Piaceri's Blog

Early voting in Texas started last week and ends on Friday.

I walked to the polling place from my office across the street. No line, but steady flow of people in and people out. It was very busy. The poll worker at the entrance (Hall Monitor) was instructing us to turn our cell phones off and have our ID ready. Per the Texas voting information website:

Q: What ID do I need to bring with me to vote?
A: Identification is not required to register to vote in Texas, but you must take either your voter registration certificate or acceptable identification when you vote.

So, what is acceptable ID?

• A driver’s license or personal identification card issued to you by the Texas Department of Public Safety. You may also bring a similar document issued to you by an agency of another state, even if the license or card has expired;
• A form of identification that contains your photograph and establishes your identity;
• A birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person’s identity;
• Your United States citizenship papers;
• Your United States passport;
• Official mail addressed to you by a governmental entity; or
• A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and address.

Personally, I believe people must first prove they are a citizen, then prove they are that person in order to register to vote, and then prove they are that person when voting. This ensures that MY vote is not cancelled out by an illegal vote. Without photo ID proving that I am that person registered to vote, what is there to prevent someone from taking someone else's voter registration card and going to the polls to vote? It's about voting integrity.

Today, Wednesday, I walked with my boss across the street so she could vote. I just wanted to get out of the office and the day is such a pretty day outside. I did get the stink eye from the hall monitor dude at the entrance. Not that I tried to go in or anything. I just sat in the lobby to wait. Same no wait line, but very busy, steady stream of people coming in and going out. My coworker and her husband were at the same polling station Saturday and waited over an hour in line to vote. 

It's good to see such a big turnout. It's a great day in America. God bless America.

Uh, cut from, uh, the Denver,uh, debate, uh, last night.

http://youtu.be/819q62ZMYVk

Rush is always good for 'food for thought'. Yes, I'm a Rush fan, have been for nearly as long as he's been on radio. 

http://dailyrushbo.com/limbaugh-obama-incited-middle-east-uprising-by-bragging-about-killing-bin-laden-21-times-at-dnc/

So, after the killing of OBL is brought up 21 times at the DNC, on the anniversary of 9/11 the US embassy in Egypt releases an apology for a very little seen video trailer, much less the supposed movie. Egypt explodes.

Obama and Hillary next pay $70k in OUR TAX DOLLARS to issue a PSA on Pakistan state TV, where only small and isolated protests had occured in a region of very shakey US relations. Pakistan explodes. 

Now Pakistan's president has issued a $100k reward for the death of the movie producer. Pretty much none of these protesters have seen this trailer, nor had they even heard of the trailer until the Obama admin brought it up. Hell, even here in the US it was unknown.

Which relatively quiet Muslim country will Obama incite next? Turkey? Indonesia?

The more Obama and Clinton keep talking about the film, the more violent the protests become. I fully expect protests to occur here in the states. Just wait for it.

Keep in mind that is is all separate and apart from the Benghazi attacks. That wasaa pure terrorist attack planned to occur on the anniversary of 9/11 in retaliation for drone strikes killing Al Qaeda leaders and the killing of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/un-small-arms-treaty-passes-while-media-sleeps/

The United Nations Small Arms Treaty passed in its second session. The Media was silent over its passage.

According to the UN’s press release,

Concluding its two-week session today, the second United Nations conference to review the 2001 Programme of Action on trafficking in small arms and light weapons adopted a consensus outcome document that highlighted the international community’s renewed commitment to preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade.

The document’s adoption represented a major achievement for delegations, who had failed to agree on a final outcome at the first review conference, held in 2006. “We accomplished something great today,” said U. Joy Ogwu ( Nigeria), President of the Conference, formally known as the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

According to the text, Member States renewed their pledge to rid the world of the scourge brought upon it by the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and their excessive accumulation and uncontrolled spread in many parts of the world. They also committed to mobilizing the necessary political will and resources to implement the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument, with the aim of achieving clear and tangible results over the next six years, through 2018.

Further by the text, States emphasized that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons continued to sustain conflicts, exacerbate armed violence, undermine respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law, aid terrorism and illegal armed groups, and facilitate increasing levels of transnational organized crime, as well as trafficking in humans, drugs and certain natural resources.

HOWEVER, I WILL ADD THIS ARTICLE THAT EXPLAINS WHY THIS PARTICULAR TREATY ONLY OPENS THE DOOR TO GLOBAL GUN CONTROL. THERE IS ANOTHER, MORE POWERFUL GUN CONTROL TREATY AT THE UN: THE INTERNATIONAL SMALL ARMS CONTROL STANDARDS

http://www.westernjournalism.com/small-arms-treaty-not-the-biggest-un-threat-to-gun-owners/

Those in a panic over the expected loss of 2^nd Amendment rights, should the UN Small Arms Treaty be adopted, need to understand two very important facts:

1)  the Treaty has no chance of garnering the 2/3rds vote necessary for senate approval; and

2)  a real UN sponsored threat to gun rights in the US and globally does exist, going under the acronym of ISACS,  “International Small Arms Control Standards.”

The UN has been actively working to disarm private individuals and a fair number of nations for thirty years. From its inception in 1982 to the current United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, the organization promotes not only nuclear disarmament, but also and perhaps most especially “disarmament efforts in the area of conventional weapons, especially land mines and small arms…”

And 3 decades of effort have resulted in a program which hopes to impose international standards on virtually everything having to do with the types of weapons owned by some 130 million American citizens. For in its “Working Outline,” ISACS means to create and make mandatory:

1.) National controls over the manufacture of small arms and light weapons

2.) National controls over the end-user and end-use of internationally transferred small arms and light weapons

3.) National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons

4.) Stockpile management over both storage and DESTRUCTION of weapons and ammunition

5.) International legal cooperation, criminal offenses and investigations

Phase 1 in the United Nations scheme is the same that has been dreamed of for years by gun grabbing organizations in the United States, mandatory and universal gun registration. Offered under the ISACS protocol as a necessary means for the tracing of weapons which have been put to illegal use, ISACS means to collect, catalogue and offer to law enforcement agencies worldwide the following information on every gun owned by either state or private citizen:  make, model, caliber, serial number, country of manufacture, physical characteristics such as barrel length, type of action, magazine capacity and naturally all pertinent information on the owner. Of course pictures are also preferred!

According to its project summary, this immense, internationally accessible data base would make possible “…the timely and reliable domestic tracing of illicit small arms and light weapons from their manufacture, import…up to the last legal possessor of the weapon…”   Naturally the ability to trace ammunition would also be mandatory which means all bullets would have to be marked and their purchasers made part of the same worldwide network responsible for the tracking of guns!

After the global system of registration has been adopted by each UN member nation, Phase 2 of the ISACS plan will be implemented. And that of course involves the “Control Standards” incorporated in the ISACS acronym. This part of the scheme is defined as the ability of the United Nations to “work as one” with the nations of the world, or more properly, to impose standards of conduct and performance on a worldwide basis, blissfully ignoring the various laws of each nation along with the rights of their citizens.

Nothing like dictatorial authority to make a system run without a hitch!  And should anyone wonder, the UN makes it clear “the primary beneficiaries of ISACS will be people all over the world who live in fear of their lives, as well as those of family and loved ones…”  Isn’t it always the case that those who demand absolute power claim it is really for our own good!

So, although the Small Arms Treaty contains provisions contrary to the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, it bears repeating that any organization committed to the unlimited extension and exercise of its own power is prone to attack from more than one direction. The UN has engaged in that practice for decades and won’t rest until it has disarmed the American public.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202979/Benghazi-attack-U-S-consulate-pictured-Libyan-attack-revealed-officials-knew-attack-plans-48-HOURS-before.html#ixzz26RflCvYe

Because the US media is in the tank for Obama and would not dare tell the truth about what happened in Libya. This malpractice of the media would not have happened if Bush had been in office.

What the media should be asking is:

1. Was there, or was there not, warning ahead of time that there would be violence against U.S. Embassies?

2. Who was given the warning? What did he or she do with the information? How far "up the chain" did it go?

3. Was the Ambassador sodomized during the time he was supposedly "being taken to the hospital?"

4. Is ritual sodomization of defeated victims a tenet of Islamic victory practices?

5. Were the Embassy Guards given live ammunition with which to defend the Embassy?

6. If the guards were not given ammunition, who gave that order?

7. Who was responsible for securing classified information, like the "Libyans Helping U.S." List?

8. Was there any heightened alert status at the Embassies in light of the date (9/11)? If not, why not?

9. How do you explain any discrepancy between the video posting date and the "outbreak of outrage" on 9/11?

But as Joe Scarborough says, the media was prevented from asking these questions because Romney chose to speak up.  Seriously?  How are we to believe that when reporters like CNN's Peter Hamby tweet the hyperlink to Obama's fundraising page from their official news accounts?  How are we to believe that when Politico bloggers are allowed to use Politico blogs to repost Obama fundraising letters including hyperlinks to Obama's fundraising page?  News for the newsmedia: the American people want answers, not continuous attacks on Romney by the supposedly nonpartisan 'news' reporters.

Since the Obama supporters are shouting "Boooooooooooshhhhhhhhh" I thought I'd check into this claim. The statement is true, however:

Zero US Ambassadors and zero non-military US citizens killed.

Zero breaches, although several were burned

8 US Embassies/Consuls to date attacked during Obama's less than 4 years tenure (actually all occurred 2011-2012):

2011 Syria

2011 Kabul

2011 Sarajevo

2012 Cairo

2012 Benghazi

2012 Yeman

2012 India

2012 Tunis

1 US Ambassador tortured, dragged through the streets and killed

    Ambassador Christopher Stevens

3 non-military US citizens tortured, dragged through the streets and killed

    Foreign Service Information Managment Officer Sean Smith

    American private security employee Glen Doherty

    Former US Navy Seal Tyrone Woods

4 breaches: Benghazi, Cairo, Sudan, Tunis

   Cairo - US Flag torn down & replaced with black Islamist flag

   Benghazi - small arms fired at the consul, which caught fire, building looted and sensitive documents missing. The attack appeared complex and professionally executed. Al-Qaeda has indicated responsibility and said it was revenge for US drone strike that killed a Libyan Al-Qaeda leader, not prompted by the anti-Muslim film 'Innocense of Muslims' (despite the insistance of our current administration)

   Sudan - walls scaled, clash with guards

   Tunis - walls scaled & trees set afire

But but but..... Booooooooooshhhhhhhhh!!!!! It's Bush's fault. All the time. Everytime. (koo-koo  koo-koo)

I mean, really people. Do people really believe everything they are spoon fed by one party or the other? The lies being told by the Democrats have gotten outlandishly ridiculous. I'm surprised that during their speeches their noses don't grow and their pants don't catch fire.

Republicans want to go back to segregation? Ugh. Democrats are throwing the word "racist" around so much that it is becoming a diluted 2 cent word.  This accusation is simply ignorant. Republicans, not Democrats, voted the Civil Rights Act into being. Republicans, not Democrats, freed the slaves in the Civil War. Democrats, not Republicans, are the party of the KKK, and of Lyndon Johnson who said these comments:

“I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

LBJ achieved his goal by expanding welfare and enslaving the poor (mostly blacks) to government support, tricking blacks into thinking only the Democrats were on their side. This myth continues to this day.

Republicans want to take away women's right to vote? Really? I don't believe that even Republicans are powerful enough (or stupid enough) to try to repeal an Amendment to the Constitution. As a woman, I can assure you not a single Republican as even suggested this.

Republicans want to take away women's choice? The Supreme Court has ruled on this, abortion is legal. What Republicans want is not force taxpayers to pay for abortions. Nor do I want to be forced to pay for people like Sandra Fluke's birth control that only costs $15 per month. Take some personal responsibility. If you can't afford the $15 per month, groups like Planned Parenthood have programs. (and good Lord, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was a known racist and eugenics activist who spoke many times to the KKK about the inferior genetic makeup of the poor and the minorities.)

Republicans are the party of "no" and continue to block legislation like the jobs bill that will move the economy forward? The House has passed 15 jobs bills that the Senate refuses to allow to come to a vote. The Senate has passed a grand total of zero. Just to clarify, the House is controlled by Republicans, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats.

Republicans are haters and a party of old white men? HA HA HA HA. See my prior blog post regarding Democrat 'tolerance'. Even biased Jon Stewart can see Democrat intolerance. That's pretty bad, people.

Someday maybe Democrats will tell the truth, but I'm not holding my breath. Just like I'm not holding my breath waiting for bobbya to let people comment on his/her/its uneducated kool-aid rants.  I could say that I'm not holding my breath waiting for politicians in general to tell the truth, but the Democrat lies being told and repeated in the media in this election cycle have gone beyond the pale.

When Jon Stewart can see it, there's a problem

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-5-2012/hope-and-change-2---the-party-of-inclusion

LMAO!

http://youtu.be/EIc6UVkI4js

I had the pleasure of listening to Rush today, and got quite the kick out of this topic.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/07/it_s_uncanny_obama_copied_jimmy_carter_s_convention_acceptance_speech_from_1980

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/09/Embattled-Stephanie-Cutter-Drops-ABC-This-Week-Appearance?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

EMBATTLED STEPHANIE CUTTER DROPS ABC "THIS WEEK" APPEARANCE

President Obama's embattled deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, was scheduled to appear on ABC's "This Week" yet seems to now have changed her mind as call for her firing intensifies. Cutter took to the press this week to claim that she and the campaign were unfamiliar with Joe Soptic and his story. This turned out to be false: not only was the Obama campaign familiar with Soptic, they hosted him on an OFA conference call and previously used him for a campaign ad. 

Said Cutter on CNN:

“I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance.”

 

ABC had Tweeted that Cutter was to appear, but plans have changed and the Tweet disappeared:

An update replaced it:

The campaign has dispatched David Axelrod to go in Cutter's place as it's likely Cutter would face too many question regarding her dishonesty on Soptic and the campaign's suspected coordination with Priorities USA, which seems ripe for an FEC investigation. 

We look forward to hearing how Axelrod handles explaining the curious similaritiesbetween the campaign's ad and the super PAC's ad -- as well as whether or not this means Obama has changed his mind about super PAC regulations when it seems his campaign may now be flouting existing law. 

Keep at them! Collaberating with a Super Pac is a huge violation of Election laws. Edwards almost went to jail over a lesser law. The Democrats cannot continue to get away with breaking and bending laws, and President Civility himself can't keep getting away with the lies and outrageous name calling. I'd also like to see FEC investigate all the DOL and IRS investigations into Republican big donors. That's a whole 'nuther story.

Of course Romney needs to fire Andrea Saul for her response to this whole fiasco. Why on God's green Earth would Romney hire the failed McCain campaign team? 

Presidential Character by Michael Reisig

The character of a president has often been a highly debated issue, but certainly not since the presidency of Richard M. Nixon has there been such a plethora of questionable actions and statements regarding a sitting president as we have now, with Mr. Barrack Obama.

The problem in all of this is discerning “the truth,” and as I have written before, truth can be inconvenient, and when this happens, it becomes subjective and abstract. All of this is exacerbated by a far left media that is largely controlled by, and in allegiance to, The White House (i.e. Media Matters and George Sorros, Public Radio, NBC, ABC, CBS & MSNBC). Never in the history of the United States has a president so completely owned the news media in America. It is uncomfortably similar to pre-World War II Germany and early 20^th Century China.

When you look at the list of concerns regarding Barack Obama, without the whitewashing or flagrant exclusion by news agencies, there is a sense of arrogant certainty about our president, a confident knowledge that his power is growing and his need to conform to what has been the standard decorum of a president for the last couple of centuries, is no longer necessary. When you look back on what has been concealed, buried, omitted or simply “disappeared” to put this man where he is, it becomes frighteningly apparent that he may be correct in the arrogant assumption that his scat no longer has odor.

But what’s most important here is that the issues involved are not simply political in nature – this is not just about Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals. This is about character and integrity, and most particularly an actual love of country, and what the ultimate result may be for a nation with a leader who doesn’t possess these qualities.

We have a president who has fought the release of his Occidental, Columbia and Harvard college records, his Selective Service registration, his law client lists, and the number of his passport that he traveled under as a young man journeying to Pakistan with individuals would later become Muslin extremists – a President who has yet to explain why he received “foreign student aid” while attending college. A President who mysteriously surrendered his license to practice law, and spent over $1 million dollars in an attempt to keep his birth certificate “unavailable.”

Our sitting president has exercised a form of “executive privilege” three times in just the last few months – three times…. Once squashing information to save his Attorney General, Eric Holder from certain disgrace and prosecution, once to circumvent Congress and rewrite U.S Immigration laws (for a second time), and once, providing an unprecedented level of authority to his office and the federal government, establishing his authority to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy – in the name of national security. Someone without any knowledge of this situation might well consider this man Caesarean in nature and above the law. 

But above all, I am troubled by Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s lack of innate affection for this nation. The element conspicuously missing in almost everything they do is love of country. They seem to have no limit in their concern for Muslims, minorities, countries in the Middle East and Africa, and religions other than Christianity, but nowhere can I find that genuine endearment to America, honest pride in their country, and respect for their nation’s flag (which Obama rarely even salutes.)

Sometimes it is the smaller things that paint the largest picture.

In September, 2011, during a ceremony in honor of the victims of the 911 attacks, Mrs. Obama was caught on camera as she turned and whispered into her husband’s ear with an expression of disdain. “All this just for a (<snip>ed) flag?” She pursed her lips and shook her head, while her husband smiled slightly and nodded perceptibly, staring ahead.

Now this wasn’t audible, but dozens of lip readers from across the country witnessed it and were quick to outrage. The video went viral, but it wasn’t just an Internet thing. It was written about in The Washington Times. I found the tape and watched it, and I read lips well. The effrontery I witnessed there, and the blatant, genuine disdain made my stomach clench. This wasn’t some Wall Street Occupier couple insulting our nation and our flag, this was the President of the United States and his wife.

If you put aside everything else and just consider the ramifications of contempt this carries you can’t help but be horrified that this is the couple making decisions for our country.

It’s not just a “<snip>ed flag,” Mrs. Obama. It’s my flag, and hundreds of thousands of Americans have died protecting what it stands for, and it makes my skin crawl that you and your husband could carry such indifference and distain for this country’s symbol of independence and freedom. And if there weren’t a hundred other things that scare mainstream America about you and your husband, this one incident should strike the core of honor and pride in our country and serve as a reminder that, above all the posturing and pretense, this is who you really are.

Below is quoted from the link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/if_we_took_the_constitution_seriously_obama_would_be_impeached.html

If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.

Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that "Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization." Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.

The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to "take Care that the laws be faithfully executed." Obama's refusal to execute Congress's Immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress's Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for... Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, "treason," and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered "bribery."

In theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States" and offer a blanket pardon for all violators of immigration law. He's not doing that, because he'd certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he does lose in November, he'll do it anyway on his last day in office).

The upshot of Obama's policy not only to allow hundreds of thousands of illegals to live and work in the U.S. during a time of 8 to 10% unemployment, but even worse, since the vast number of illegals we're talking about are Hispanics eligible for affirmative-action preferences, to actually get preferential treatment over native-born Americans.

Remember Obama's speech in Berlin in 2008? Well, now you know what "citizen of the world" means: instituting an illegal and unconstitutional policy that favors Third Worlders, and disadvantages people actually born as U.S. citizens.

Of course, he'll get away with it... if you think the gutless Republicans in the House actually represent the interests of their native born constituents and will introduce articles of impeachment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you....

Why?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-department-purges-religious-freedom-section-its-human-rights-reports

From trying to trump government mandates over religious freedom to removing the recent attacks on Christianity since the Arab Spring, why does it seem our current administration want to wage war on Christianity?

And just to make a point before anyone goes stoopid on my blog... the Catholic institutions do not wish to deny anyone their personal birth control choices, they just do not want to pay for them.