OCA Book Choice of The Month:

PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

BORDER DEFENSE

It’s about the issues that face our nation due to our government’s lack of substantive action when it comes to defending our borders—particularly our border with Mexico—from hostile enemies and invasion. There are five major threats coming into America because we have an open border with Mexico and I address each of them in-depth. I address constitutional and other legal precepts to educate the reader about what the laws actually are. And I develop a solution for the defense of our border with Mexico using the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP). This is the same methodology that I used to prepare war plans while I was a combat planner in the U.S. Army.~ Christopher Hatley

Book Author Lt. Col. (U.S. Army, ret.) Christopher Hatley is a graduate of West Point, the Command and General Staff College and the Air Warfare Center. A twenty-seven-year veteran of the United States Army, he taught military decision-making processes to officers and enlisted personnel at the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and the Air Warfare Center at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. A former candidate for office in the Texas State House of Representatives, Lt. Col. Hatley is an advocate for border policy reform and conservative politics and plans to run for office again.

 Lt. Col. (U.S. Army, ret.) Christopher Hatley

Why Moral Conservatism Is Indispensable To Liberty

  by: Tim Dunkin

Those from previous generations to my own can remember America as it was before the tectonic shifts in the social and moral fiber of the nation that occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They remember a time when the streets were safe and when traditional marriage, the sanctity of innocent life, and standards of morality existed as more than just a set of pre-packaged bumper sticker slogans. Even in the relatively short span of my own life, I've seen the moral compass of this nation drift away from true north as its spiritual lodestone demagnetized — things that would have been inconceivable even in the 1980s are yawned at today.

In many circles, this state of affairs is celebrated. For many, the Judeo-Christian moral system is considered to be at best a relic of the past, and certainly as an outmoded set of rules and strictures which are an attack on personal freedom. Sadly, this view is not only held by those on the Left — the socialists and communists and fascists and whatnot. It is also held by many on the Right, those who proclaim themselves to be of libertarian persuasions, but yet who do not understand the underlying contradiction of their own belief system.

My intention here is not to aim any blue-on-blue friendly fire at libertarians. Instead, I want to point out that the belief that you can have liberty without a foundation in Judeo-Christian biblical morality, or even that you cannot have liberty unless you toss this morality aside, is completely contrary to reality. I have a saying about libertarians — about 85% of the time, they're right on the money, but the other 15% of the time, they are way, way off base. The primary reason for this is the philosophically libertarian attitude towards religion in general, and biblical morality in particular. This attitude would be summed up best by Robert Heinlein, a science fiction writer from the past century who was also an outspoken libertarian later in his life and who infused his personal attitudes towards Christianity into many of his writings,

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

Or,

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense.

As a result, hard-core libertarians may be completely on target about any number of issues ranging from taxes to guns to property rights. Yet, the fact remains that authentically libertarian positions on many social issues will necessarily be based upon the atheistic worldview that views mankind as inherently good, rejects the notion of absolute moral right and wrong, and views any intrusion of morality into its self-contained fact space as an imminent imposition of theocracy upon itself. Often, it is these libertarians on the Right who are the biggest purveyors of the myths surrounding "separation of church and state" and the role of religious faith in early American history.

As such, modern libertarianism finds its origins in much the same philosophical and spiritual milieu as does the modern Left — in the rejection of any authority upon the behavior of man but man's own, personal intuitions themselves. In truth, the hard-core, philosophical libertarian is as much a disciple of Ludwig Feuerbach as any Marxist.

Yet, the problem for libertarianism — in the sense of which we've just looked at — is that the premise of its entire understanding of anthropology (the study of man) is incorrect. The philosophical libertarian sees man as inherently good — it's the government who makes him evil. Left to his own devices, unfettered from any moral or ethical constraints whatsoever, each man would naturally seek him own good, while refraining from doing evil to his neighbor. Sin — such as it is — only appears when those who want to control other people successfully manage to impose their superstitions upon them. Without religion clouding the matter, man wouldn't have these artificial guilt feelings about sex or greed or other aspects of personal behavior.

Unfortunately for hard-core libertarians, it doesn't work this way. The proposition that man is inherently good is laughable. Simply laughable. One only has to look at the news to see that. Man does not need government to incline him towards harming other people. Indeed, man needs government to STOP him from doing so. The primary issue then becomes "what sort of government." Will man utilize self-government, or will he require outside government, imposed upon him by force?

As has been pointed out by the writer Ken Martin, self-government involves the capacity of the individual to not only do what he likes, but also to be willing to bear the consequences of his actions. I would go further, and add this: self-government includes the capacity to exercise foresight and to restrain oneself from behavior which will harm yourself or other people, even if the harm is not immediately apparent or observable. This, in fact, is what biblical, Judeo-Christian morality is.

In truth, there is no such thing as a "victimless crime." This concept is a fiction. Somebody always pays the piper for our immoral actions, and most of the time, that somebody is not just we ourselves. Homosexuals, through their behavior, are responsible for introducing AIDS and other STDs into the blood supply and disease ecology of our nation. Their activities certainly have greater and more far-ranging effects than just on their own lives. The same can be said for that favorite example of a "victimless" crime — prostitution. While the harm done through these sorts of activities is often not immediately apparent, in the long run it is there, just the same.

Therefore, self-government involves much more than simply running around doing whatever comes to mind, whatever "floats your boat," so to speak. Self-government involves limiting one's own behavior enough that one can credibly, peacefully, and responsibly participate in the mutually beneficial commonwealth of individuals envisioned by Locke. Our Founders understood this truth about self-government, and they understood the central role that Christianity and biblical morality played in it. John Adams put it best in his oft-quoted statement,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

Adams knew that there were only two things capable of containing humanity's inherent sin-nature driven lust to "do unto others before they do unto you." These were religion and morality, or else stringent government imposed from outside by force. Adams knew that our Constitutional system, set up as it was on the principles of liberty and small government, was not "armed with power capable of contending" with mankind unleashed from the strictures of objective morality. Either man self-governs through the influence of religion and morality, or else man must be governed by police, laws, judges, and dictators.

"Ah," one might counter, "what about atheists who lead good, and even moral lives?" "What of them?", I would respond. To a man, their morality and ethics are simply cherry-picked from the Judeo-Christian morality that underlies our Western sense of the dignity of the individual. Even in their rejection of biblicism, they still implicitly accept it, if they lead lives that they feel can credibly be called "moral" or "ethical" in the eyes of society at large. The reason they understand that harming others if bad and respecting the rights of others is good, is because that is the ethos in which they were raised and absorbed, even if they explicitly reject the religion which gave rise to the ethos.

The truth of Adams' proposition is seen all around us. Earlier, I wrote about the great sea changes in morality that took place in our nation several decades ago. It is unsurprising that, concomitant with the Sexual Revolution and the rejection of traditional Christianity in America by many of our people, a whole host of social ills came into prominence. If you look at the graphs of things like crime rates, illegitimacy, welfare recipiency, and so forth, every time, they are basically flatlined until the late 1960s, when they spike sharply and stay high. All of these social ills are the result of a lack of self-control in some form or fashion — a freedom from the restraints of traditional morality.

So where has that brought us now? Well, another thing that has attended to the increasing rejection of traditional morality in America is the loss of individual liberties. One cannot blame big government alone for the loss of individual liberties and personal freedom. After all, the 1930s saw one of the most drastic increases in the scope and size of government in American history — a scope and size that continued all throughout the following decades, I might add. Yet, one cannot really say that most Americans were fundamentally any less free in their ability to speak, think, read, write, worship, or protect themselves freely than they had been in the 1920s or the 1890s or the 1860s.

It wasn't until the collapse of a uniform sense of necessity for Judeo-Christian morality in America that our personal freedoms began to restrict and disappear. Why? Because a significant percentage of our population abandoned any sense of self-government, and therefore needed to be restrained externally through an increasingly enervating set of laws, regulations, rules, and stipulations on their lives — which unfortunately are applied to those who don't need them as well. For example, when large numbers of people don't allow the moral sense of respecting innocent life to overrule their passions, then murder and other violent crimes go up, which then have to be dealt with.

As such, it's not surprising that the government has become so much more blatant in the past few decades in overreaching from its constitutional boundaries. In some sense, it has had to, just to keep some semblance of order in America. As Adams said, when men won't self-govern, then they'll be governed by an external force which cannot be provided under a strictly constitutional system. These same people, then become dependant upon that government to give them everything else, just as it has given them the "capacity" to not make complete abjects out of themselves. In some sense, then, the fault for the unconstitutionality of so much of what our government does lies squarely at the feet of the "lifestyle libertarians" out there — those who have done so much to encourage among the gullible underclasses in our nation an end to real, practicable self-government in favor of a perverted sort of "self-government" which really amounts to little more than "if it feels good, do it."

Hence, we need to understand once again that if we as a people are to have liberty, then we have to regulate ourselves. You cannot have true liberty and at the same time have the reckless abandon that comes with the celebration of the homosexual lifestyle or the irresponsibility that characterizes the "need" for abortion. Conservatives need to begin making the case for WHY traditional morality is important. We need to understand that appeals to "tradition" alone, the argument that we need traditional morals because "we've always had them" won't wash.

Liberty and morality — self-government and self-control according to the positive ethical system embodied in Judeo-Christian biblicism — go hand in hand. You cannot have the former without having the latter. Lose morality, and you will sooner or later lose liberty. Without morality, we become less than men, we become herd animals who are controlled, directed, and exploited by the dictatorial governing caste that we accept as our overlords to keep us from destroying ourselves, and to give us the necessities that we become dependent upon them for. Moral fiber and independence go hand-in-hand. So also does enslavement to the passions with enslavement to the government. America is at a cusp right now — we have to choose which way we will go, and soon. Let us, as conservatives, stand up for the truths of conservative, Judeo-Christian morality in our government and in our society. This is not "theocracy," indeed it is just the opposite — it is liberty.

  Tim Dunkin

HEALTH WIN = DISASTER FOR DEMS

 

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post

If the Democrats obey President Obama's command and pass a health-care bill by the August recess, they'll be committing partisan suicide.

Obama's insistence that we completely remake our health-care system -- and do it two weeks after the first bill was marked up in the first committee -- is too arrogant by half. It smacks of the kind of overreaching of FDR's second term in 1937, when, after his landslide win in 1936, he tried to pack the Supreme Court to reverse its anti-New Deal rulings.

Americans are increasingly turning against Obama's program. A Washington Post poll has the plan's public approval below 50 percent; Rasmussen has it trailing 46-49.

For Obama to ride roughshod over Americans' rising concerns about a matter so intimate will be too much.

What's the rush? they'll ask. The bill isn't even slated to take effect until next year. You passed the stimulus package, they'll note, in a similar rush during the administration's first week -- only to see it fall flat. Now Obama aides are claiming the package was never intended to have much effect this year!

How, voters will ask, can we cover 50 million more people without any new doctors or nurses? The answer is to ration health care, with the government deciding who'll get hip and knee replacements, heart-bypass surgery and other medical treatments. And what does rationing mean? It means that the elderly will be denied care that they can now get whenever they want.

The Obama plan effectively repeals Medicare, putting a Federal Health Board between the elderly and their doctors. This board will instruct public and private insurance carriers on what procedures are to be approved, at what cost and for what patients.

The bulk of this rationing will fall on the elderly. We'll have to revisit the idea that the elderly have, in the words of former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, "a duty to die."

The more word gets out about what the bill contemplates, the firmer opposition will grow. That's why Obama wants to push it through now, while he retains some popularity.

And if the bill passes? The howls of protest from the elderly the first time they're denied care will be something to behold. It will become evident that the health-care resources being denied to the elderly are going instead to immigrants -- legal and not. The anger will be enormous and instant.

Most Americans aren't sick and don't use medical facilities often. But the elderly constantly stay in touch with their doctors and medical providers. The curtailment of that access will become immediately apparent -- and in more than enough time for the 2010 elections.

Some votes live on and on. People remember senators' votes on the Kuwait war resolution. President Bill Clinton chose Vice President Al Gore for the 1992 ticket largely based on Gore's vote in favor of the invasion. It sent a signal that Gore and he were a "new kind of Democrat."

This health-care vote is similarly consequential; it will linger for years.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

 

Dear Fellow Conservative: Once there was a poor farmer who wanted to become fabulously rich in the diamond trade. He deserted his farmland and traveled the world looking for diamonds until he was too old to look anymore. He returned home penniless, only to discover that the fields around his home were thick with flawless diamonds as big as your fist. The poor guy’s fortune had been right under his nose, but he had wasted his whole life looking everywhere but in his own backyard. That old story came back to me earlier this year when I met Marco Rubio. He’s the 38-year old former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez next year. Rubio is the most impressive conservative leader I have met in a long time, a natural leader with an inspiring personal story and an even more inspiring vision for Florida and America. He is at once a principled conservative and an accomplished legislator with a proven record of building broad coalitions to champion fiscal discipline, economic growth, and the American values of family, faith, and freedom. That is why I hope you will CLICK HERE to support Marco Rubio's Senate campaign. For months now, Republicans have been looking around, asking everyone they meet who our next leaders will be. And somehow, inexplicably, many of us have grown blind to the diamonds all around us. There are already many young, conservative leaders ready to fight for freedom in Washington and in state capitals all around the country. But we’ll never find them if we only look for well-known politicians or choose our party’s direction based on the latest polls instead of timeless principles. Marco Rubio is the son of Cuban exiles, who fled to the United States in the late 1950s without a dollar in their pocket. He tells inspiring stories about the neighborhoods where he grew up, and how America empowered his family to make a life for themselves. Rubio did rise: to college and law school, to the City Commission in West Miami to the legislature, all the way to the speaker’s chair. From each of these positions, Rubio has championed a positive, principled, conservative agenda as the best way to create jobs and opportunities. He is living the American Dream, and understands how much he owes to our Founders and their principles of personal liberty and limited government. He wants to serve because he wants to protect those principles. When Marco Rubio swears an oath to our constitution, he’s one of those politicians who will actually mean it. Everywhere he has gone, Rubio has stood up to liberal ideas and interest groups, and stood up for freedom. He has taken on daunting issues – from a statewide education curriculum to energy reform – and succeeded in persuading independents and Democrats that his ideas – innovative, conservative solutions – make for the best answers to our biggest challenges. Here are a few examples of Marco's conservative record, and why the Senate Conservatives Fund has endorsed him: Rubio has consistently opposed state tax increases and has signed a pledge to oppose federal income tax hikes. Rubio opposed President Obama's stimulus bill and has pledged to fight wasteful spending in Washington. Rubio opposes efforts to socialize medicine. Rubio opposes government bailouts and supports tax cuts for individuals and businesses to grow the economy. Rubio opposes President Obama's "cap and trade" scheme that includes a $650 billion tax increase and threatens to force Americans to pay higher energy prices. Rubio opposes amnesty and believes we must secure our borders to stop illegal immigration. Rubio is 100% pro-life, supports a waiting period to protect innocent unborn children, and has not waffled on protecting human life. Rubio supports only strict constructionist judges who will interpret the law and won't legislate from the bench. Marco Rubio is exactly the kind of Senator Florida needs, and exactly the kind of leader our party is looking for: a conservative’s conservative with a record of success in a swing state, a self-made first generation American, a dynamic Republican spokesman, a young husband and father himself dealing with the same problems middle class families like his face every day. There is no question Marco Rubio will be a big part of the Republican Party’s future, but I believe if we are to defeat the forces of Big Government now controlling Washington, Marco Rubio needs to be a big part of the Republican Party’s present. He has the skills and ideas we need to rebuild our party, reform our government, and renew our nation. That’s why Marco Rubio has my full support in his upcoming election. Perhaps more than any other race in the country, this election is about whether we conservatives are going to stand up and fight for candidates who share our values. Marco Rubio is not the biggest name in this race, and he won't have the most money, but he will win if conservatives in Florida and across the country rally behind him. As someone who is in the Senate fighting each day to protect our freedoms, I can tell you that we desperately need leaders in the Senate who will stand up to the liberals in Washington. And we need those leaders now. Thank you for your steadfast support for liberty. Your friend, Jim DeMint United States Senator Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

 

THE NEWS IS OUT:

Sotomayor Sat on Board of Organization That Fought ‘Any Efforts’ to Oppose Abortion

Click here and go to our RIGHT TO LIFE page for full article.

See the Ten Commandments According to Obama

Check Out Our Funnies Page!

click here now for ROFLOLMAO!

Social Security spends $700,000 on Phoenix conference

Reported by: Josh Bernstein Email: jbernstein@abc15.com Produced by: Dan Siegel Last Update: 1:18 pm

NEW UPDATES: Social Security responds after $700K Phoenix conference Congress demands answers after conference Social Security says it was to reduce stress   Related Links More Government Waste? AIG execs at posh Phoenix resort after $85 billion bailout  Click the play button on the video window to the right to see the story PHOENIX -- A Social Security Administration motivational management conference held at a high-end Valley resort last week cost $700,000, the SSA told the ABC15 Investigators. Costs for the conference at the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa included airfare, hotel entertainment, dancers, motivational speakers, and food, an administration official said. A spokesperson outside the SSA's Phoenix office declined to comment.  Click here to watch an interview with a Social Security representative A spokesperson from the SSA's regional office said the conference was essential, that teleconferencing was not an option, and that all 675 managers needed to meet in person. The SSA provided ABC15 with a list of courses provided at the conference, which included "Techniques to Empower You," "Mentoring the Generations," and "Emotional Intelligence." But the information provided by the SSA did not mention an after-hours casino trip, family members staying at the hotel, or the 20-minute dance party ABC15 observed.  Click here to watch conference dance video Rooms for the conference were booked at $85 per night, far below the $400-plus room rate in prime season. The SSA said the entire conference was put out to bid and all employees flew coach class, including the commissioner.  Click here to watch an extended interview with a participant The conference cost was still a tough pill to swallow for taxpayers. "It sounds like a big rip off to me," one Phoenix resident said. "That's not right," another Valley resident told ABC15 after watching video of conference events. Social Security trustees said in May the program will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, and the program's trust fund will be depleted by 2037.   READ STORY UPDATE: Congress demands answers after conference Social Security says it was to reduce stress Social Security Administration Statement This was a training conference.  The location was selected through the government's competitive bidding process.  The facility that was selected was the lowest bidder, and we paid well-below the prescribed government rate. -Leslie Walker, Regional Communications Director, Social Security Administration Workshops at the Conference (This list was provided to ABC15 by the Social Security Administration) Multigenerational Communication - What you need to know to effectively manage four generations at work RelationsShifts - Techniques to empower you to change the way you relate to your work, your colleagues, our organization and our customers A Leadership Role in Strategic Management Planning - Learn how to be a strategic leader Managing Diverse People - Forum to discuss diversity and management for all employees eServices in SSA - Learn about new and innovative agency initiatives and how they will change the face of SSA and help us to meet the workload challenges ahead Mentoring the Generations -Will help you engage effectively across all dimensions of diverse thoughts, ideas, attitudes, beliefs, behavior and values of all generations Emotional Intelligence - Learn to "lead from where you stand" and focus on a wide array of competencies and skills that drive leadership performance Policy Perspectives - Learn what's driving SSA in terms of programs, staffing and beneficiaries, how we change policy, hot policy issues Reasonable Accommodation - Learn how to recognize potential Reasonable Accommodation issues and what actions are needed when certain indicators are present Health Information Technology - SSA plans for and use of health IT to improve our disability program Improving Organizational Performance Through Employee Engagement - The effectiveness of engagement in improving organizational operations as well as the supervisory behaviors which foster greater engagement Removing the Barriers - Learn a hands-on problem solving process that gives employees the opportunity to identify areas of conflicts and concerns in the workplace and options or solutions to address them Interest Based Bargaining - Learn a collaborative process used for contract negotiations and daily problem solving that will benefit the organization as a whole Leading at a Higher Level - Join a panel of current Senior Executive Service (SES) Career Development Program Associates and learn what steps they took to prepare themselves for placement in the SES

NEW YORK — Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele stopped by the NAACP convention Tuesday to press the civil rights organization to consider his party an ally.

The NAACP’s relationship with the GOP has been strained for many years. Steele, the first African-American to lead the Republican Party, said he wanted his presence to signal to its members that they have options beyond the Democratic Party.

Reminding people of his membership in the Prince George’s County, Md., NAACP branch, Steele said he intends to depart from the "complete Republican’s guide to speaking to African-Americans."

"I spent some time looking at previous remarks by Republicans before this body," he said, "and I was struck by the litany of phrases that Republicans often cut and paste into a speech to this organization. ... ‘Party of Lincoln’ four or five times ... oh, and one of my favorites, ‘Bull Connor was a Democrat’."

The line generated laughs and polite applause from NAACP delegates in the Hilton Hotel ballroom. A few stared expressionless, but most were gracious — though not bowled over.

"I’m glad that he departed from the usual script," said NAACP President Benjamin Jealous.

In fact, Steele sprinkled his speech with self-effacing humor that poked fun at past Republican Party approaches to African-Americans, even as he proposed a different relationship.

"The GOP and NAACP have very often missed real opportunities to communicate and engage each other," he said. "Indeed, for the GOP and NAACP, outreach should mean more than a speech here and a pat on the back there.

"As the African-American middle class emerges and grows, the Republican Party wants to be a partner who works with you to put in place the tools necessary to sustain that growth and to bring out of poverty those so often left behind."

That line resonated with Willie Guest, president of the Lawton, Okla., NAACP chapter. "I’m glad he was here," Guest said. "What we know is no matter who is in the White House, we’ll still be in the poor house."

The OCA has no desire to bore you with even more stories on Sonia Sotomayor and her nomination to the USA's Supreme Court we know its on every tv channel and every website. We do however want to stay in step with her remarks made over the years.

and another remark for good measure:

"Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see"
~Sonia Sotomayor

RUH ROH!!!!

What has the media let slide by this time?

AG Eric Holder Drops Lawsuit Against Black Panther Voter Intimidators

Imagine if it was White KKK members preventing elderly blacks from voting: ya think Eric would drop the lawsuit then?..

Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.

Three men were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of fo More..rce -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
-
Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."

He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, "The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OCA friends..it's back..the Obama Birth certificate issue. Wikipedia the official LIBERAL online encyclopedia has now said Obama was born in Kenya. This is a new update for them. The OCA will stay with this drama regarding the birth of the ONE!

BORN IN THE USA?

Wikipedia says Obama born in Kenya
Online encyclopedia can't make up its mind on president's birthplace

Wikipedia just can't seem to make up its mind about where President Barack Obama was born.

The free, online encyclopedia this afternoon displayed at least two countries the commander in chief may have been born in – the United States and Kenya.

WND documented how the entry for the "Early life and career of Barack Obama" changed numerous times.

At 4:45 p.m. Eastern, Wikipedia said:

"Barack Obama, the current President of the United States, was born on August 4, 1961 in either Honolulu, in the state of Hawaii[1], or Mombasa, Kenya, to Barack Obama, Sr. (1936–1982) (born in Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Nyanza Province,[2] Kenya Colony, British Empire), and Ann Dunham (1942–1995) (born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas).[3][4] On his mother's side he has a half-sister; on his father's side, Obama has two half-sisters and five surviving half-brothers.[5]"

The OCA asks for you to read the full article and see photos at World Net Daily and pass this on to all you know!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103810

The OCA wonders where do you get your info from? We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you to

Conservapedia

Conservapedia, launched on November 21, 2006, is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia. It was founded by teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class. In May 2008, Schlafly and some of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC news program The Hour (see: Videos on Conservapedia ).

When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “BCE” and "CE” from Wikipedia, Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of Christianity and conservatism. Other occasions of liberal bias, including the reversion of factual edits about the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia.

Though Conservapedia originally contained mostly history articles, it has grown over two years to be a general reference, with information about history, math, science, politics, religion and other topics. It also contains debates, essays and educational resources.

In March 2007 it was picked up by the media, and faced a barrage of vandalism (See Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"). Ever since then, it has continued to grow, and now has tens of millions of page views, and enjoys prominence on search engines.

The OCA asks that you begin using Conservapedia and share with your friends. Take some time at their site, you will love it as the OCA does.

 July 11, 2009

From Russia -- Without Love

By Ken Blackwell

President Obama's recent trip to Russia contrasts sharply with Ronald Reagan's 1988 visit to Moscow. President Reagan reached out to the Russian people, too. He gave the first nationally televised speech ever delivered-uncensored-to the peoples of Russia.

Obama Said  We're Out of Money;

But Now He's Pitching Porkulus 2!

RUSH: I found a quote, by the way, back from May 23rd. Because the last couple of days, the Obama administration has been leaking the possibility of a second stimulus out there.  I remember the sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN back on May 23rd. This is during the Memorial Day weekend. Obama said to Americans, "We are out of money."  Steve Scully of C-SPAN broke from a week of having Washington press Corps's probing questions for the new president, and Scully said, "You know, the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?" Obama:  "Well, we're outta money now."  Not that that will stop him.  I just want you to keep that in mind as Obama ratchets up this talk of perhaps a second stimulus package.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Posted by Sammy Benoit at 6/29/2009 11:52:00 PM  

Barack Obama, The Enemy of Democracy 

The more one sees President Obama in action the more you realize that the leader of the free world is not a big fan of democracy.

Take a look at his foreign policy, with few exceptions he has positioned the United States against the force of democracy in the world. He has insulted out close allies in Great Britain by dissing their Prime Minister when he came to visit; no state dinner, no press conference and to top it all off President Obama gave the Prime Minister a crappy take-home gift, old DVDs. Then he insulted France when he refused to have dinner with their president, even though he was a guest in their country. While he was moving away from our democratic allies, he has been moving closer to the repressive regimes within the Muslim world, literally bowing down to the likes of Saudi Arabia. He has even moved away from our number one ally in the Middle East, the democracy Israel, in order to seduce a terrorist Palestinian regime.

The most glaring examples of the Presidential distaste for Democracy can be seen in two recent international crises, Iran and Honduras. Each time Obama has taken the side of the oppressors against the forces of democracy, each time, he has done it because he wants to create a friendship with the oppressive regime

On Sunday, Mr. Obama's consigliere was asked about Iran by ABC's George Stephanopoulos and NBC's David Gregory. Mr. Gregory asked whether there "should be consequences" for the regime's violent suppression of peaceful demonstrations. "The consequences, I think, will unfold over time in Iran," answered Mr. Axelrod.

Mr. Stephanopoulos quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that "this time, the Iranian nation's reply will be harsh and more decisive to make the West regret its meddlesome stance." Said Mr. Axelrod, "I'm not going to entertain his bloviations that are politically motivated." As for whether the administration wasn't selling short the demonstrators, Mr. Axelrod could only say that "the president's sense of solicitude with those young people has been very, very clear."

Bottom line from Mr. Axelrod, and presumably Mr. Obama, too: "We are going to continue to work through . . . the multilateral group of nations that are engaging Iran, and they have to make a decision, George, whether they want to further isolate themselves in every way from the community of nations, or whether they are going to embrace that."

Translation: People of Iran -- best of luck! Source

Leaders from across the Western Hemisphere and beyond called for return to power of Zelaya, who arrested on Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed his residence and forced him into exile. The country now has another president appointed by its Congress, Roberto Micheletti, who insisted that Zelaya was legally removed by the courts and Congress for violating Honduras' constitution and attempting to extend his own rule.

"We are very clear about the fact that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president," Obama said.

The United States, he said, will work the Organization of American States and other bodies to try to resolve the conflict peacefully.

The OAS was holding an emergency session on the crisis Tuesday. Source One would expect that the president of the United States of America would be a big supporter of the forces of Democracy, that is what the office has always stood for, but his this is one more example of "Change"

Note: YID WITH LID aka Sammy Benoit is a premiere writer/ blogger and is well known for his writing style. The OCA greatly appreciates Sammy for allowing us to post his articles. We are honored. Thanks Sammy   ~Patsy 

Miliband tells Clinton of UK anger over secret U.S. deal to transfer Guantanamo inmates to Bermuda behind Britain's back

By Mail Foreign Service
 

David Miliband said today he had exchanged words with U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton about America's secret transfer of Guantanamo detainees to a UK territory.

Their conversation came amid anger in Whitehall that British officials were not consulted before the four former terror suspects were flown to Bermuda last week.

The Foreign Office was deliberately kept in the dark about the deal despite retaining authority over the territory's foreign and security issues.

Enlarge  

Former Guantanamo detainees (L-R) Khelil Mamut, Salahidin Abdulahat, Ablakim Turahun, and Abdulla Abdulqadir at a restaurant in Bermuda yesterday. Third from left is local Bermudian photographer Earl Robinson.

Enlarge  

Former Guantanamo detainee Khelil Mamut, right, watches boats pass from a lawn overlooking the stormy sea at the cottage where he and other former detainees are staying in Bermuda yesterday

Mr Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee today: 'Their status is still unclear.'

'We are obviously in touch with the American authorities. I've spoken to Secretary Clinton about it. I gave her my explanation of what I believe...'

Asked whether it was a frank conversation, Mr Miliband said: 'It's always a friendly conversation wi

'Obviously it happened last Thursday and we are on the case at the moment.'

He made clear his frustration with the Bermudian authorities' actions and indicated Britain had no intention of taking any more Guantanamo detainees than the 13 it already had.

'The UK has done its bit in terms of Guantanamo,' he said.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband testifies about America's relationship with the UK before the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in London in the wake of the Guantanamo diplomatic row today

Hillary Clinton in Washington yesterday. Mr Miliband said he had  'friendly' talks with her after the U.S. struck a deal with Bermuda over Guantanamo detainees behind London's back

He added that the four, who are Chinese Muslim Uighurs, were unable to travel anywhere at present because they lacked official papers.

He admitted they could only be sent back to the U.S., 'if the Americans agreed to take them'.

The U.S. is currently completing a security assessment of the former detainees.

But, even if they are not regarded as a threat, there is huge opposition in Congress to their return to the U.S.

The deal to take the four, who the U.S. government ruled were not enemy combatants, was agreed by Bermuda's premier, Ewart Brown.

Mr Miliband said: 'It shouldn't have been decided by the Bermudians on their own.

'The Bermudians said this was an immigration case and immigration is their province but actually anything to do with agreements with foreign countries requires the engagement of the United Kingdom.'

It has been claimed that the U.S. deliberately decided not to tell Britain about moving the detainees to Bermuda, a sub-tropical island about 650 miles off America's east coast.

According to the BBC, Washington opted to send the men to Bermuda in order to prevent a potential rift between the UK and China, which has demanded the return of the Uighurs.

U.S. officials opted to keep details of the deal from London until the last minute to enable Britain to deny all knowledge of the deal and thus avoid China's anger, the BBC said.

The decision has ignited a political firestorm in Bermuda, with the opposition United Bermuda Party tabling a no confidence motion in the Premier's 'reckless' rule of the island.

A protest is being held in Bermuda today and rival marches are planned on Thursday to protest the decision. Many appear to agree that taking in the detainees is a humanitarian gesture, though nervousness remains over their link to terrorism and how their time in Guantanamo Bay may have affected them.

However the majority of anger on the island at the Guantanamo decision is directed at what many view as Dr Brown's autocratic style of rule rather than the detainees themselves.

A satirical music video entitled 'Time to Go (An Ode to Ewart Brown) has been posted on YouTube, while one Bermudian wrote on Facebook: 'It's not xenophobia - people are just getting tired of EB... very tired...'

Bermudians protesting against Premier Brown's policies outside Bermuda's House of Parliament in Hamilton today

However the Premier still has a strong support base within the Cabinet, his party, and within grassroots supporters of his Progressive Labour Party.

Mr Miliband's comments about Bermuda came during a wider-ranging hearing as part of a human rights inquiry by the foreign affairs committee.

The Foreign Secretary rejected any notion of British collusion with torture overseas.

'There is no equivocation about the Government's position in respect of torture,' he said.

'We abhor torture, we will not cooperate or collude with it.

'And in line with our international commitments we are honour bound not just to avoid wrongdoing ourselves, but also to try to reduce or if possible eliminate the use of cruel or inhuman treatment or torture around the world.'

He said the UK's intelligence personnel had 'high ethics' who held themselves to 'very high standards'.

But he stressed that Britain had to work with other countries around the world, some of whom had different legal frameworks and standards.

'Our role, as ministers, agency heads and officials is to ensure that we do not collude with torture and secondly that we try to reduce its use in other countries.'

Former Guantanamo detainee Salahidin Abdulahat takes a swim in the waters off Bermuda on Sunday

Mr Miliband was questioned at length about relations with Washington and American use of British territories.

Last year he was forced to admit that U.S. rendition flights had stopped twice at Diego Garcia in 2002, contrary to previous assertions.

Challenged about how sure he could be that those two flights were the extent of America's use of Diego Garcia, Mr Miliband said: 'I have had assurances from the highest level that there are no cases beyond those two cases.'

Despite Washington going behind London's back to secure the Guantanamo deal with Bermuda, he went on: 'We can be confident that our closest intelligence ally and foreign policy ally seeks to honour its trust with us in all respects.'

Mr Miliband said cooperation between the U.S. and the UK was of a 'unique standing' based on 'mutual trust'.

Britain is said to be examining its relationship with Bermuda. The island is a self-governing territory, but its 1968 constitution left the British governor with some key powers - including over foreign affairs and security.

Britain to take over Turks and Caicos in corruption row

The British Government is set to impose direct rule over the Turks and Caicos islands as early as tomorrow.

The move comes after an inquiry found that the government of the British overseas territory under former leader Michael Misick was riddled with corruption.

The Foreign Office has drawn up an Order in Council that suspends the constitution of the self-governing island. It will be presented at Parliament.

Mr Misick is seeking a ruling at the High Court in London that the suspension of the constitution, and with it the right to a trial by jury, is a violation of human rights.

It is expected that the British governor on the island will rule for at least two years.

This Is How The Iranian Government Supports Democracy,This Is What Happened To The People After They Protested That Their Votes Had Been Cheated Away From Them!!!

May 26th, 2009 by jeannieology

Jeannie D'Ambra DeAngelis

Note: I have said a million times to people.."I'm glad Dick Morris is on our side"  This article speaks volumes and I hope the GOP Chairman Michael Steele has taken notice~~

RESISTING O'S WORLD -

STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

 

Gen. Colin Powell is wrong to say that the Republican Party must move to the center: Now is not the time to try for triangulation.

This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.

The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.

As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare. Our health-care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.

Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result.

We think that inflation will join a lingering recession -- giving us recess-flation -- and that high unemployment will continue. Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need. Our security and defense failures may well have cost us Pakistan, and the nightmare of a nuclear-armed terrorist state may have already come true (even before Iran).

All America will be watching the Obama fallout, and Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative -- a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted -- if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.

If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties.

There is a season for triangulation and a season for confrontation. When America faces a new challenge -- such as what the financial crisis now poses -- we look to the left and right for new answers. We want the debate to rage. Those who seek to paper over are ignored. Such was the fate of the first President Bush in 1992 and of Sen. John McCain in 2008.

But once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a Hegelian synthesis, on how to move in a new direction. They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them. This is triangulation (a term coined by Dick).

To ignore the demand for synthesis and insist on continuing the debate is to suffer the fate of Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

This process -- polarization, debate, synthesis and action -- is how America has always moved ahead. We are not Japan; we use the debate to see the options. And we are not Italy or France; we come to conclusions and act upon them, eventually leaving the debate far behind.

Now another great debate has been born. The thesis is democratic socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism.

The Obama Democrats have posed the challenge. It's up to the Republicans to fight along these lines. Compromise is not an option, yet.

At some point, the synthesis will set in. But now is the time for clear alternatives and sharp disagreement. Only later can we hope to extract America from the leftist clutches into which it has fallen.

U.S. Government Funds $400,000

Study on Gay Sex in Argentina Bars

The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and what can be done about it.

Though public health officials say that HIV/AIDS rates are higher in Washington, D.C., than in some parts of West Africa, U.S. government funds are going to help curb dangerous liaisons in Argentina's capital.

The study began in September 2008, according to an online abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show.

"Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed and sexual behavior occurs," the project's overview explains, "the goal of this 2-year exploratory study is to understand the various factors that contribute to the creation of a high risk sexual space."

That means NIH researchers will have as many as 730 nights on the town for careful observation and interaction.

"To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place" -- social scientists call this the "vibe" -- and other factors like "patron characteristics" and "social dynamics" that can lead to risky behavior when mixed with a few parts alcohol.

NIH officials say the study is doing valuable work to address high HIV infection rates among homosexual men in Argentina, and that plans developed there could be translated for use in the United States and elsewhere.

Researchers plan to interview dozens of bar patrons and proprietors to help develop the on-site intervention programs -- and they mean to be exact.

"Venue patrons will also undergo a brief quantitative assessment to gather descriptive data on sexual behavior and substance use among this sample," the study's abstract reads.

In layman's terms, that means they're asking drinkers to keep tabs on their quaffs and their quarry; fortunately for their more modest subjects, it's not a qualitative test too.

Because the study is promoting venue-based prevention programs, researchers will have to be exact about the bars they visit in the city of 13 million, taking special care to describe the them "in terms of their physical characteristics, alcohol availability, patron characteristics and sexual behavior that occurs in the venue."

An NIH official said that funds approved for the project include $275,000 for direct costs and an additional $125,000 in indirect costs, but would not elaborate. Though FOXNews.com could not confirm the median price of cervezas in Buenos Aires, that should leave a lot of money for tips.