The Illustrated Results of Obama’s “Community Organizing”…Obama Was Not Even A Decent Community Organizer

If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was Beirut in the nineteen seventies. But, in reality, it’s the current state of the housing for which Barack Obama claims responsibility as a “community organizer.” It turns out the developers enriched by his government-funded subsidies did a heck of a lot better than the folks who once lived here.

I say “once”, because the Boston Globe (“Grim Proving Ground for Obama’s Housing Policy”) calls many of the units “uninhabitable”.

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies – including several hundred in Obama’s former district – deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

In terms of concrete accomplishments, Obama and “hundreds of other organizers” were not able to transform the South Side neighborhoods or bring in new industries to provide jobs…

Obama’s most commonly cited achievement was in forcing the city to begin testing for asbestos in all city apartments.

…critics claim Obama, now 46, exaggerates his accomplishments, particularly in spearheading asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. He omits from his account of that fight a longtime community activist who many people say played a significant role.

And for all his emphasis on the value of grassroots organizing, Obama eventually decided he also needed a law degree to enact lasting change, attending Harvard University… Further blurring the picture are his descriptions of community organizing in his youthful memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” in which he admits he disguises names, creates composite characters, switches some chronologies and uses “approximations” of dialogue.

I can see why.

Look at this beautiful playground, with all of children frolicking; they’re so care-free and so delighted that Barack Obama’s community-organizing has helped them at the expense of his developer friends.

The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can’t afford to live anywhere else.

But it’s not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale – a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered…

As a community organizer, Obama’s a hell of a public speaker.

The poor people living here have gotten the shaft from Obama and his developer buddies. And the mainstream media couldn’t care less.

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained ‘false premises’:

“ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”

Developing…

Dodd Calls for Prosecuting Bush Officials

Lets look at who is talking here…Chris Dodd..One of the most corrupt morons in congress…who is in the pockets of every company he has come in contact with and he is calling for prosecutions?? I think Dodd needs a few readers to call his office and let him know how much of a hypocrit and liar he is!..Only a democrat would have the audacity to do this.

By: Jim Meyers Sen. Christopher Dodd is pushing ahead with a call for prosecuting Bush administration officials over the use of waterboarding terrorist detainees. The Connecticut Democrat told home-state bloggers over the weekend that the Obama administration’s release of memos detailing interrogation techniques used on detainees creates a “moral imperative” for a congressional investigation — or a criminal probe that could involve former Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff, Politico.com reported. When asked if a probe should go “as high as Cheney’s office,” Dodd replied: “You gotta go where you gotta go.” Dodd cited his father’s experience as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Attorney Thomas Joseph Dodd, who was later elected to the Senate, held a leading position on the Allied prosecution team in 1945 and 1946. Referring to the Nazi defendants, Dodd said “even these thugs got a lawyer; even these thugs got a trial.” He added: “In a sense, not to prosecute people or pursue them when these acts have occurred is . . . to invite it again in some future administration.” The New York Times reported on Tuesday that an internal Justice Department inquiry had found that Bush administration lawyers who authorized harsh interrogations committed no crimes warranting prosecution.

Hostile Bloggers Facing Fines, Jail?

Proposal ‘comes close to making it federal offense to log onto Internet’

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A new proposal in Congress is threatening fines and jail time for what it calls “cyberbullying” – communications that include e-mails and text messages that “cause substantial emotional distress.”

The vague generalities are included in H.R. 1966 by California Democrat Linda Sanchez and about a dozen co-sponsors.

But it already is being condemned as unconstitutional, unrealistic and probably ineffectual.

At Wired.com, in a report labeled “Threat Level,” writer David Kravets criticized the plan to demand “up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to ‘coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress.'”

“Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag,” he wrote.

Such limits never would pass First Amendment muster, “unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing,” he wrote. “So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying.”

The plan is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, after the 13-year-old Meier, whose suicide last year reportedly was prompted by a woman who utilized the MySpace social networking site to send the teen critical messages.

The defendant in the case, Lori Drew, was accused under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“Sanchez’s bill goes way beyond cyberbullying and comes close to making it a federal offense to log onto the Internet or use the telephone,” Kravets wrote. “The methods of communication where hostile speech is banned include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages.”

“We can’t say what we think of Sanchez’s proposal,” he said. “Doing so would clearly get us two years in solitary confinement.”

Wrote a contributor to the Wired forum page, “If passed, this legislation could be easily abused with the effect of criminalizing all criticism. You probably [couldn’t] even criticize the legislation itself because it would cause Sen. Sanchez emotional distress or possibly be considered a form of intimidation.”

The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, states, “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

It states: “Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance
, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.”

Obama and his homeland security think of most americans

This video is not suprizing at all…This is what Obama and his thugs think of most of americans!
I wonder if Obama knows what most americans think of him?..Let me touch on that for just a bit.

Lets see..Obama and his thugs in his cabinet and most of congress are:

1. Criminals
2. Socialists
3. Traitors
4. Unsurpers Of Our Constitution ( See Number 1
5. Terrorist sympathizers ( See Number 3
6. Thugs
7. Tax Cheats
8. Liars
9. Corrupt
10. Leftwing Extremists

Look at this video and see for yourself what he thinks of americans

Obama to Secured Creditors: Drop Dead..Obama Working For The UAW

By Bill Frezza

Are you following the disembowelment of Chrysler’s secured creditors with an eye not just toward what it means for the moribund car company but for what it could do to the very concept of secured debt? Has it dawned on you what the consequences will be if the President gets his way and consideration is given to creditors not according to contracts, rules, and established legal precedents but according to which group is most politically favored? And do you believe the President advanced the cause of economic recovery by publicly excoriating “speculators” who once hoped to profit by lending money against hard assets to an ailing company?

Profit? There’s no profit to incentivize risk taking in this country, only sacrifice!

Law? There’s no law to protect the politically unfavored in this country, only derision!

According to U.S. bankruptcy code, secured creditors – that is lenders who have a contractual security interest or claim to specific collateral – have to be paid before unsecured creditors. Unsecured creditors’ claims are prioritized according to explicit rules defined by law. With the exception of short-term payments approved by a bankruptcy judge to keep a company running during the reorganization process, each priority level has a right to be paid in full before creditors with the next lowest priority get a dime. That is why secured debt can be had at a lower interest rate than unsecured debt. In fact, that is why troubled companies have any ability at all to raise money. Credit flows because everyone knows the rules of the game, even in bankruptcy.

Well, at least they used to.

The system is not supposed to deliver equal outcomes or demand equal sacrifice. If it did money could only be borrowed at the highest rates of interest, if at all. Under the law, payment priorities can only be modified if all debtors agree. The ability to hold out and force a company into bankruptcy court is baked into the price of a loan or the discount at which bonds trade.

In Chrysler’s case the TARP-backed lenders – that is, banks-too-big-to-fail now living on the dole – chose to kowtow to the executive branch. What they “sacrificed” was the economic interests of their shareholders in favor of the political interests of their management. The non TARP-backed lenders, in this case a handful of hedge funds trying to protect the pension funds, university endowments, and insurance companies that invested in them, balked at getting lower consideration for their secured debt than the UAW is getting for its unsecured obligations. Hence, a trip to court and a tongue lashing by the president.

Forget about the law for a moment. Forget about right and wrong. This exercise should be getting easier now that pragmatism is the basis of government policy, right? So think for a moment only about the pragmatic consequences of the administration’s reorganization plan.

Why would anyone lend money to heavily unionized companies knowing that if things went wrong, the president and his men could trash their security interests by executive decree, hold them up to public vilification, and subject them to future retribution by regulators?

Why would anyone buy the shares of TARP-backed banks or invest alongside them knowing that their executives have proven their willingness to sacrifice shareholders’ interests and throw co-investors under the bus any time the president snaps his fingers?

Why would foreigners buy the distressed debt of American companies knowing that this debt cannot be secured by law but only by political clout?

How is the Federal Government supposed to unwind its ownership in the growing number of companies it has nationalized if prospective buyers know that should things ever take a turn for the worse, Uncle Sam will be back demanding extralegal “sacrifice” in the name of “saving” jobs?

How is private credit supposed to “start flowing again” if the United States of America morphs into a caudillo-run kleptocracy whose explicit policy is to “empower the workers,” chasing ever higher poll numbers by demonizing the very people whose job it is to provide credit?

The fate of Chrysler and its workers pale in comparison to the wrecking ball that would be taken to economic order if bankruptcy judge Arthur Gonzalez approves the administration’s plan to give Chrysler’s secured creditors the shaft. And what prize will we-the-people get in return? A doomed third-rate car company majority owned by its militant union run by Italian management building congressionally designed “green” cars no one wants to buy financed by taxpayers into perpetuity because no private investor in their right mind will touch the company with a ten foot pole. Is this supposed to be economic policy or comic opera?

How many more billions do you think will be flushed down this rat hole before the fat lady is allowed to sing?

Schumer Promises Sweeping Immigration Law…More Corruption

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer is predicting that sweeping immigration reform will become law before the year is over.

Schumer, a Democrat and chairman of the Senate’s immigration subcommittee, spoke at the New York Daily News/Citizenship Now! headquarters. He said he expected Senate hearings to lead to a major change in U.S. policy, the Daily News reported.

“I believe that this year, we can pass comprehensive, strong, fair immigration reform,” Schumer said.

Schumer’s comments came on the heels of President Barack Obama saying America can’t continue with a “broken” immigration system.

Obama has stated that he supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes an eventual path to citizenship for millions of foreigners illegally in the United States. During his presidential campaign, he promised to make the issue a “top priority” during his first year in office.

Last week, Obama said immigration reform is necessary because the current system is “not good for American workers. It’s dangerous for Mexican would-be workers who are trying to cross a dangerous border. It is putting a strain on border communities … And it keeps those undocumented workers in the shadows, which means they can be exploited at the same time as they’re depressing U.S. wages.”

Obama said his administration would first work to secure America’s borders before trying to reform U.S. immigration policy.

“If the American people don’t feel like you can secure the borders, then it’s hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, well, you’re just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year,” he said.

“On the other hand, showing that there is a more thoughtful approach than just raids of a handful of workers as opposed to, for example, taking seriously the violation of companies that sometimes are actively recruiting these workers to come in. That’s again something we can start doing administratively.”

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Olbermann: ‘Reagan’s Dead and He Was a Lousy President’..Call This Moron.

On Wednesday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann responded to an Ohio Republican quoting Ronald Reagan by mocking Reagan as “dead,” and calling him a “lousy President.” After reading a quote from Warren, County, Ohio commissioner Mike Kilburn proclaiming his intention not to use any of the federal stimulus money on his county, as he quoted Reagan’s famous line that “government is the problem,” Olbermann shot back: “Uh, Commissioner Kilburn, Reagan’s dead and he was a lousy President.”

The MSNBC host also slammed moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson as the day’s “Worst Person in the World” because the Nebraska Democrat dared to lump him and fellow liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow in with conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as Nelson charged that both conservative and liberal talk show hosts spread misinformation to their audience.

Olbermann, who has a history of repeating incorrect or distorted information on his show, and who also once depicted an image of Rush Limbaugh as a target of gunfire, charged that Limbaugh “supports racism and encourages violence,” and that FNC’s Glenn Beck “makes up stuff,” as the MSNBC host indignantly complained: “Thanks for the opportunity to tell you you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I am fed up with this equating of what we do here to circus performers like Limbaugh and the Fox crowd. We don’t make up stuff like Beck does, we don’t stalk people like O’Reilly does, we don’t support racism and encourage violence like Limbaugh does, we don’t recite talking points like Hannity does.”

[This item, by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth, was posted Thursday afternoon on the MRC’s blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Referring to his recent criticism — from the left — of President Obama for announcing his administration would not try to prosecute CIA interrogators who used waterboarding against terrorists, Olbermann claimed that his show does not really have a left-wing slant: “Rachel caught you out to lunch on the stimulus, and she called you on it, and I slammed a Democratic President last week. We believe first, Senator, in right and wrong over here, not right and left. Let me know when you start believing in something besides re-election.”

From the April 22 “Worst Person in the World” segment:

KEITH OLBERMANN: But first, time for Countdown’s number two story, “Worst Persons in the World.” The bronze goes to Mike Kilburn, county commissioner of Warren County, Ohio. You remember Warren County? Part of the still unexplained terror threat lockdown on election night 2004. The commissioners there are rejecting $373,000 in stimulus money for three new buses and vans meant to get the county’s rural residents to health care and educational opportunities. Kilburn said, “I’ll let Warren County go broke before taking any of Obama’s filthy money. I’m tired of paying for people who don’t have. As Reagan said, government is not the answer, it’s the problem.” Uh, Commissioner Kilburn, Reagan’s dead and he was a lousy President.

Hugo Chavez Says Venezuelan Socialism Has Begun To Reach U.S. Under Obama

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) – Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

“I am coming back from Trinidad and Tobago, from the Americas Summit where, without a doubt, the position that Venezuela and its government has always defended, especially starting 10 years ago, of resistance, dignity, sovereignty and independence has obtained in Port of Spain, one of the biggest victories of our history,” Chavez said.

“It would seem that the changes that started in Venezuela in the last decade of the 20th century have begun to reach North America,” he added.

Chavez made the comments Sunday to a crowd gathered for the 199th Commemoration of the Independence Declaration of Venezuela.

“In one year we will be celebrating 200 years of ‘April 19,’ the day that … initiated this revolution that is underway 200 years later at the forefront of the people of our America, at the forefront of change, at the forefront of a new world, at the forefront of a new century that will construct Bolivarian socialism,” said Chavez.

“Bolivarian socialism” is the term Chavez uses to refer to his 21st century Latin American form of socialism, which he claims originates from the revolution launched by Simon Bolivar, a Venezuelan and Latin American revolutionary leader of the 19th century.

“We have assumed the commitment to direct the Bolivarian Revolution towards socialism and to contribute to the socialist path, with a new socialism; a socialism of the 21st century which is based in solidarity, in fraternity, in love, in justice, in liberty and in equality,” Chavez said in a speech in mid-2006, according to the Venezuelan government’s official Web site.

Last Friday, during the Americas Summit, Obama greeted Chavez before the first plenary summit, the first time the two presidents had met.

“I want to be your friend,” Chavez said to Obama as both of them shook hands. After the encounter, Chavez told reporters, “It was a good moment.”

At the United Nations in September 2006, Chavez referred to then-President Bush as “the devil.”

The Venezuelan president has also suggested that he would “use oil” to fight U.S. influence, which he often refers to as “the imperialist power.” Venezuela is one of the world’s major oil producers.

Prior to the Americas Summit, Chavez had even attacked the Obama administration.

In January, Chavez accused the not-yet-inaugurated president of “throwing the first stone,” after Obama called Chavez a “disruptive force in the region.”

Chavez responded by calling Obama “ignorant” and inviting him to look over the realities of Latin America.

At their meeting last week, Chavez gave Obama a copy of the book, “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of a Continent,” written by Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano. The book is about alleged U.S. and European exploitation of the region.

“I think it was a nice gesture to give me a book. I’m a reader,” Obama told reporters. Obama and Chavez spoke once again–in private–during the final day of the summit. Chavez told reporters that they talked about a new era in U.S.-Venezuela relations.

“I told Obama that we have decided to appoint a new ambassador (to the U.S.),” said Chavez.

President Obama, defending himself against criticism coming from those in the U.S. who disapprove of talks with Chavez, said, “Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably one six-hundredths of the United States. They own Citgo [oil refinery and retailer].

“It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having polite conversation with Mr. Chavez, we are endangering the strategic interest of the United States,” Obama told reporters.

“You would be would be hard pressed to paint a scenario in which the U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela,” he added.

Venezuelan opposition to the Chavez administration criticized President Obama on Sunday for warming up to Chavez before demonstrating concern about Venezuela’s democracy, apporrea.org, a Venezuelan news outlet reported.

“The president’s (Chavez) authoritarianism, which grows by the day, has to be discussed,” Milos Alcalay, former Venezuelan ambassador to the U.N., who resigned in 2004 due to differences with Chavez, told aporrea.org.

The U.S. needs to talk to “the opposition, church representatives and others, who are really concerned about the democracy in Venezuela,” added Alcalay.

According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez’s rule.

“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.

The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.

“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment,” says the State Department report.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez’s Venezuela.

“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.

“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”

Last February, Venuzuelan voters approved a constitutional amendment that eliminates presidential term limits, thus allowing Chavez to run the country for an unlimited succession of 6-year terms as long as he can win a majority of the vote in a Venezuelan election.

Civil Rights: ‘Use ’em Or Lose ’em’

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WND columnist Janet Porter is warning Americans if they want to keep their civil rights, they’d better be using them right now.

Porter in her newest column took on the issue of the recent “extremist” report from the Department of Homeland Security.

The federal agency’s report is called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

It already has generated a lawsuit by talk radio host Michael Savage and multiple calls for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to be removed.

According to the federal government, characteristics of members of the suspect group of people include those who:

* Oppose restrictions on firearms

* Oppose lax immigration

* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

* Oppose same-sex marriage

* Has paraonia of foreign regimes

* Fear Communist regimes

* Oppose one world government

* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

* Is upset with the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

Porter wrote, “The only way we can keep our freedoms is if we’ll use them – now.”

“One thing’s for sure – we aren’t going to stand by while they profile good, law-abiding citizens as terrorists and take away constitutional freedoms,” she wrote.

“Therefore, we, the law-abiding citizens of America, demand:

1. “The resignation or removal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for her partisan political profiling of veterans and conservatives and her abuse of power.

2. “An apology from President Barack Obama to ALL Americans for his administration’s call for domestic spying.

3. “The immediate retraction of the “Rightwing Extremism” report for labeling law-abiding citizens as “terrorists” because of their political views.”

“If you’d like to help sound the alarm before you’re monitored as a potential terrorist, please help. Go to http://www.f2a.org and click the first blinking alert to fight “hate crimes” and click the link to http://www.NoPoliticalProfiling.com to help us place a newspaper ad and sign the petition to fight the new definition of “terrorist,” she said.

“DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has labeled law-abiding citizens as ‘right-wing extremists’ and potential ‘terrorists’ … and has instructed state and local law enforcement to monitor, investigate and ‘report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI,'” she wrote.

Under the DHS plan, she said, among those who would be listed as terrorists would be:

1. George Washington (military veteran and gun owner)
2. Mother Teresa (pro-life)
3. Ronald Reagan (pro-life and staunch advocate for less government), and
4. The pope (supports life and traditional marriage)