axelrod and the Obama campaign refused to disclose how much his firm received for its genius re-branding services.

In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas’ community exploded after a young boy covered by Medicaid was turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams’ mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama’s hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics, and Tylenol and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.

Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Mr. Axelrod’s grand plan. The group released a statement expressing ‘grave concerns that the University of Chicago’s policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to “patient dumping,” a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act (EMTALA)’ – signed by President Reagan, by the way – ‘and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.’

http://exposingliberallies.blo.....helle.html

From the Boulder (CO) Daily Camera:

Churchill, CU have last go-around

By John Aguilar

DENVER — The lead attorney for ousted professor Ward Churchill came out swinging during his client’s reinstatement hearing Wednesday, pushing a high-level University of Colorado administrator into admitting under oath that he is employed by a group of “constitutional law violators.”

“Point to the party that has ignored and trampled on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Churchill attorney David Lane said in his cross-examination of Todd Gleeson, dean of CU’s College of Arts and Sciences.

The dean stammered haltingly, responding that “the university was found to have violated Churchill’s rights” at a jury trial earlier this year.

“The jury said your bosses are First Amendment violators, didn’t they?” Lane pressed.

Gleeson hesitatingly agreed.

The exchange, which elicited chuckles and guffaws from the gallery of a Denver courtroom filled with Churchill supporters, capped a day’s worth of testimony designed to help Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves decide if the former ethnic studies professor should get his job back at the university.

Naves said he would issue a ruling in the matter early next week.

Wednesday’s hearing represented the culmination of a controversy that erupted nearly 4½ years ago, when an incendiary essay that Churchill wrote about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks came to light.

CU launched an investigation into whether Churchill had overstepped the bounds of free speech by a public employee with his essay, in which he compared some 9/11 victims to Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann.

During the tumult over his essay, separate allegations that Churchill had engaged in research misconduct arose. After a two-year investigation, the regents fired Churchill for what they claimed was widespread academic fraud.

Churchill sued the university for wrongful termination, claiming CU really dumped him for the 9/11 essay. He won his claim at a civil trial earlier this year, when a jury decided the school had illegally sacked the tenured professor for expressing his political beliefs.

The jury awarded Churchill a nominal $1 in damages.

Lane repeatedly asked Gleeson on Wednesday if he accepted the jury’s April 2 verdict.

The dean responded that he didn’t agree with it but respected it.

“You haven’t accepted that your employer violated the supreme law of the land, have you?” the lawyer asked.

Under questioning from CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke, Gleeson said Churchill’s presence back on campus would erode the institution’s reputation and detract from CU’s ability to hire quality faculty members. He predicted that many junior faculty members would leave CU if Churchill returned.

“If professor Churchill is reinstated, it essentially signals to him and our national audience that that behavior is acceptable, and I predict it would persist,” Gleeson testified.

The dean also said reinstatement would have a “chilling effect” on the faculty’s willingness to bring forth any potential future allegations of misconduct against Churchill.

“Are you afraid it would expose you to another lawsuit?” O’Rourke asked.

“Yes,” Gleeson responded. …

http://www.dailycamera.com/new.....t-lawsuit/

It’s truly amazing watching college administrators cower in fear of lawyers and judges.

Of course CU has also violated the Second Amendment for years now, making it illegal to bring a firearm on campus, but no one of import disagrees with that.

But here’s what it’s really all about as the chairwoman of Churchill’s department admits what her sham of a department is really all about:

Emma Perez, chairwoman of CU’s ethnic studies department and Churchill’s would-be boss if he regains his job, called the idea that her department’s reputation would suffer if Churchill is reinstated a “ridiculous notion.”

“It doesn’t make sense that anyone would think it would tarnish our department,” she testified by phone link-up. “He is a fellowship scholar and has published prolifically, and he is cited across the nation and internationally.”

She said Churchill’s classes would quickly fill with students and “give us the numbers we need.”

Note that to graduate from CU, either Churchill;s class or a Women’s Studies class (Men Are All Rapists 101) are required.

No indoctrination there – none at all.

“Obama says court still allows for racial diversity

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 2, 2009; 3:25 PM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama cast this week’s Supreme Court decision in favor of white firefighters as a narrow case that nevertheless allows employers and educators to take race into account in hiring, promotions and admissions.

Obama, a former constitutional law professor, said the court was “moving the ball” on affirmative action by telling public and private employers they could not easily discard promotion exams just because the results left no African-Americans likely to be promoted.

“This was a very narrow case, so it’s hard to gauge where they will take it,” Obama said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press. He did not criticize the court’s ruling, even though the justices voted 5-4 to reverse a decision that his own high court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, endorsed as an appeals court judge.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01864.html

Mr. Obama has criticized Mr. Bush for issuing a signing statement to interpret bills that he signs into law. Regardless of that criticism he does the same thing, as we all knew he would. But on what authority is he interpreting a supreme court ruling and defining its scope as very narrow?

And of course as night follows day, since this supreme court ruling is of a conservative nature it is to be interpreted narrowly and applied sparingly if at all. But if it were a liberal ruling it would warrant the broadest possible interpretation and the widest possible application.

It’s one of his primary strategies. He regularly says things that are totally contradictory.

Later, he can point to the one, knowing that his audience won’t check around to see that he has said the exact opposite at another time.

That’s one of the reasons Rush says that you can’t pay any attention at all to what he says.

He is everything to all people all the time.

Just like God.

“Obama Favors Strong ‘Right to Refuse’ Protections for Health-Care Workers
President Voices Support for ‘Conscience Clauses’ Ahead of Plans to Scale Back Bush-Era Policies

By Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 2, 2009; 2:25 PM

President Barack Obama said today that he still favors a “robust” federal policy protecting health-care workers who have moral objections to performing some procedures, even though he plans to roll back a Bush administration rule that expanded such protection.

Speaking to eight religion reporters at the White House before his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI on July 10, Obama sought to reassure Catholic health-care workers that they would not be forced to perform abortions. Obama said he is a “believer in conscience clauses” and that a new policy would “certainly not be weaker” than what existed before Bush expanded it late in his administration.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02451.html

Err..what? How can the headline be that Obama is in favor of a policy that even he admits he is eliminating?

And given Obama’s earlier statement to the gays that he would prefer that they forget all the empty promises he made during the campaign, and instead just focus on what little good he actually does for them now…what faith should a religious healthcare worker put in Obama’s vague promise that his replacement will “certainly not be weaker” than the old policy?

How can any sane person write this crap with a straight face?

INHOFE STATEMENT ON NOMINATION OF HAROLD KOH TO STATE DEPARTMENT June 23, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) spoke on the Senate floor in regards to the nomination of Harold Koh, President Obama’s nominee to the position of legal advisor at the State Department.

MR. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand that cloture has been filed on Harold Koh, President Obama’s nominee to the position of legal advisor at the State Department. I wanted to come and register my strong opposition and assure the American people that their representatives in Congress are not going to let this nominee sail through unopposed, and to let them know that there are some of us here in the Senate who will require full and extensive debate before this nominee receives a vote.

As legal advisor at the State Department, Koh would be advising the Secretary of State on the legality of U.S. action in the international forum, and interpreting and advocating for international law and treaties. The significance of this position and its effect on our sovereignty and security should not be underestimated.

Koh is a self proclaimed “transnationalist.” Adherents to this school of thought believe that international law is equal to or should take precedence over domestic law, and international court rulings have equal authority to the decisions of a representative government. Koh’s transnational principles could have serious implications on U.S. sovereignty, especially regarding the authorization of the use of force, the prosecution of the War on Terror, gun rights, and abortion. Koh believes a nation who goes to war must have UN Security Council authorization, going as far as writing that the U.S. was part of an “axis of disobedience” by invading Iraq. In October 2002, Koh wrote, “I believe…that it would be a mistake for our country to attack Iraq without explicit U.N. authorization, because such an attack would violate international law.” Additionally, he supports ratification of the International Criminal Court, which could subject our troops to prosecution in a foreign court.

Implementation of this interpretation of international law raises a number of alarming questions. If the U.S. is required to gain U.N. authorization for military action, what punitive actions might the U.S. be subject to if it unilaterally uses pre-emptive force? Would our Navy Seals have had to wait for authorization from an international body before rescuing the American being held hostage off the Horn of Africa?

In 1992, George Will said, “There may come a time when the United States will be held hostage to…the idea that the legitimacy of U.S. force is directly proportional to the number of nations condoning it.” I hope that day never comes. The decisions made to protect our great nation should not be made by members of an international body but by men and women who were elected by the people.

Equally concerning is Koh’s treatment towards the Department of Defense’s recruiting efforts. In October 2003, Koh led a team of Yale Law faculty in filing an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense, claiming the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rejected Koh’s arguments unanimously. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts stated: “Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military’s policies.”

Further, Koh supports accession to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (CIFTA). All of these treaties will greatly impact the lives of everyday Americans, and will require the United States to alter its domestic law to meet their respective parameters.

In 2002, Koh spoke at Fordham University Law School on “A World Drowning in Guns.” His speech was published in the Fordham Law Review. Koh’s topic was the international arms trade, but as usual his analysis had serious domestic implications. Koh wrote that “American legal scholars” should pursue “the analysis and development of legal and policy arguments regarding international gun controls” through “constitutional research on the Second Amendment.” Restated, Koh believes that the best way to regulate guns in America is through international law, through a global gun control regime.

As legal adviser, Koh would be in a position to pass judgment on whether a proposed treaty would raise legal issues for the United States, including issues related to the Second Amendment. He would therefore be able to endorse treaties that could be used by the courts to restrict the individual right to bear arms, an idea that he is clearly and openly in favor of.

It is simply not true to say that his beliefs about gun control, or the Second Amendment, don’t matter because he’ll be in the State Department advising on international law. On the contrary, he wants to use international law to restrict Constitutional freedoms in this country. In his position, he will have the power to advise the administration and to testify before the Senate about what reservations might be needed when ratifying a treaty to protect Constitutional freedoms. However, he has a history of advocating for treaties without conditions, and cannot be trusted to express reservations with treaties that I believe will negatively impact everyday Americans. The fact that he’s in the State Department doesn’t make him safe, it makes him dangerous. It is exactly where, with the possible exception of the Supreme Court, he wants to be.

This is not an accident. It is his strategy. He realizes he cannot achieve his goals through legislation, so he has turned to international law. If he can establish that international law is binding on the U.S., regardless of whether the Senate has ratified the treaty in question, activists can avoid Congress and work the issue through the courts. If you believe that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms up on the American people, then I urge you to reaffirm that principle by voting against Harold Koh. And if you believe that our nation should be subjected by a variety of treaties that threaten our national sovereignty and American way of life, then I urge you to reaffirm those values by voting against this nominee.

http://inhofe.senate.gov/publi.....;Issue_id=

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, welcomed the completion of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.

“This is the first step in a long legislative process. Timely funding is critical to the readiness of our forces stationed around the world,” Inhofe said. “If the majority makes passage of this bill a priority, we could get the bill to the President before the next fiscal year. This bill will help improve care and support provided to our military members, veterans and their families in Oklahoma and around the world.”

Inhofe continued, “In addition to the $1.2 billion cut made to the Missile Defense budget, one of the biggest disappointments is this bill’s termination of the manned ground vehicle portion of the Future Combat System (FCS). For eight years, the requirement for the program was validated by both Army and Joint Requirements Oversight Council, with the Department of Defense providing oversight.

Unfortunately, modernization and overall security have fallen victim to budget constraints placed on the military by President Obama.

I am committed to working with the Pentagon and the Army so that knowledge and corporate expertise from the FCS is used in the development, testing and fielding of the Army’s next-generation self-propelled howitzer program within 5-7 years. However, I am pleased that the committee agreed to increased funding for the Paladin Integrated Management program that will occur in Elgin.”

$5.0M for Airborne Infrared Surveillance System (AIRS) – (L3 Com/Aeromet in Tulsa, OK). To develop a land-based airborne infrared capability providing a precision tracking system that supports the Missile Defense Agency’s Ballistic Missile Defense System in defending against rogue missile threats against the United States and its allies.

This infrared capability could be integrated with either manned or unmanned airborne anti-missile platforms to provide for a layered missile defense plan.

$5.0M for Call for Fire Trainer II/Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System (JFETS) .

$7.5M for Ground Warfare Acoustical Combat Systems of netted sensors (GWACS) (GWACS Defense Inc. in Tulsa, OK). Funds the continued development of a Soldier or vehicle mounted acoustical sensor system that detects hostile fire and locates the origin of enemy fire. The system is designed to provide U.S. combat troops with immediate battlefield situational awareness.

$7.0M for FIDO Explosive Detector (ICX Nomadics in Stillwater, OK). Provides funding for handheld and mounted detection equipment to detect and deter Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as individuals responsible for the manufacture of IEDs.

$8.0 M for Rehabilitation Technology Transition Center (RTTC) (OrthoCare Innovations in Oklahoma City, OK): Transitions prosthetic and other medical technology for amputees, initially developed for military use, for clinical use. Newly available technology will improve quality of life for veteran and civilian amputees.

$4.0M for Technology Applications for Security Enhancement (TASE) (Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, OK): Will fund an effort to develop a comprehensive National Bio-Security Plan through the Center for the Mitigation of Evolving Threats (CMET). Will enhance national chemical/biological threat preparedness.

for more on the list of military defense improvements see in full
http://inhofe.senate.gov/publi.....8f53a5a4e7

God Bless our Troops. God Bless America, One Nation Under God, with Liberty and Justice for All.

With the liberals essentially running most everything, or at least being ten to a hundred times more vocal than every before, the critical thinkers are going Whhhhaaaaaaa? And Rush made an especially revealing point today about the “chickification” of the news media…specifically pointing out LIBERAL chicks in the media. Starting with Oprah, and Ellen and and Tyra…that’s one thing but with the liberal chicks in the NEWS all talking about how everything makes people FEEL.

After all, isn’t it FEELINGS that ended WWII? Wasn’t it FEELINGS that got the space program going? And it was FEELINGS that kept our shores terror free since the end of 2001, right?

So it’s finally official…the “news” is no longer an objective laying out of the days’ events. Nope. For a very long time and now it’s expected, the news tells us how to FEEL about today’s events…especially those about injustice, racism, bias, victimization of everything from children to small animals, or even bugs, the unjust school system, and on and on and on.

Well, I know what I’m FEELING right now, and I can’t say it in mixed company.