MADDOG10's Blog

By the time you read this, it may already have been voted upon and settled,  just waiting for the magic signature of the man in the Oval Office – or, in  other words: “The Great Oz” gets what he wants again, and the people be  <snip>ed.

It’s euphemistically called “immigration reform,” but in reality it’s a  massive sell-out of the United States to Third World illegals who have taken  advantage of our laxity, stupidity, liberal racial guilt and the death-wish of  the Democratic Party to gain political power that it hopes will put them in  office forever.

Did you notice when Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said that “we” – meaning the  Republican Party – have to pass comprehensive immigration reform because  that’s “the only way we can get back in the good graces of the Hispanic  community”?

According to him, if the GOP supports the immigration bill, then all those  Hispanics will be their friends and maybe – just maybe – a Republican might just  get elected again.

Sorry, Lindsey, baby – I guess I missed that chapter in my study of  history and the Constitution. Where does it say we have to pander to racial  groups to have the republic function as intended?

And if I may – just what is a “Hispanic” anyway? Is it someone from  Spain, Mexico, Central America, South America, Puerto Rico, parts of the  Caribbean, Cuba, or?

How do we categorize all those Asian, Middle Eastern, African and European  illegals?

Or is a Hispanic just anyone who’s not a WASP?

For those who forgot that racist terminology, it means “white,  Anglo-Saxon Protestant.”

I guess that’s you, Lindsey, even if you have a thick, Southern accent on  demand.

But those who came to this country through Ellis Island in the early days of  the 20^th century, those ominous “dark” Italians and others from  Southern Europe, didn’t fit WASP society

Those people were discriminated against because they didn’t speak English.  They looked “different,” sounded different and worshipped that “mysterious”  religion headed by a pope in Rome.

I know what that’s about because I have people like that in my family. I  remember them telling me what it was like, and believe me, it wasn’t nice.

But those people and millions of others who were “different” because of  looks, language and religion came here anyway for a better life. They followed  the rules when it wasn’t easy to get approved by the officials on Ellis  Island.

Once here, they got no special government assistance. They made their way in  the jungle that life can be, no matter who or what you are. In the process, they  became Americans. Not hyphenated citizens, but people who became part of the  country and lived to help make this country the power that it became on so many  levels.

However, over the years, something changed. And, oh my, the descendants of  those people and others today are changing the rules and, in the process,  changing the very nature of our country.

On another level, in the quest over the years to eliminate religion from our  culture, we have also moved to eliminate honestly and respect for law.

How else to explain the apparent acceptance by so many in government, the  media, religion, academia and other groups to ignore the fact that an “illegal  immigrant” is by definition someone who has deliberately ignored and broken our  laws.

They have come into the country illegally, worked here, often using fake  documentation of citizenship, taken advantage of our social welfare system and  gaining food, housing, medical care, education, drivers licenses, jobs,  unemployment funds and so much more.

By definition, they’re entitled to none of that.

Despite that, the elites in government today, threatened by the  aggressiveness and demands of racist immigrant organizations, defend that  outright theft of our resources – money that should be used for the people who  are legal citizens who may be in need.

Despite that, those elite are not only willing, but anxious to forgive the  fact that these people have broken our laws – whether they crossed the border  illegally or overstayed their visas.

Not only will they forgive those illegalities, but they’re eager to reward  them with the most precious gift a country can bestow on anyone: legal  citizenship.

Don’t think it’s just the Republicans who have mush for brains on this  issue.

The man who is president, speaking in the East Room of the White House to an  immigration-friendly group, said clearly, Americans “owe” immigration  reform to illegals with the promise of a pathway to citizenship.

We owe them?

Really, Barack? Really?

For what? What’s the tradeoff for the benefit of the country, or does it  really just boil down to votes and hoping to ensure Democrats get full control  of the country forever?

Oh, and a good dose of assuaging liberal guilt for all the things they  believe this country has done to the detriment of illegals. What they might be  thinking of, I have no idea.

It’s shameful – and in my opinion, treasonous – that so many elected  politicians, from the president on down, want to sell us out.

I just heard Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on the news say that the new law is a  “pathway to satisfy the demands of the country.”

Wrong, Harry. Patriotic Americans do not want to reward illegals.

Patriotic Americans want the border sealed, illegal immigration stopped and  those who get through returned to their country and employers punished for  hiring them,

In other words, enforce the laws we already have.

We don’t need new ones that cheapen our citizenship and demean our  country.

It’s as if President Obama believes he’s still in the faculty lounge at  Harvard glamorizing leftist ideals, seemingly oblivious that he is actually  president now and that his duties require him to work on truly pressing matters  instead of fantasizing about Utopia.

He is finally approaching the hot seat. Endless scandals are dogging his  Teflon. The young voter demographic is going south on him. The foreign media are  lampooning him. The economy still tanks.

But in Berlin, with the disposition of Alfred E. Neuman, the blind  destructiveness of Mr. Magoo and the flimsily emulated elegance of JFK, he  lectured the world on the urgency of adopting his slightly modified  faculty-lounge agenda.

As if having freshly emerged from a nuclear freeze seminar, Obama spoke  dreamily of arms reduction between the United States and Russia. Never mind that  rogue nations are on a fast track to developing nuclear capabilities and that  Obama has already scaled down our vital missile defense systems, gutted our  military space research and development and shelved jet fighter programs. Rather  than recognize the ever-growing dangerousness of the world, Obama defers to his  reality-averse ideology. In his mind, after all, the war on terror is already  over.

Conspicuously bereft of the phony magic that accompanied him on his 2008  trip, he told a shrinking German audience that climate change is “the global  threat of our time.” This national-sovereignty-eschewing executive of the world  said: “With a global middle class consuming more energy every day, this must now  be an effort of all nations, not just some, for the grim alternative affects all  nations. More severe storms, more famine and floods, new waves of refugees,  coastlines that vanish, oceans that rise – this is the future we must  avert.”

Yes, global warming, er, climate change is conveniently apocalyptic, because  it is flexible enough to accommodate any and all disastrous events – natural or  manmade, weather-related or otherwise, and events that are completely  contradictory. The theory is broad enough that it can never be discredited, even  if its proponents are caught scandalously manipulating the data. If we have more  tornadoes and hurricanes or fewer, if we have milder summers and winters or  harsher ones, if the Earth has been cooling for the past 15 years and even if  bitter clingers are stockpiling AK-47s at an unprecedented degree, you can be  darn sure global warming is the culprit. So of course it’s the most pressing  problem of our time.

In fact, if we would just tame this dread monster, we wouldn’t need religion  anymore, because man and nature would have achieved perfectibility. Of course,  for global warming zealots, environmentalism is the one true religion, and faith  in God (save Gaia) is passe.

I am nonetheless laboring in vain to divine Obama’s perceived causal  connection between climate change and the economic calamity he’s presiding over,  including our ever-exploding national debt, but I assure you there is one.

With his charisma deflating like a punctured balloon and his rhetoric stale,  flat and irrelevant, he struck out, as well, in Northern Ireland, where he  either clumsily or intentionally offended Catholics with his remarks on  segregated, sectarian schools.

Obama said, “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and  buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another,  if fear or resentment are allowed to harden – that encourages division; it  discourages cooperation.”

While Obama is adamant about Muslim sensitivities, to the point of  deliberately ignoring jihadist behavior in security investigations, he has  almost gone out of his way to offend Catholics and other Christians, from  abortion to conscience rights to embryonic stem-cell research. And it’s  working.

Catholic World News reacted with this: “Ironically, President Obama made his  comments just as Archbishop Gerhard Muller, the prefect of the Congregation for  the Doctrine of the Faith, told a crowd in Scotland that religious education  upholds the dignity of the human person. Archbishop Muller said that Catholic  schools should promote ‘all that is good in the philosophies of societies and  human culture.’”

The Rev. John Zuhlsdorf wrote: “Another example of what this man wants: total  isolation of any religious values in the private sphere alone. President Obama  is working either to intimidate or legislate or even TAX religious freedom out  of the public square.”

Isn’t it a bit bizarre that a man who trades in divisiveness is so quick to  lecture others about disunity? Isn’t it pathetic that in the very process of  urging others toward unity, he alienates large segments of his audience?

In the end, Obama couldn’t be more clueless about the problems really  plaguing America and the world or more clueless about his cluelessness – sort of  the Anti-socrates.

Not only is Obama’s stock plunging in the United States, but his probable  ambition to be president of the world also may be in jeopardy.

When former spy Edward Snowden revealed to the world that the federal  government is spying on most Americans, most Americans were surprised and  unhappy. But half of official Washington yawned before it roared. Somehow the  people in the government had a pretty good idea of what government spies are  doing, and they more or less approve of it – but not all of them.

Politicians as diverse as Republican Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Sen.  Dianne Feinstein called Snowden a traitor. So did former Vice President Dick  Cheney, and President Obama said that for once Cheney’s words were music to his  ears. On the other hand, former Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Republican Sen.  Rand Paul, my Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly and I have all referred to  Snowden as a hero.

The NSA is America’s domestic spying apparatus. Its budget is secret. It will  soon occupy the largest federal building on the planet. It often hires outside  contractors to do much of its work. One of those contractors is Booz Allen  Hamilton. Booz Allen’s co-chair is former Adm. John M. McConnell, who once  headed the NSA. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths.  The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be  exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the  Constitution.

Shortly after Snowden began his work with the NSA, he came to the realization  that he could not comply with both oaths. He realized that by keeping secret  what he learned, he was keeping the American public in the dark about what its  government is doing outside the Constitution in order to control the public.

What is it doing?

The government persuaded a federal judge with a perverse understanding of the  values and history and language of the Constitution to sign a series of orders  directing the largest telephone company in the U.S. and the largest Internet  providers in the world to make available to the government’s prying eyes all  sorts of information about nearly all of us, thus allowing the feds to monitor  our use of land line and wireless phones, as well as our use of emails and  texts. The numbers are staggering. Verizon has greater than 113,000,000 U.S.  customers who generate or receive more than 1 billion phone calls every day.  Americans text and email one another using the services of Microsoft, Google,  Yahoo, Facebook and others many billions of times every day.

Judge  Napolitano’s brand new book explains how the government is taking your  constitutional freedoms and how you can fight back: “The Freedom Answer  Book”

The judge’s order was profoundly unconstitutional, as is the section of the  Patriot Act that authorized it. The Constitution requires that the government  demonstrate to all judges being asked to sign search warrants specific evidence  of criminal behavior contained in the things to be seized. And it requires that  the warrants themselves particularly describe the places to be searched or the  persons or things to be seized.

In this case, the things being seized consist of digital data about nearly  everyone in America, which in the hands of a skilled spy can be used to monitor  our physical movements and communications and, according to former CIA Director  David Petraeus, to predict them. The Patriot Act facilitates these dragnets by  unconstitutionally reducing the standard for the issuance of search warrants.  The president, who refuses to deny that his spies possess the content of  our communications, claims they are not listening to it or reading it.

Who would believe President Obama?

One of the spies who knew the power he and his fellow spies had and who had  access to the innermost thoughts of hundreds of millions of us – and who  disbelieved the president – was Edward Snowden. Snowden realized the  unconstitutional nature of what the government was doing and concluded that he  could not be faithful to both of his oaths. One of those oaths – to retain  secrets – is grounded in a federal statute that requires secrecy and punishes  the exposure of secrets. The other oath is grounded in the Constitution, which  is the supreme law of the land and protects the natural right to be left alone  and does not punish the governmental violation of that right.

When confronted with the conflicting oaths, Snowden opted for the higher  good: fidelity to the supreme law of the land. Hence, in order to protect the  privacy of us all, Snowden violated the lesser oath and upheld the greater one.  He could not serve two masters when the lesser of the two (fidelity to the  government’s laws) facilitated a corruption of the greater of the two (the  primacy to the Constitution).

He’s a traitor, the establishment roared. He’s a high school dropout. He left  the Army. He admits to having lots of sex with his girlfriend. He fled to Hong  Kong.

Who cares?

He understands, as Ronald Reagan did, that if we don’t control the  government, the government will control us. That’s why the Washington  establishment yawned when we learned what it knew and now roars because Snowden  challenged it. Those in power want to stay there and will misuse the  Constitution to do so for as long as they can get away with it, no matter to  which political party they belong. Any government that secretly spies on nearly  all the population is aiming to control the population.

Snowden knew that this massive violation of the constitutionally guaranteed  rights of nearly every American, orchestrated and operated in secrecy, is  corrupting the Constitution and empowering the corruptors. It was that  understanding plus a willingness to face down those in power who lack fidelity  to the Constitution and who can do him harm that constituted the behavior of a  hero.

Is he flawed?

The only hero who was not flawed was nailed to a tree 2,000 years ago because  those He came into the world to save rejected Him.

By now most are aware that Obama without invitation injected himself into the  Trayvon Martin shooting, saying that if he had a son he would look like Martin.   But there was another shooting that took place on March 2, 2008, about which not  only did Obama fail to call the family, he did not give the matter the slightest  regard.

It’s telling that Obama would compare the male progeny he never had to a  drug-using street thug gangsta’ wannabe like Martin and completely ignore the  brutal, cold-blooded murder of a young man who didn’t use drugs, wasn’t involved  in gangs, carried a Spider-Man backpack and was eyeing scholarships to Rutgers  and Stanford. 

Since the Supreme Court legalized the murder of unborn children vis-à-vis  abortion (1973-present), nearly 19 million unborn black children have been  murdered.  Obama not only supports this mass murder of the unborn, but he has  said that Planned Parenthood “does good work” and in a recent speech asked God  to bless the organization.  Depending on which numbers you ascribe to (the CDC  set the number at 43.9 million in 2011), the total number of black Americans is  40-44 million.  Put differently, Obama publicly champions the murdering of  approximately 2.3 unborn black children for every one black child born.

And that is the just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama and  blacks.  Specific to that point, let’s go back to my opening paragraph.  As I  indicated, Obama personally interjected himself into what many, myself included,  believe was a clear case of self-defense when George Zimmerman shot and killed  Martin as Martin was reportedly slamming Zimmerman’s head into the ground. 

Jamiel Shaw Jr. and Sr.

But in the case of Jamiel Shaw Jr., his only offense was being born black –  an illegal-alien Mexican shot him to death because of the color of young Mr.  Shaw’s skin.  Not only has Obama ignored the murder of Jamiel Shaw Jr., but he  has taken it upon himself to push amnesty for the millions of illegal-alien  criminals in the country. 

It is well-known by law enforcement agencies nationwide that the Mexican  mafia and Mexican gangs are committed to ridding blacks from the areas they have  usurped after making their illegal entry into America.  And Obama seeks to  reward these illegals with amnesty.

Jamiel Shaw Jr. was minding his own business, walking from school to his  home.  He was only three blocks away when he telephoned his father to say, “Be  right home dad, I’m right around the corner.”

Tragically, the fact is that Jamiel Shaw Jr. did not make it home.  The fact  is that the next time his father saw him, he was lying face down in a pool of  his own blood just outside his home.  The fact is that Pedro Espinoza, an  illegal-alien Mexican career-criminal gunned down Jamiel Shaw Jr. strictly  because he was black.  The facts are that Jamiel Shaw Jr.’s mother, a U.S. Army  soldier deployed in Iraq at the time, had to fly back alone on a flight that  must have seemed like an eternity.  She had survived combat in a foreign land,  but her child was unable to survive the murderous rampage of illegal-alien  savages in the town she and her family called home.  And, Obama wants to reward  these illegal aliens with amnesty.

Compounding the grief of losing their son, Mr. and Mrs. Shaw are made to  suffer more injury because Los Angeles is a “sanctuary city.”  Simply put, such  “sanctuary cities” are safe havens for illegal aliens in which they can commit  heinous crimes and if they are arrested not be turned over to Immigration and  Customs Enforcement for deportation.  And, Obama fully supports abrogation of  justice.

Jamiel Shaw Jr. is an innocent victim of yet another government-sponsored and  government-approved machination for the extermination of blacks.  And just as  with Planned Parenthood, Obama’s actions unambiguously prove he endorses same. 

Obama is willing to use a situation like that of Martin’s death as a means to  foment racial antipathy toward whites.  But there are no Al Sharptons, no Jesse  Jacksons, no New Black Panther Party protests, no national press coverage, and  NO OBAMA comments in the murder of Jamiel Shaw Jr.

The grotesque elephant in the middle of the room that goes practically  unaddressed –  unlike the fallacious allegations that George Zimmerman shot  Martin because he black – in the case of Jamiel Shaw Jr.: He was murdered by a  Mexican illegal alien specifically because he was black.  And, Obama is  silent.

It’s not just that government collects so much data on Americans that bothers  me.

It’s what the government does and doesn’t do with the data that  makes it worse.

Gohmert was grilling Mueller over the FBI’s abject failure at preventing the  April 15 Boston Marathon bombing by neglecting to investigate their mosque,  founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted of supporting terrorism. He  also pointed out the FBI had a tip from Russia that one of the Tsarnaev brothers  had been radicalized in a visit to Chechnya prior to the attack.

“The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15  attacks,” Gohmert said. “If the Russians tell you that someone has been  radicalized and you go check and see the mosque that they went to, then you get  the articles of incorporation as I have for the group that created the Boston  mosque where these Tsarnaevs attended and you find out the name Alamoudi.”

Mueller accused Gohmert of not having his facts straight, for which he should  be cited for contempt of Congress. It is Mueller who didn’t have his facts  straight – even admitting he didn’t know about who founded the mosque.

This little fact was reported in  WND in 2003 – a full year before Alamoudi pleaded guilty for conducting illegal  transactions with the Libyan government and playing a role in a conspiracy to  assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah! Yet the FBI director didn’t know?  Why didn’t he know? The FBI was conducted multicultural outreaches to the mosque  prior to the attack, yet it was oblivious to its history? Incredible.

That’s an illustration of why too much information in the wrong hands – and  make no mistake about it, the government’s hands are the wrong hands – is so  dangerous. Too much information sometimes obscures the obvious.

Islamic Society of Boston Mosque was, and remains to this day, a breeding  ground for the kind of Muslim extremism that represents a grave threat to  national security and the safety of the American public.

What is Mueller doing about that?

Nothing.

If a church had that kind of history, its charter would have been pulled long  ago and those responsible for aiding and abetting terrorism would be locked up  in Guantanamo. You know it, and I know it. But the FBI closes its eyes to this  kind of violent and explosive hatred when those responsible are followers of  Muhammad.

I encourage you to watch the fiery exchange as it was captured on CSPAN last  Thursday.

It’s time for Mueller to go. I know he is a short-termer and leaving office  soon. But it’s not soon enough.

This guy is not exactly Elliott Ness.

He’s been in the job too long – since a week before Sept. 11, 2001.

He obviously didn’t learn enough from that experience.

It’s time for an immediate change.

It’s also good to know there are at least a few members of Congress who know  what’s really going on in this country – people like Louis Gohmert.

It’s also time to dismantle the surveillance state on general principle. It’s  un-American to the core. But there’s another good reason to destroy it:  Government not only ignores the vital information at its fingertips, it also  misuses it, misinterprets it, fails to connect the dots and misses the forest  for the trees because of the overwhelming amount of data it collects.

I don’t know what’s scarier – the fact that government collects information  from every American surreptitiously or that it uses all the wrong criteria in  figuring out who really represents a threat to the safety and security of our  country and citizenry.