Wednesday, May 5, 2010


Fire her NOW!!
Janet Napolitano needs to be fired, and yesterday is not too soon. Twice now (that we know of) in just over four months a person on the “No Fly” list was allowed to be seated on a plane. This is inexcusable. Where are the congressional investigations? Where are the pundits calling for heads to roll? This openly gay limp wristed linguini spined mentally dysfunctional mutation who’s running Homeland Security is an insult. I am sick of looking at her lying ugy face telling the people of America she was on the oil spill from day one and the system worked blah blah blah. She couldn’t run 10 yards much less security for a day care. Fire her NOW!!

Next up is Bank of America. Now, I went to and checked this out and it’s true. This is an actual conversation a former customer of Bank of America had:

Bank of America , can I help you?

Customer: Yes, I want to cancel my account. I don't want to do business with you any longer.

The Bank: Why?

Customer: You're giving credit to illegal immigrants and I don't think it's right. I'm taking my business elsewhere.

The Bank: Well, Mr. Customer, we don't want to see you do that, but we can't stop you. I'll help you close the account. What is your account number?

Customer: (gives account number)

The Bank: For security purposes and for your protection, can you please give me the last four digits of your social security number?

Customer: No.

The Bank: Mr. Customer, I need to verify your information, but in order to help you, I'll need verification of who you are..

Customer: Why should I give you my social security number? The reason I'm closing my account is that your bank is issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants who don't have social security numbers. You are targeting that audience and want their business. Let's say I'm an illegal immigrant and you've given me a credit card. I have a question about it and call for assistance. You wouldn't be asking me for a Social Security number, would you?

The Bank: No sir, I wouldn't.

Customer: Why not?

The Bank: Because you would have pressed '2' to speak in Spanish. We don't ask for that information when calling in on the Spanish line.

Obviously this is a bank I will never use. It IS NOT racist to say if you come to live in my country you have to learn the laws and the language. It IS racist if you are here illegally and you get preferential treatment from government or businesses and are given opportunities that those of us who are here legally do not get. It IS NOT racist to expect an immigrant to carry proof of citizenship with him at all times because that is what THE LAW REQUIRES. It IS racist to march and protest against the country you are in illegally.

Oh, by the way, if you think I’m wrong here, you’re racist.

And finally, I want to say something here about The National Day of Prayer which as of this posting is tomorrow. I have the right to assemble and pray. People fought and died for that right, and that is a debit we can never repay for Christ showed us there is no greater love than someone laying down their life for our own. This country needs God. It needs to be asking God for help. Its’ leaders need to be asking God for guidance. It’s people need to be praying for the next Supreme Court Judge, no matter who it is. In her 66-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said the holiday violates the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment, which creates a separation of church and state. She said,"I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate.”

No kidding. What is really unfortunate is her eye sight, because I see no such clause. Unbeknown to many liberals, the words "wall of separation between church and state" do not appear in our Constitution -- nor is this notion implied. Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to a letter they wrote him objecting to Connecticut's establishment of Congregationalism as their state church. Jefferson assuaged their concerns, telling them the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing a "national church," but he concluded rightly that the Constitution (see the Tenth Amendment's federalism provision) prohibited the national government from interfering with the matters of state governments -- a "wall of separation," if you will, between the federal government and state governments.

There is ample evidence that Jefferson did not intend for that metaphor to become an iron curtain between church and state. Though he favored a secularist state, he knew that the Constitution offered no such proscription on religious observance and practice in the public square. Those, including judicial activists, who insist such was Jefferson's original intent, and that of our Constitution, are either historically nescient or they harbor a disingenuous motive to serve a secularist constituent agenda.

This fundamental violation of federalist principle was the central issue in 2003, when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore defied an order by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's justice building rotunda. Of such judicial diktats, Thomas Jefferson warned, "The Constitution [will become] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Indeed, it has become just that.

As for that utterly phony "wall of separation," Princeton scholar Stanley Katz says that correcting the "Jeffersonian myth" will have a "profound impact on the current law and politics of church and state." Joining the debate, Justice Clarence Thomas argues, "This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now."

However, this issue is not merely about federalism and states' rights. It is about the rule of law and the future of our Constitutional Republic. That is precisely why Senate Democrats are so insistent on blocking the President's judicial nominations. They know that the real locus of central-government power now resides on the federal bench, not in the legislature. This struggle between judicial governance versus government of, by and for the people, is really at the core of the current debate.

Pray for peace. Pray for our troupes and their families. Pray for this nation, that under God, all men and women are equal and given the dream so many have worked hard to realize. But above all, pray God is allowed back where he should never have been chased out of: In the halls and gathering places where freedom is preserved and laws are made. May we turn from man, and look to God for guidance, for it is only with God we are assured the victory.


Liberty said...

I both agree and disagree about the National Day of Prayer thing. I don't think our government should be anywhere near religion. If you want to pray, go pray. The internet is a wonderful tool- get people together, and go pray. But the government should not be mandating it, IMHO.

Also, on another note- the no fly list. That list is a joke anyway, so...yeah... XD

Eman said...

Government is not mandating anything. It makes "National days.." for many many causes. Earth Day, Founders Day, Flag Day, St. Swoozums Day. It's an effort for people to come together, for whatever reason, and as a group, do something: To take action. You say our government should not be anywhere near religion: Why? Why would you want an irreligious government? We are not talking Theocratic Government rule here, but you are saying “none at all.” Why?

Liberty, if you think that list is a joke, you are scaring me. You are a young and bright person and there is a war going on, which I have had to remind you of several times, and that list means people live or people perish. This is no joke and if Janet thinks the way you think, then she should never had made the short list, much less the list, for this job. This is serious and your comment makes it clear that those of your generation are ill informed about this conflict or the resolve of this enemy. That kind of thinking is not just tragic, it’s liberal and irresponsible, which are the traits Janet displays daily. I like your blog, I think it’s important and prudent, but the flippant thought that the "No Fly List" is a joke sends shivers through to my soul. Words mean things young lady. Saying the list is a joke tells me the war is not important to you.

Teresa said...

There are National Days for multiitudes of causes and the only ones that are ever targeted by anyone are religious ones. This day is not forcing any one person to pray.

The "No Fly List" is very important and if it was being implemented or looked after properly then it would be enforced much better. If we didn't have the "No Fly List" then the probability is extremely high that we would have had an increased number of terrorists or criminals who entered our country and who could have caused many more horrible tragedies in our country. We are living with people who want to destroy the West and won't negotiate or compromise with the West so we must avail every possible resource to our military and government agencies to stop terrorists before they enter our Homeland.

Eman said...

I'm so glad you had a great birthday Ms. Rice and thank you for coming by and speaking from your heart on this. I'll be next to you, in spirit, tomorrow as we all pray. Obviously, I will need to place America's youth near the top of my prayer list. Let us tary with the Lord and wait upon his still small voice. He is the light of our soul and our nation.

Liberty said...

I don't know what else to think when stuff like this happens everyday...

I might be able to treat it more...respectfully...maybe...if there was actually an age/picture/description/something of the sort also attached that would keep people from getting hassled. Of course, it is also argued that the no-fly list infringes upon freedom of movement. It is quite unlikely that a major terrorist attack will once again occur on a plane, as anyone actually serious (and a 19 year old from Nigeria who wouldn't even have blown up his seat doesn't count) wouldn't repeat the same trick twice. It's more likely that the next attack will occur on a subway, or perhaps an amusement park or something of the kind. Disneyworld would make a splash, you know. So our (laughably failing) efforts are probably partly counter productive. They divide our attention and send us off on wild goose chases.

Eman said...

Do I like cameras everywhere?
Do I like lines at airports?
Do I like being pulled out of line for a search?
Do I like baggage screening?
Do I put up with it?

Why? Because if I don’t put up with it the chances of my being hurt or killed by people with evil agendas is far greater than if I don’t. You may not take life seriously but I do. There are those who would not care but I also know there are people in my life that would be profoundly affected if I were to fall victim to a terror attack. I don’t like it but heres the real point: The people who say we should not profile are the ones who make the job harder than it has to be liberty. If we pulled 17-45 yr old Muslim men and women out of lines and inconvenienced them more often than not, then maybe they would see that extremists in their “religion” need to be weeded out and stopped. But they keep preaching their hate and their evil to their kids and to their followers because there is no one willing to stand up and stop them from doing so. There is no deterrent to their behavior. If we made Muslim’s ability to travel more and more arduous and laborious we would see change, but those who would choose to get in the way of doing so make it harder on everyone else.

If Muslim’s complained about not being able to get on a plane or a bus or a train, I would tell them, “FIND A CAMEL!!!

Teresa said...

The fact that you treat a threat like the Underwear Bomber so callously, like its nothing at all to be worried about is extremely troubling. How do you actually know that if the bomb had detonated properly that it wouldn't have even blown up his seat? Its the type of bomb that al-Qaeda uses, that causes harm or deaths. It is a very real possibility that if the bomb did detonate correctly on the plane that additional people would have been harmed and that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would not have been the only person hurt.

This is an interesting article:

The TSA is in the process of addressing the issues related to mistaken identity.

Eman said...

I used to think like you Liberty. The whole country did. That was before 9-11. Now we know: The price of your way of thinking is not worth the cost. It's so easy to slip back into old ways. This blog, Teresamerica, K.O.O.K., Left Coast Rebel, Amusing Bunni, The Right Stuff, Conservative Perspective, and many many many more, are here to hold up the light of freedom and stop such thinking from returning till this conflict is over and the victory is won, SO HELP US GOD!

Liberty said...

What happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"? A lost sentiment, methinks. I'm sorry if I get a little bit testy when my Constitutional rights as originally outlined by the Founders are being infringed. I dunno 'bout you, but I kind of like being safe in my person, house, and effects from searches and seizures (which TSA agents regularly do), and being able to keep my body from being seen from who knows how many TSA agents when I'm forced to walk through a "clothes X-ray" machine.

You do realize terrorism has been around since the dawn of time. Yeah. That's a long time. keeps coming. And coming. Crises keep repeating themselves. Terrorism will never go away, and neither will the ever-present threat, I can guarantee you...especially not when governmental power depends upon that ever looming threat.

Wasn't it Reagan who said "There is no such thing as a temporary government program"?

Yes, we've gotten promises of how, once this is all over, we'll be free again. America will once again be what she was...or, adversely, that this will keep us free (both of which are eerily remniscent of Palpatine-like confidence, but anyway...).

"How do you actually know that if the bomb had detonated properly that it wouldn't have even blown up his seat?"

There's this thing called yield concerning explosives. It determines how much an explosive can blow up. According to the sources I've been able to find, the most he could have done is blown a hole in the side of the airplane- a hole of unspecified size.

Why do I laugh about Abdulmutallab? Well...I find it hard to be serious about a guy who so dumb he didn't even try to detonate the bomb he had in the air where it might actually have done something. Even when he got the whistle blown on him, he still wouldn't blow it up. Yeah. Real shining example of how uber-scary and genius terrorists are. ^.^

Now, I do feel bad about people who have died in terrorist attacks. There have been lots of them all over the world. Sorry for them and their families. But when we go to the point of fanaticism to prevent something, to the verge of stripping away every freedom and protection of due process in the Constitution, I think we've gone too far. I also am not underestimating the overall intelligence of the terrorist network. These are the guys who managed to kill three thousand Americans in one attack after all.

But I do not think that infringing upon my freedom to go wherever I like, or infringing the freedom of anyone to do so is the answer. I understand there are certain security precautions we do need to take. But a failed "no fly list" that has known gaps, is outrageously huge for all that, has no information but a name, a governmental department that doesn't train its people to use common sense, and an unspecified, shifting set of rules about what one can and cannot take on a plane is not the way to go about security, IMO. ^.^

The Real World said...

Is the no-fly list a joke? Well, while it makes it hard for several million people to get on an airplane, every one of those several million people can buy a gun, no questions asked.

Like Faisal Shazad.