Volunteer Beacon

Herman Wins FL Straw Poll - 37%

2011-09-24T15:16:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain wins Florida Republican "Presidency" straw poll with 37% of the vote!!

Building on his common sense-type campaign, Florida republican voters used their common sense to support a non-politician, strong business leader and principled person in Herman Cain. As I wrote in this blog on Thursday night, I think Republican voters this time around are going to be drawn to a candidate who doesn't attach their fellow republicans, who display common sense and someone who is the non-politician. Herman speaks simply, rationally and with purpose. He loves America for what she was and can be again without making excuses around the world for what we once were...GREAT!

Go Herman Cain! Beat the GOP machine who is trying to push Romney or Perry on the head of the ticket. Let's elect someone who isn't D.C. and actually has private company experience for his entire life.

Cain/Gingrich 2012

2011-09-22T22:35:00.000-07:00

What a weak debate for the front runners, thank God!

As Romney sparred with Perry. As Perry fumbled but fought back. As Bachmann was baited to go after forced vaccination and defend a misstatement. As Huntsman does whatever he can to make himself relevant, and as Johnson/Santorum/Paul (did I miss anyone) had some good one liners (see shovel ready jobs), the clear winners of this debate were Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. Why? One, for their substantive and concise answers. But more importantly, two, because they don't attack other candidates but rather the real opponent which is Barack Obama and the big government leviathan.

While Rick and Romney want to tout their records let's be honest, they both grew the size of government in their states. Newt grew the federal coffers by cutting spending...Herman Cain grew two different companies by cutting inefficiencies and promoting growth. Newt cut Clinton's liberal agenda while he headed Congress and Cain cut cancer from his body. The only thing Obama has cut in his almost 3 years is American confidence and our good standing in the world.

Mitt and Perry, the supposed two front runners only because they are GOP puppets, are big government RINO's but both seemingly believe, contrary to their bickering back and forth, that some type of government intervention is needed to solve problems. For Romney it was government (albeit State Govt) control of healthcare and trying to make everyone fit in a one-size-fits-all healthcare program rather than just setting up a system to only take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Perry, meanwhile, thought the cure to stave off the spread of a form of cancer tied to an STD was to vaccinate all 12-13 year old girls with a pulse and his supposed way to give illegal immigrants an opportunity at a better life was to give them preferential treatment to a reduced cost education despite they themselves never going to stand in line to actually become a citizen (last I checked, the first requirement to be a US citizen is 18 years of age and a LEGAL green card holder and been here for 5 years legally). I guess Perry does believe in Amnesty at least when it comes to education. Heck, he doesn't even believe in 'growing' a fence along our border to keep illegals out of our country. He said it's impossible...really? What president wannabe believes that establishing a border fence is impossible when our Constitution clearly grants the Congress to appropriate money to defend our borders?

Cain on the other hand understands that federal government involvement in education and health care leads to corruption, run away costs, worsening conditions and less innovation which therefore means a bankrupt and decrepit system. Cain, after much success at Coca-Cola and Pillsbury, asked to start over again and accepted a position to resurrect 450 under performing Burger King locations working in the kitchens. He is not afraid to truly do the dirty work to understand the inner workings of a firm in order to help learn what will make it succeed.

Gingrich curtailed welfare benefits in order to promote the incentive to work which led to over sixty percent of welfare recipients either getting a job or going to school; he cut federal spending allowing the first 'balanced budget' while saving Medicare from bankruptcy and he helped republicans take control of the House for the first time in 40 years by selling his "Contract for America" to the American electorate.

Do both Cain and Gingrich have their problems? I know Newt does and those are well documented. Cain on the other hand, I have not heard one negative thing about him yet. But, if you can only find a reason to not vote for these men based upon what their negative may be...ask yourself this question. Are you perfect and if not, would you not trust yourself to do a better job at running a country than Barack Obama? Both of these men are more capable than Obama and actually BELIEVE in America...It's people, It's spirit and It's future! Take the time to learn more about Herman Cain. He is an amazingly upbeat, successful and God fearing man who has faced major trials in his life, like a lot of us. Yet, he persevered, remains positive and wants to lead our country back to greatness! Remember, to look at the character of the man, not the color of his skin. Listen to the heart of the man, not his words.

Mitt, Perry, Rick and the others may believe that America is or can be great again...but honestly, they want the presidency for what it can do for them. I truly believe that Newt and Cain want the presidency for what they can and will do for America. Restore her greatness, have it shine again and be the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world as it was under Reagan!

Support Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich and let's end the GOP machine's push to force upon us who they and the conservative/liberal media want to see against Obama. It's time that 'We the People' take back our country and to not have the same control freaks try to force upon us their vision of the direction for our country while continuing to divide us, and further weakening our State. It can be morning in America again...but not if we make the same mistake we did in 2008.

In God we Trust! And God bless America!

Frederick Douglass Foundation files class action suit against Democrat Party

2011-09-22T20:37:00.000-07:00

http://www.icontact-archive.com/vYs-Zyo3vj9g_57o0kqV3gG521zwvWdH?w=2

How States & Nations Regulate their Commercial Intercourse

2011-08-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

How States & Nations Regulate their Commercial Intercourse

Unions, tea parties and 'equality'!

2011-02-27T10:40:00.001-08:00

Wasn't it just a year ago that the Tea Party protests, at its fever pitch, were labeled 'violent', 'racist' and 'unAmerican', according to the liberal media, progressives and even our elected representatives? Remember how hard it was for MSNBC to find racism and violence at tea parties? But oh boy did they exhaust themselves trying to find it. Then heaven forbid, black tea partiers like Kevin Jackson, Deneen Borelli, Allen West, Tim Scott, Mike Williams, Stephen Broden and Dr. Alveda King - the niece of MLK, come along and take prominent positions within the party. There goes that liberal myth...shot to hell! (whoops, 'shot' is not allowed in today's new call for civil public discourse...please accept my apologies)

Along comes union workers in Wisconsin, Denver, Indiana and Ohio, along with others, protesting that taking away the right to collectively bargain is unconstitutional. I still can't find where this claim makes any sense, nor can I find it, in the copy of the US Constitution that I have read. While Tea party protesters protested what they felt were attacks on individual liberty and freedom while calling for smaller government (founding fathers clear ideal), the union protesters who showed up to protest the right to collectively bargain, the right to guaranteed pensions and the right to ever increasing benefits (viagra should clearly be covered in teachers contracts, right) at the expense of the taxpayers. Wow, what a vast chasm in both sides views of 'freedom', 'liberty' and the 'pursuit of happiness.' Tea Party protesters believe that less government involvement, less taxes and less force is needed to extend freedom and liberty to individuals, whereas the unions believe that larger government, more taxes and more force should be enacted so that they can be guaranteed a lavish ride into the sunset of life.

Keep in mind that 95% of union dues, forcefully taken out of everyone's paycheck regardless of party affiliation, go to elect the politicians that will be sharing the 'bargaining' table. Imagine that, Judas sitting with the devil to bargain. As long as Judas is going to support the devil should you expect anything righteous, equal and free to be allowed? Nope. I seriously doubt that 95% of all teachers union workers are liberal democrats. The states in the most dire economic situations are the one's that are controlled by unions (CA, NY, NJ, IL, WI, OH, MI, CT, OR, WA, AK), the exceptions being AZ and NV. For fiscal year 2011, the average compensation for a Milwaukee Public School Teacher will be $100,005. Also, remember, a public sector union worker on average, after retirement, receives 70% or more of their last year's salary for LIFE! Does that sound 'fair' to you?

If anything has been proven from the civility of the Tea Party protests vs the union worker protests it's this...race and violent rhetoric seems to persist in liberal protests. The media was hard pressed, almost frothing at the mouth, to find negative tea party signs, white supremacists and other elements of ultra conservative ideology. They couldn't! Then these liberal union workers protest and the liberal media hail them as 'freedom fighters for democracy' with no mention (aside from far left Jon Stewart) of the violent rhetoric/signs at these protests.

Hypocrisy at its finest laid out on MSNBC, CNN, the nightly news shows along with those sane voices of common sense, Slate.com, Huffington Post and the New York Times. When the likes of Paul Krugman and Frank Rich from that bastion of centrist thinking media outlet, the NYT, makes claims that disbanding the unions is akin to a 'third-world oligarchy', you know you are making progress against the lunatic left. To make such statements as Krugs/Rich do let's you know that while their educational pedigree's may be something to place in high esteem, their intellect is similar to that green slippery substance you find on rocks in a rolling stream that if you put your trust in will leave you flat on your back and all wet.

Is this a democrat vs. republican thing? At it's core, no. This is about 'equality'! And by busting the unions, future elections AND those gathered around the bargaining table with unions will be equal. This is why democrats hate true 'equality' for they know the more equal we are the less power they have. Their power rests in separation of the 'rights' and their ability to bestow on who they see fit to have such 'rights.'

This is why we must end the union dominance in states...especially seeing how federal employees do not have the ability to collectively bargain. Where is Obama railing about that little nugget of information? Thank you Kimberly Strassel for pointing this out! Democrats can eat your heart out over this revelation...in the meantime, dying on the vine of union thuggery at the hands of common sensed leaders is such a sweet disposition to witness.

That's my rant!

General Welfare Clause meaning - Federalist Paper #41 - Madison!

2011-01-06T20:43:00.000-08:00

Please take a few minutes to read James Madison's response to those who wanted to extend the 'General Welfare Clause' well beyond the 'enumerated powers' which strictly, according to Madison, limited the federal governments ability to 'lay and impose taxes' for simply anything they believed provided for the 'general welfare' of the nation. Most liberals and those who have complete disregard for the Constitution, except those parts they believe they have a monopoly on, i.e. Equal Protection clause and 14th Amendment, to name a few, believe that Congress can do anything they want based upon the GW clause. Madison slams the door shut on what the intended purpose of this clause actually means. Feel free to provide comments and arguments!

The Federalist No. 41

General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution

Independent Journal
Saturday, January 19, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.

Under the first view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

The powers falling within the first class are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money.

Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.

Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

But was it necessary to give an INDEFINITE POWER of raising TROOPS, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in PEACE, as well as in WAR?

The answer to these questions has been too far anticipated in another place to admit an extensive discussion of them in this place. The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions. The fifteenth century was the unhappy epoch of military establishments in the time of peace. They were introduced by Charles VII. of France. All Europe has followed, or been forced into, the example. Had the example not been followed by other nations, all Europe must long ago have worn the chains of a universal monarch. Were every nation except France now to disband its peace establishments, the same event might follow. The veteran legions of Rome were an overmatch for the undisciplined valor of all other nations and rendered her the mistress of the world.

Not the less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments. A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.

The clearest marks of this prudence are stamped on the proposed Constitution. The Union itself, which it cements and secures, destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat. It was remarked, on a former occasion, that the want of this pretext had saved the liberties of one nation in Europe. Being rendered by her insular situation and her maritime resources impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world gives them the same happy security. A dangerous establishment can never be necessary or plausible, so long as they continue a united people. But let it never, for a moment, be forgotten that they are indebted for this advantage to the Union alone. The moment of its dissolution will be the date of a new order of things. The fears of the weaker, or the ambition of the stronger States, or Confederacies, will set the same example in the New, as Charles VII. did in the Old World. The example will be followed here from the same motives which produced universal imitation there. Instead of deriving from our situation the precious advantage which Great Britain has derived from hers, the face of America will be but a copy of that of the continent of Europe. It will present liberty everywhere crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes. The fortunes of disunited America will be even more disastrous than those of Europe. The sources of evil in the latter are confined to her own limits. No superior powers of another quarter of the globe intrigue among her rival nations, inflame their mutual animosities, and render them the instruments of foreign ambition, jealousy, and revenge. In America the miseries springing from her internal jealousies, contentions, and wars, would form a part only of her lot. A plentiful addition of evils would have their source in that relation in which Europe stands to this quarter of the earth, and which no other quarter of the earth bears to Europe.

This picture of the consequences of disunion cannot be too highly colored, or too often exhibited. Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it.

Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added. I will not repeat here the observations which I flatter myself have placed this subject in a just and satisfactory light. But it may not be improper to take notice of an argument against this part of the Constitution, which has been drawn from the policy and practice of Great Britain. It is said that the continuance of an army in that kingdom requires an annual vote of the legislature; whereas the American Constitution has lengthened this critical period to two years. This is the form in which the comparison is usually stated to the public: but is it a just form? Is it a fair comparison? Does the British Constitution restrain the parliamentary discretion to one year? Does the American impose on the Congress appropriations for two years? On the contrary, it cannot be unknown to the authors of the fallacy themselves, that the British Constitution fixes no limit whatever to the discretion of the legislature, and that the American ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term.

Had the argument from the British example been truly stated, it would have stood thus: The term for which supplies may be appropriated to the army establishment, though unlimited by the British Constitution, has nevertheless, in practice, been limited by parliamentary discretion to a single year. Now, if in Great Britain, where the House of Commons is elected for seven years; where so great a proportion of the members are elected by so small a proportion of the people; where the electors are so corrupted by the representatives, and the representatives so corrupted by the Crown, the representative body can possess a power to make appropriations to the army for an indefinite term, without desiring, or without daring, to extend the term beyond a single year, ought not suspicion herself to blush, in pretending that the representatives of the United States, elected FREELY by the WHOLE BODY of the people, every SECOND YEAR, cannot be safely intrusted with the discretion over such appropriations, expressly limited to the short period of TWO YEARS?

A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself. Of this truth, the management of the opposition to the federal government is an unvaried exemplification. But among all the blunders which have been committed, none is more striking than the attempt to enlist on that side the prudent jealousy entertained by the people, of standing armies. The attempt has awakened fully the public attention to that important subject; and has led to investigations which must terminate in a thorough and universal conviction, not only that the constitution has provided the most effectual guards against danger from that quarter, but that nothing short of a Constitution fully adequate to the national defense and the preservation of the Union, can save America from as many standing armies as it may be split into States or Confederacies, and from such a progressive augmentation, of these establishments in each, as will render them as burdensome to the properties and ominous to the liberties of the people, as any establishment that can become necessary, under a united and efficient government, must be tolerable to the former and safe to the latter.

The palpable necessity of the power to provide and maintain a navy has protected that part of the Constitution against a spirit of censure, which has spared few other parts. It must, indeed, be numbered among the greatest blessings of America, that as her Union will be the only source of her maritime strength, so this will be a principal source of her security against danger from abroad. In this respect our situation bears another likeness to the insular advantage of Great Britain. The batteries most capable of repelling foreign enterprises on our safety, are happily such as can never be turned by a perfidious government against our liberties.

The inhabitants of the Atlantic frontier are all of them deeply interested in this provision for naval protection, and if they have hitherto been suffered to sleep quietly in their beds; if their property has remained safe against the predatory spirit of licentious adventurers; if their maritime towns have not yet been compelled to ransom themselves from the terrors of a conflagration, by yielding to the exactions of daring and sudden invaders, these instances of good fortune are not to be ascribed to the capacity of the existing government for the protection of those from whom it claims allegiance, but to causes that are fugitive and fallacious. If we except perhaps Virginia and Maryland, which are peculiarly vulnerable on their eastern frontiers, no part of the Union ought to feel more anxiety on this subject than New York. Her seacoast is extensive. A very important district of the State is an island. The State itself is penetrated by a large navigable river for more than fifty leagues. The great emporium of its commerce, the great reservoir of its wealth, lies every moment at the mercy of events, and may almost be regarded as a hostage for ignominious compliances with the dictates of a foreign enemy, or even with the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians. Should a war be the result of the precarious situation of European affairs, and all the unruly passions attending it be let loose on the ocean, our escape from insults and depredations, not only on that element, but every part of the other bordering on it, will be truly miraculous. In the present condition of America, the States more immediately exposed to these calamities have nothing to hope from the phantom of a general government which now exists; and if their single resources were equal to the task of fortifying themselves against the danger, the object to be protected would be almost consumed by the means of protecting them.

The power of regulating and calling forth the militia has been already sufficiently vindicated and explained.

The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. I will address one additional reflection only to those who contend that the power ought to have been restrained to external -- taxation by which they mean, taxes on articles imported from other countries. It cannot be doubted that this will always be a valuable source of revenue; that for a considerable time it must be a principal source; that at this moment it is an essential one. But we may form very mistaken ideas on this subject, if we do not call to mind in our calculations, that the extent of revenue drawn from foreign commerce must vary with the variations, both in the extent and the kind of imports; and that these variations do not correspond with the progress of population, which must be the general measure of the public wants. As long as agriculture continues the sole field of labor, the importation of manufactures must increase as the consumers multiply. As soon as domestic manufactures are begun by the hands not called for by agriculture, the imported manufactures will decrease as the numbers of people increase. In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Judge Napolitano on Why Opinion Polls Are Irrelevant!

2010-11-24T12:59:00.000-08:00

Want to know the truth about slavery? | The Black Sphere

2010-05-26T00:51:00.000-07:00

Want to know the truth about slavery? | The Black Sphere

I have been reading this man's blogs, posts and book for well over a year now. He puts to rest the myth that democrats and liberals are to be awarded the lion share of responsibility for all things 'justice' achieved in the name of the black race. Please take time to peruse his blog, watch some of the videos and ask yourself why more people don't know this stuff and about Kevin. Then, I encourage you to send this on to all your friends, co-workers, etc., use facebook, your blog, your email, twitter, myspace, etc.

Let's spread the word about Kevin Jackson and educate yourself on race, racism and slavery in America. The FACTS will astound you. Then ask your black friends to debate you but remove emotion from the topic and base their argument in fact. "The parties flip-flopped" is the most baseless and fraudulent rebuttal they will offer. Kevin exposes this myth and explains why its so bogus. In order to beat the progressive push for America you must dismantle the false foundation on which it is constructed. The progressive belief is that you have to keep the people dumb and must hide the truth.

Eric Holder called the US a "Nation of Cowards" when it "comes to discussions of race in America". But really, who are the cowards? Those who play the race card to stay in power and prey on fear? Or those who let blacks come to their political affiliations through their own choice without continuing to perpetuate mis-truths and falsehoods? For the answer to this question you only need look back to the landscape of America in the months leading up to and after Obama's election. On November 3rd, if Obama lost it was because the white man couldn't pull the lever for a black man. On November 5th, we as a nation had transcended race. Today, this administration and those in power in DC and the media have used race to vilify conservatives despite their accusations being unfounded. Harvard law professor arrested, black panthers case being dismissed, Harry Reid comments swept under democratic rug, Obama/Holder/Napolitano and liberal media use race as a way to highlight the AZ immigration law...and these are only a few examples that come to my head right away. But rest assured, race was, is and will be used by the democrats to stay in power and prey on fear. For if not for them, we would still have slavery right? If not for them, we wouldn't have passed Civil Rights legislation, correct? If not for them, the black high school drop out rate would be much lower than the 34% it is currently, I am sure. The truth shall set you free. Fight back against the propaganda of the left and fight them with knowledge. Then watch their emotions get in the way...I see it every day here in Santa Monica, CA.

God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

Does Obama hate white people?

2010-05-13T21:56:00.001-07:00

80% of Tennessee is white, 65% of Nasvhille is white. So does that make this is 'racial' story? Of course not, but let's examine the numbers and ponder why this story hasn't been covered with such veracity as Katrina. Are they on the same scale? Of course not. But the reaction to the devastation by those effected, by the media and by politicians foretell a different character make-up between the two.

500...number of years experts are saying its been since the last flood of this magnitude in Nasvhille. 52...the number of counties out of 96 considered 'disaster areas'. 51...the number in feet at which the Cumberland river crested. 18...the number in inches of rain that fell over a 36-hour period. 17...at least the number of times an obituary has been written about someone who died from the flooding in the state. 13...the number of days ago that the rains started. 1...the number of stories thus far that touched me personally of someone I know who's house was destroyed from the flooding but said she was 'thanking God' that her family was safe. AND ironically One is also the number of times President Obama has played golf since flooding began and Tennesseans lost lives in the flooding. Lastly, 0 (yep zero)...the number of times Obama has visited Tennessee (it's a pretty good size state) since the rains began to fall and over $1 billion in damages has occurred.

If this were downtown Detroit, DC, New Orleans, or Philly would the president be so silent? And would there have existed such absent pleas of 'how the government is responsible and must help' the victims of such a tragedy? Notice the people of Nashville, like so many other flooded parts of middle America over the past few years, never cried out for government assistance, haven't made this a 'race' issue, and hasn't demanded that they be taken care of in any way. The good citizens, of all colors and creed, in Tennessee banded together to form one community in being benevolent to help one another. This is what America is...it's people, it's community, it's character. So no, Obama doesn't hate white people just like Bush didn't hate black people or allow a delayed response due to the color of the skin of those the media's camera lenses seemed to only find in the 5th ward. But what gets more media coverage...disaster that strikes predominantly white areas or disaster that strikes predominantly black areas (i.e. New Orleans - Katrina, Haiti - Earthquake)? It's about victimization and media race baiting that propels stories of woe in black communities to the top of the headlines. It's then that the democratic politicians flock to the coverage and begin their dialogue of how to 'help', or who is to 'blame' and why the 'government should be involved' in responding. Yes, 'race' to them helps explain why something happened or someone is to blame.

To all those in Nasvhille, from all walks of life, who have been affected by this horrific natural disaster, my thoughts and prayers are with you. May God's reason for this event play out in your lives, in your communities and in your hearts. God's compassion, for those who question His allowing this to happen, is that the rains stopped, the river receded and the wounds are slowly healing. God doesn't hate black, white, yellow, brown or green skin. This tragedy didn't target one race...its unintentional target was simply a population from every walk of life.

Leadership is chosen by its people. In New Orleans, the preponderance of its people chose to follow its leadership in Washington to help them out of their plight since they are committed to govt assistance. In Tennessee, its people chose to follow each others good will in helping their neighbor and believe that God will lead them through the crisis. Who would you rather follow? God or a politician?

And in closing, it's kind of difficult for Obama to be truly racist against white people in his heart. Because his DNA makes it genetically difficult, for the fact is, he is half-white! Where is Kanye on this tragedy when you need a buffoon to stick his foot in his mouth? Wait, we already have a buffoon who chooses not to speak about the tragedy to the "Volunteer State." Unfortunately, that buffoon happens to be the president of the United States of America, of which, Tennessee was one of its first. Godspeed Tennessee!

Liberal vs Conservative media perceptions

2010-03-11T15:30:00.000-08:00

OK...here it is a list of two way media perceptions. It seems the broadcast liberals have decided when your attributes are assets or drawbacks. So feel free to circulate these........

IF YOU HAVE SPENT TIME IN WASHINGTON:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM

LIBERAL…YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE

IF YOU DON'T HAVE TIME IN WASHINGTON:

CONSERVATIVE….YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE.

LIBERAL….YOU REPRESENT CHANGE

IF YOU HAVE WEALTH:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE GREEDY AND A CHEAT

WHO HAD ADVANTAGES IN LIFE

LIBERAL…YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL AND YOUR LIFE

STORY IS AN INSPIRATION.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE WEALTH:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE LOW CLASS.

LIBERAL…YOU ARE DISADVANTAGED

IF YOU WENT TO COLLEGE:

CONSERVATIVE…YOUR ACADEMIC PEDIGREE IS SCRUTINIZED

LIBERAL….YOUR DEGREE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

IF YOU DIDN'T GO TO COLLEGE:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE UN-EDUCATED

LIBERAL…YOU ARE AN ARTIST/ACTIVIST

IF YOU OWN A BUSINESS:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE A PROFITEER

LIBERAL…YOU PROVIDE JOBS TO THE COMMUNITY

IF YOU ARE WORKING CLASS:

CONSERVATIVE….YOU'RE JUST A (INSERT JOB TITLE OR TRADE).

LIBERAL…YOU ARE A PROLETARIAT WHO FINDS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS.

IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE WISDOM OF THE CONSTITUTION:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE NARROW MINDED.

LIBERAL…YOU ARE A CIVIL LIBERTARIAN.

IF YOU BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS:

CONSERVATIVE….YOU HAVE MADE PEACE WITH INEQUALITY

LIBERAL….YOU ARE FOR CHOICE.

IF YOU TAKE TO THE STREETS TO VOICE YOUR OPINONS:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE A THUG

LIBERAL…YOU ARE A DEMONSTRATOR.

IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS:

CONSERVATIVE….YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALIST.

LIBERAL…YOU ARE SPIRITUAL.

IF YOU ARE SERVING IN THE MILITARY:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE A MINDLESS KILLER

LIBERAL…YOU WEAR THE UNIFORM OF YOUR COUNTRY.

IF YOU ARE POPULAR:

CONSERVATIVE….YOU HAVE BLIND SHEEP FOLLOWERS

LIBERAL…YOU ARE LEADING A MOVEMENT.

IF YOU ARE ATTRACTIVE:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE SHALLOW AND EMPTY

LIBERAL…YOU ARE STUNNING AND A TREND SETTER.

IF YOU ARE UN-ATTRACTIVE:

CONSERVAITVE…YOU ARE JUST UGLY

LIBERAL…YOU ARE TOO INTELLECTUAL TO BE CONCERNED WITH YOUR APPEARANCE.

IF YOU ENJOY AN OUTDOORS LIFESTYLE:

CONSERVATIVE…YOU ARE A HICK

LIBERAL…YOU ARE EARTHY.

This courtesy of Andrew Wilkow - (www.wilkowmajority.com)

Sebelius warns insurance execs of demise - Washington Times

2010-03-10T15:35:00.000-08:00

Just when you thought that the Obama administration favored competition here is your look under the hood of what it will look like. Again, if you oppose Obamacare you are evil and should fail. Insurance companies sat at the table with Obama and initially threw their support behind the bill. But the more the insurance companies have come to understand that either way they see the inevitable. So their choice has become: fight or be thrown to the slaughter. Amazing that there are people out there who believe that this administration believes in the free markets and competition. Ask yourself, if this administration wants to bring costs down for health care don't you think they would immediately: 1) allow for insurance co's to compete across state lines, 2) remove regulation that sets minimum mandates/standards for what an insurance company must offer and instead give the Person the ability to pick and choose a program that caters to them, 3) put an immediate cap on lawsuits and force any frivolous lawsuits to be paid for by the plaintiff, and 4) health savings accounts (what Bush and repubs wanted back in 2004) that go with you from job to job as this will make the consumer more cognizant of their health expenses.

Let's start with what the actual problems are and fix those before we just give the privilege of health care to all those who need it. Again, this country has quickly become an entitlement nation whereby the needs of the recipient outweigh the rights of the provider.

Sebelius warns insurance execs of demise - Washington Times

Obama Media Strategy

2010-03-05T13:00:00.000-08:00

You may remember in August of last year the White House having a link to its website where you could report anyone 'spreading lies or misrepresenting' what was in the supposed health care legislation. Here was part of their "inform on your neighbors" scare tactic: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov." First of all, this is unconstitutional of the president to propose, but pay that no mind, the liberal media sure didn't.

Well, now comes wind that the White House communications group (at barackobama.com) has orchestrated a campaign aimed at flooding the air waves of conservative talk radio with 'plants' who call in acting as conservatives and then let loose on the health care lies. To what other links will this administration go to in order to try and persuade the American public to be accepting of a bill they clearly do not want?

Yesterday, Obama took to the podium to give yet another speech on health care reform pushing his proposal and stating emphatically that democrats and he are ready to go it alone. And who was there as props for this narcissistic president? You guessed it, doctors. Clad nicely in their white doctor coats with their hospital badge on their lapel they stood in attendance while Obama used them as puppets. The arrogance of this man is astounding made ever-more obvious as he stood with his chin in the air...while the doctors applauded...for 23 seconds (23 uninterrupted seconds). Turning his head side to side the entire time, no smile, just a look of frustration that he is having to waste his time (and all that free time that Biden has as VP) giving another speech to try to help 'stupid' American's be educated on his health reform proposal. And this is a man who can relate to you, Main Street America. Sure.

Accuracy in Media wrote a good article back in October that details the administration's media strategy and how it has it's own dedicated public relations website, "Organizing for America." Although this site proclaims to not be endorsed by any campaign or candidate. Funny how Obama staff and the DNC think we American's forgot that this was BHO's donation and propaganda website during his 2008 election campaign. God, how stupid do liberals think we are?

What's next if all this propaganda and slight of hand fails? Obama, with camera crews filming children of crack addicts on the streets of DC, malnourished and unclothed, complaining they have the H1N1 virus but have been turned away at area hospitals since they don't have coverage from the big bad evil insurance companies and their 3% profit margins?

Rest assured that nothing will stop this progressive president from passing ALL of his far-left agenda items, no matter the cost to America, its health care system, its employment, its economy and ultimately, its sovereignty. If you were not worried before now, you may now wish to awaken from your disillusioned 'hope and change' slumber. Did you dream in color or dream in red?

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

2010-03-04T09:42:00.001-08:00

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Posted using ShareThis

Democrats and Nuclear Option hypocrisy!

2010-02-24T16:56:00.000-08:00

Listen, as democrats complain that Republicans were about to 'evaporate' what the founding fathers intended about the checks and balances of our republic (senate rules, filibuster and use of the "nuclear option"). Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, "Sheriff" Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Dodd play themselves in this docudrama. Biden says that the "nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power...it is a fundamental power grab." Oh yeah, Biden is the 'President' of the Senate acting as the tie breaking vote if needed. Harry Reid goes on to say, in condescending fashion that "no, we are not going to follow the senate rules, no...because of the arrogance of power of this republican administration." Doesn't Reid now act as the Senate Majority leader. Dodd continues the hypocrisy parade by saying that no legislation has passed "this institution" that "didn't have a republican and a democrat in the lead." Dodd furthers his remarks by extolling the virtues of the "framers...218 years ago" when he says "they understood there was a tyranny of the majority." But your ire should begin being focused at the 3:50 mark following through to the end. It starts with Biden's directive, and I quote, "I say to my friends on the republican side you may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. And I pray God that when the democrats take back control that we don't make the kind of power grab that you are doing." Schumer goes on to say that republicans will "change the rules, break the rules, and misread the Constitution...pot meet kettle! And in the prescient words of Max Baucus at the very end, he sums it up best, when our senate uses the nuclear option like this "this is the way democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel." So it was not good enough for republicans but it is now good enough (irrespective of all the statements in this video they are own record saying) for democrats to pass health care. Then it will be used to pass cap and tax, card check, another stimulus bill, etc. Get ready folks...the nuclear option is about to cause a nuclear disaster that will usher in, to quote Max Baucus' famous last words, "the way democracy ends." Luckily, democrats know that the electorate are 'too stupid' and 'not educated' enough to understand or figure it out for ourselves.

Guess what folks, 20% of the nations economy is about to be taken over, ironically, by progressive democrats using the same tactics they lambasted republicans for using in 2005. They also want to do away with the filibuster, a senate rule put in place by Woodrow Wilson (over 80 years ago) when he couldn't get republicans to approve the League of Nations. Oh yeah, and the democrats filibustered the Civil Rights legislation. Funny isn't it, that democrats have bitten their noses off to spite their face? Regardless of what happens in 2010, if this health care passes along with Cap and Tax, and all the bums are voted out WE STILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEIR ARROGANCE OF POWER!

America we can do better! You better start speaking out against this or our republic is about to take its last breath. Please forward this link on to ALL of your friends and make your fellow Americans know that what they stood in defiance of just 5 years ago, they now stand for. And this is why we must get ALL of our elected politicians out of office as soon as possible.

Politicans just don't get it!

2010-02-20T14:18:00.001-08:00

Regardless of the ideological prism with which you see politics through one thing is certain, our current crop of elected officials today just don't understand what America (in most part) is telling them through our knowledge of the past. I will get to what we are telling them at the end of this post but let's first point out what the liberals and conservatives believe they are empowered to do at this moment in time.

Liberals
Obama in his SOTU speech dedicated about 5 minutes of time to discuss health care reform but about 26 minutes into the speech. Obama said this, "It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And…would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades." (bold emphasis is mine). Yet, poll after poll contradicts this demonstrating that Americans are not lemmings believing that giving health care to 30 million more people will reduce costs. To believe this will reduce costs is like believing that you can add 2 more children to your household and reduce your family budget. It's ridiculous.

Also, the way the White House and progressive liberals read the polls is to say that they are being read the wrong way. To liberals, opposition to health care reform demonstrates that America is really saying they WANT health care reform, a la the public option. This on its surface highlights the lunacy of the left. Howard Dean, former DNC chair, is on record (on "Hardball" nonetheless) saying that independents elected Scott Brown because they were sending a message to Washington that they want the public option. Brown specifically ran on the premise that he would be the 41st vote AGAINST government run health care (of course he voted for MA run health care so there is some hypocrisy in his stance - but maybe he sees now that MA is BK because of universal health care). So do Dean and progressive liberals really believe that they voted a man into office to kill health care reform because what they were really saying is that they WANT health care reform but in the form of the public option? This is pure nonsense.

And after Brown got elected, Obama said they had to 'pivot' on health care and focus on jobs (Reid killed a bi-partisan jobs bill just last week - so much for focus) putting health care reform on the back burner. That same afternoon Gibbs and Axelrod stated emphatically that they were not scaling back their health care push but instead are going to proceed with their agenda. Pelosi went as far as to say "We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit." So, again, despite overwhelming (52% oppose - 38% favor in latest RCP avg) opposition to the democrat’s health care reform Pelosi believes that she can just cram it down your throat because trust her, she knows what’s best for you. Aren't politicians elected at the consent of the governed? Meaning, we elect them to do our will, not theirs. So damn the polls. Democrats believe so ardently that you need government-controlled health care that they are willing to assume 1/5th of the nations economy with no bi-partisan support but a simple majority (reconciliation). But I thought Obama was having a bi-partisan summit to discuss health care reform? It now appears they are crafting a bill that doesn’t even need the typical 60 votes to pass the Senate. This is beyond comprehension. So much for Obama’s getting the message of the Massachusetts tsunami.

Politicians work FOR US not against us. The will of the people is being ignored by those in power. Why? Because "Elites" believe that you are too stupid (see Maher, Klein comments) to understand what is good for you. This is highlighted in CNN's advertising in international markets..."First comes understanding, then comes knowledge." Really, I thought you have to first know something to then understand it (as demonstrated throughout this blog post). So what Reid, Pelosi and Obama, along with other progressives, are trying to tell you is that they will shape your understanding of something and then grant you knowledge. They don't believe that Americans have the IQ to fully understand an issue. Given these are the same progressives who said on November 5^th that the American electorate were intelligent enough to vote for ‘change’ and not continue the ‘status quo.’ Who are the fools now?

And what is this administration doing to focus on jobs...nothing! They still believe that the Stimulus has created (or saved) millions of jobs, which by its own merits is ludicrous. So much for transparency since their own calculations and formulas for this theory has been ripped to shreds. Get the duck tape. If you want job creation then get out of the way of the private sector, cut taxes (not give subsidies) on capital investments, capital gains, eliminate payroll taxes and stop trying to mandate who is going to make solar panels or green cars. If you want to see how well Green jobs creation works, look no further than Spain.

Conservatives

Unfortunately for republicans at this moment in time, they believe that the American people are favoring them simply because they are 'conservatives' and saying 'no' to Obama's radical transformation of America. However, most elected republicans right now are considered Republican In Name Only (RINO) but are not of the understanding of what the people of America are telling them (again, through knowledge comes understanding). What republicans need to know is that the Tea Party movement is a movement against the 'understanding' of the republican party. In the famous words of Austin Millbarge "We mock what we don't understand." The goings on at CPAC this week are a perfect example. With the exception of a small handful of speakers (Beck, Rubio & Ron Paul, included) the remaining speakers are your typical RINO who just wish to regain power again. To trot out Armey, Gingrich, Romney and Ashcroft is simply to say, 'We establishment republicans believe we can lead a resurgence to take back congress, the senate and eventually the White House with conservative ideals' but notice that these republicans were the same ones in control to lead us to where we are today. In other words, the majority of these republicans believe that they speak for the American people who are rising up against big government, out-of-control spending, rising taxes, currency devaluation, degradation of values, violation of individual liberties and progressive takeover of our country. What they fail to understand, because they don't first know, is that the revolt is against the current establishment on both sides of the aisle who just crave greed and power. Ninety percent of our currently elected officials believe they know what's best for us. 535 people in DC believe they know better than 300+ million Americans. This is insane.

That is why the Tea Party (a return to Constitutional rights) is made up of democrats, republicans, independents, blacks, whites, Hispanics and other ethnic origins. They are standing in opposition to what has brought us to where we are today. Beginning in the Woodrow Wilson era (probably the most progressive presidency of all time) with the creation of the Federal Reserve, through the New Deal, the Great Society (spending not the racial equality part), creation of Dept of Energy, Education, Homeland Security and now the agenda of cap and tax, stimulus and health care reform, the American people are exhausted with the growth of government. To highlight, all of us believe that our children should have an education but since the creation of the Dept of Education (established under Carter) our students have scored worse. The Dept of Energy (established under Carter) was created to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil yet we are more dependent on foreign oil today than ever before. Bureaucracy doesn't lift America it weakens it. To know how our government has evolved leads to the understanding that things MUST change and rapidly.

In conclusion, America has reached the boiling point and it has NOTHING to do with the fact there is a half white-half black person in the Oval Office. The boiling point was finally reached because our deficit now equals 100% of our GDP ($14 trillion) and was allowed to happen by both political parties. This is unsustainable and extremely dangerous for our continued prosperity. The peaceful revolution taking place is by those people who know that the document that has governed our nation for 223 years (the US Constitution) and written on a mere 6 pages doesn't entitle its citizens to a free (or subsidized) education, home, health care, transportation, money, or food nor does it allow the federal government to overstep its bounds in relation to Article 1, Section 8, the Enumerated Powers clause. But the federal government under every administration has violated this exact section in promoting the 'greater good'. The greater good theory is a communist belief not a democratic one. And why can one document 6 pages long govern a nation for over 220 years but we can't write a health care bill that is less than 2,700 pages or a cap and tax bill that is less than 1500 pages? Because most of your elected politician are attorneys and they want to write a bill that you can't understand because you don't know what's in it.

Therefore, we Americans who understand the law of the land, read the Constitution for what it DOES say, not what it CAN say through interpretation. Once our elected politicians know that this is what we are telling them they will then understand how to govern prosperously. Next time you go to the polls or call your representative to tell them where you stand, let them know that they are governed by AmeriCAN's not AmeriCANT's.

An Imam vs. Christian Minister

2010-01-22T16:47:00.000-08:00

I am not sure if this story (below in bold) is an authentic representation of actual events that occurred or not. But, having said that, regardless the content of the email speaks volumes of what America and the world is potentially up against if true. Some of my liberal progressive friends might suggest that by posting this I am being insensitive or unfairly ethnically profiling Muslims. To this I say, I am sick and tired of being politically correct and seeing our country run from addressing issues of importance. Debate is good. It's your politicians and sensitive friends who are keeping America from tackling this issue and when we do try to tackle it we are immediately attacked with slanderous labels. This is the way of the progressives, to make you feel like you have no heart, no compassion and no respect for your fellow man. As the infamous Progressive president Harry S. Truman said "If you can't convince them, confuse them." And we as a nation are confused about this topic since speaking out makes us bad people, supposedly. But being ignorant or turning a deaf ear to this topic leads to events like Fort Dix or Ft. Hood. Unto which shall we decide upon, intellectual silence due to fear of free speech or complicit murder of our fellow citizens? You decide.

Like Glenn Beck has proposed for all his listeners: Question with Boldness, Hold to the Truth & Speak without Fear.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well-known leader in prison ministry. The man who walks with God always gets to his destination. If you have a pulse you have a purpose.

The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the United States , especially in the minority races!!!

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required
for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their beliefs.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.

A fter the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: 'Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?'

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, 'Non-believers!'

I responded, 'So, let me make sure I have this straight. A ll followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven.. Is that correct?'

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar..'
He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.'

I then stated, 'Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!'
The Imam was speechless!

I continued, 'I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me!

Let me ask you a question: Would you rather have your A llah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?'

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the Diversification training seminar were not happy with my way of dealing with the Islamic Imam, and exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs.

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President!

I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with A CLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us send it on! This is your chance to make a difference...

Breitbart.tv » MSNBC’s Matthews vs. Howard Dean: ‘You’re Whistling Past the Graveyard’

2010-01-21T21:33:00.000-08:00

Breitbart.tv » MSNBC’s Matthews vs. Howard Dean: ‘You’re Whistling Past the Graveyard’

Everyone much watch this video and ask yourself if Howard Dean, a self-avowed Secular Progressive, makes any sense. To summarize the video in case you have not seen it: Howard Dean says that the voters of MA in voting for Brown were really voting for health care reform despite Brown running hard on being the 41st vote against health care reform. So democrats outnumber republicans 3 to 1 with over 50% of the voters being independent and apparently they are so disenfranchised with Barack Obama's health care reform bill making its way through congress now but that they are in favor of a strong public option so therefore they voted for the guy who wants to defeat it? Common sense on Dean's part? Oh yeah, and Brown ran against raising taxes and said he would work to cut taxes for business and individuals, he was against the attacks on the banks, he is strong in his stance on terror and he was standing in the way of what progressives have wanted for 60 years...free health care. Brown sounds exactly like a liberal progressive minus all the things he ran on. To Dean, up is down and right is left. Doofus!

Progressives pervade the current political landscape

2010-01-19T15:15:00.000-08:00

Just this past week we have seen the progressive agenda in overdrive. Even today, the day after Scott Brown, a republican who just 3 weeks ago was behind in the polls by double digits in the bluest of blue states in America, won the senate seat held by liberal progressive Ted Kennedy for more than 45 years, liberal progressives aren't yielding. Astonishingly, Brown ran a conservative campaign and did not try to appeal to a centric campaign catering to the 'left' or 'progressives' in his state. He ran a campaign speaking out against federally run health care, against tax increases of any kind and out-of-control government spending. Instead, Brown ran as someone in favor of tax cuts on individuals and businesses to stimulate the economy, strong national defense, reduced government spending and a strong stance on the war on terror. It's both what he ran in opposition to and in favor of that should stop liberals in their tracks and have them gasping for air, taking a break from a very unpopular agenda. But the progressives show no willingness to 'heel' on their push to shout, scream or just plain attack anyone in their sites who don't see the world through the same lens. And to hell with the 'will of the people'. Progressives still believe, despite the VA and PA losses in the gubernatorial races or yesterday's MA senate seat loss. No, they still believe they were given a mandate based on the 'will of the people' on election day, never mind that the 'will of the people' has changed dramatically in opposition of what the electorate thought, nay prayed, that they were getting when Obama was swept into office.

Case in point 1: Keith Olbermann attacks Scott Brown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ueji0Q4RZyo
Keith Olbermann ("KO")stoops into the outhouse poop hole when he goes off the rails on Scott Brown and continues to belittle the 'Tea Party' movement. So KO, who clearly is out of touch with America (remember his prism is a far left secular society where Big Government is best), belligerently attacks a movement now seen as having the most favorable view of ALL political parties. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-tea-party-tops-democrats-and-republicans/ . But Olbermann's viewers wouldn't know this since they are so tiny in comparison to the most watched cable news network, Fox News (links to pew ratings to verify viewership, see Case in point 2). Also, liberals love to rail on Fox News for being all lovey dovey to republicans, well, they must have missed it when Glenn Beck also chided Brown pretty harshly on his radio program today. But, liberals believe that Beck and Fox is in the tank for ALL conservatives and so they are ignorant to that last fact. Don't worry, next time one of your progressive friends tries to attack you, Fox or its contributors for having a 'right-wing bias' pull this card out. See how they respond. Also, for anyone confused about just what the Tea Party is all about please visit their site at http://teapartypatriots.org/.

Case in point 2: Dan Pfeiffer picks up right where Anita Dunn left off, attacks Fox News
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-wh-communications-director-restarts-white-house-vs-fox-news-storyline/
The Obama administration just cannot seem to corral the American public into buying into their far left agenda. To them responsibility totally lies with Fox News and the Tea Party movement. Pelosi, Schumer and other prominent liberal politicians continuously attack the Tea Party movement. For as much belly-aching as the far left and Obama do, its amazing that in every category (I simply used Jan 15th but links connect to any day you choose; http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/19/cable-news-ratings-for-friday-january-15-2010/39376) Fox News at least triples the viewership of its closest rival and in almost all cases the Fox show in any specific hour time-slot beats all others in its comparative subset COMBINED! Someone very close to me always asks why Bill O'Reilly always points out that his, along with other Fox News programs, are always beating its competitors by such a wide margin. The point is this, because to listen to the attacks on its News coverage or opinion shows from the White House and/or the other cable news outlets would lead one to believe that Fox garner's such a tiny fraction of the TV viewing audience at any hour of the day, let alone up against a behemoth like Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews or Behar. In a debate I had today I put to rest this fallacy with facts. Liberals hate facts and their bias against Fox News continues, unyielding in their contempt for what PEW concluded was indeed the most 'Fair and Balanced' news network. Liberal blogs attacked Fox News for not adequately covering Haiti, for instance, yet Fox News had the largest audience in any time slot on the day of and days after the earthquake hit Haiti. So why the vicious attacks, as Axelrod, Dunn and now Pfeiffer level on Fox News? Because they are scared that America actually does operate from the center with leanings to the right and anything they don't feel they have control of is unacceptable for them. So to belittle Fox as 'not a respectable news organization' shows how sophomoric and childish the White House and liberal media outlets are, as well it highlights their intellectual dishonesty. Progressives do NOT LIKE debate, nor do they have any compassion for those who disagree with them. Focus on this statement in the coming months and years ahead as progressives try to, in Obama's own words, "Fundamentally change America."

Case in point 3: Pelosi and Durbin indicate health care will pass even if 'nuclear option' is used
The 'nuclear option' in this case is the senate's ability to use 'Reconciliation' which only requires 51 votes to pass any legislation through to the president. Durbin suggested today that this is clearly an option if Brown wins in MA. Pelosi yesterday said "We will have health care reform one way or another", despite terrible poll numbers for health care reform and for congress in general. So despite being elected to serve 'We the people' these progressives are on record with statements that essentially suggest dismissing what the public wants since its politician's who rule and are clearly more intellectually superior than the electorate. This MUST change and must change NOW! Here is the link to her statement: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/01/pelosi-we-will-have-health-care-one-way-or-another.html. Nancy Pelosi heads up the legislative body responsible for passing laws but when it comes to public outrage over an unpopular bill, your voice means nothing to her. This is summed up by my home state of California. Prop 8 was passed in California last November 52-48%, which eliminated same sex couples' right to marry. Despite the voice of the people being heard at the ballot box, progressives dismiss their opinion and are taking their case to the state Supreme Court. But, Obama wins by a 7% margin and progressives feel that that is a mandate and he should be allowed to do whatever he wants in the name of radicalism. Hypocritical, huh? Just like in the case here of those electorate on the losing end of Prop 8, most of your politicians on capitol hill are also tone deaf right now. And don't kid yourself that things will be any different if republicans regain control in 2010. They wouldn't. Special interests RUN Washington DC, your elected politician is simply the pawn in their game. Obama stated clearly on the campaign trail that lobbyists and special interests would not have a place in the change he promised that would occur in DC. Tell that to the SEIU, UAW, Big Pharma, ABA, Teachers Unions, AFL-CIO, and Center for American Progress just to name a few (a complete list can be found at: http://conservapedia.com/Lobbyists_ties_to_the_Obama_administration).

So people, what you see here is that the word liberal is now a bad word, and it has been replaced with Progressive. In fact, Hillary Clinton during the democratic campaign described herself as a progressive. Obama, in front of both chambers and on live TV, referred to his 'progressive friends on the left' and 'my conservative friends on the right'. There is a strong Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House, who espoused the principles of socialism (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/progressive.html). It cannot be any clearer, America, at what is taking place right beneath your feet and if you don't wake up soon, the America your founding fathers built and that every soldier has sacrificed their life to protect will be gone in a blink of an eye. It doesn't stop for us, conservative patriots, just because a republican won three very large elections. No, the work actually starts now. We need to seek conservatives whether they be republican, democrat or are running as a Tea Party conservative. Actually, I prefer the tea party conservative since they believe strongly in the fundamentals of the Constitution.

In 2010, I will, like Beck, O'Reilly and Wilkow, point out what progressives are doing to derail this country from prospering as a freedom loving, capitalist, and constitutional republic it was established to be. I beg each and every one of you reading this blog to share it with your friends and please take 10 minutes to read the US Constitution (http://constitutionus.com/). It was written by our intellectual elite over 200 years ago. Written by attorneys, doctors, businessmen and patriots alike. Yet, this document that has served us so well for over 2 centuries now but now your elected politicians can't write a health care bill that is less than 2000 pages? So one document which governs an entire country is 6 pages long and contains the Bill of Rights. But your intellectual elite of 2010 cannot write a bill unless it is so jumbled, so confusing and so long that over 95% of those that we elect to represent us and to vote on these bills will not even read them. It's time for a 'change' America. Obama was right, unfortunately, he represents exactly the wrong type of change that America needs. He wants to 'fundamentally change America' when all we need is to wisely return to what our founding fathers designed for all of us. As our Declaration of Independence states in the opening of the 2nd paragraph: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Wake up America and take your country back from the progressives that are abundant in both parties.

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

2009-12-17T13:53:00.000-08:00

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

Ronald Reagan - 1980 RNC Convention

2009-12-10T09:32:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmmgVFByeaI

Please notice the differences between Reagan's speeches and Obama's speeches. This is but a very minor example but poignant nonetheless. Reagan always eludes to America's spirit, its character, its freedoms and what makes it great. Obama eludes to the 'status quo', the poor, our mistakes and that unless we combine ourselves with the world that we will no longer be great. This is a long video but if you for some God forsaken reason are moved and wooed by Obama's apologetic and self righteous speeches, take a minute to listen to a great leader of past America and his words. We could use this man now who doesn't apologize for what makes us great but says its what makes us great that will persevere.

Obama's speeches will be placed on the ash heap of history since he continues to go out of his way to tell us all what he thinks is wrong with us and that if we don't follow what his ideals are for what he thinks will make us great, well then, we are just going to remain mediocre. It's in his words if you listen carefully. Open your ears America...our doom lay just ahead if we continue to be led to the precipice by Obama and his left wing cronies hell bent on America's destruction from within.

Climatologists challenge the UN to present data!

2009-12-09T20:27:00.000-08:00

Things are really HEATING up (pun completely intentional) on the man-made global warming hoax. Follow the money...just like with American Stimulus II, follow the money and you will see what the truth is.

Real climatologists challenging the UN to present the data they use to try and force a socio-economic and geo-political change for the entire world. Hey Al Gore, you have been asking someone to tell you who these 'scientists who don't believe in global warming are because they don't exist.' Here you go Mr. Gore. Challenge them and take some real questions to test your knowledge of the earth's atmosphere and heating/cooling that has existed throughout the earth's existence...yes Al, even prior to man you empty suit.

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Copenhagen - the fluff you need to know! Hypocrisy?

2009-12-06T21:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

The article below was published in the UK Telegraph.

By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Climate Express sets off for Copenhagen

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.

Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

Your Fair Share is not in MY WALLET!

2009-10-20T21:35:00.000-07:00

Since when, in our society did it become the providers responsibility to deliver the needs of the recipient? Put another way, when did the needs of the recipient trump the rights of the provider?

What we have going on in our country now, and it started under Bush (most recently but really began as far back as the 1930's), is that when you are too lazy to work, don't worry, the government will give you money. When you are hungry, don't worry, the government will give you bread. We are on a path where if I own land and build an artisian well to bring water from under the soil of my property up (and please don't legalize this hypothetical with mineral rights issues, etc) for my family to drink, the government will soon tell me that I must provide for the needy neighbor who has no water. But why should I? I am the one who put in all the hard work and my family should prosper from our hard work. I am not taking from someone else and I am not on anothers land taking their water. So why is it my responsibility to provide for my needy neighbor?

It's not my responsibility. If he is too lazy to build his own well, then I am sorry, but he should suffer the consequences of his inaction. However, the government now believes that the rights of the provider no longer outweigh the needs of the recipient. What this will soon do, and we are on a crash course to learn sooner rather than later, is that when the provider has to do 2x the work to see half the benefit (since the recipient isn't providing anything but realizes the other half of the providers benefit) then the provider will either produce less or stop producing. Why? Because it is economically not in his best interest to provide it if the costs outweigh the benefit. And guess who steps in and picks up the pieces....you guessed it, the US Federal Government. This, in turn, makes you more dependent on them to solve your problems. When this happens then the government creates 3 classes of society, 2 of which don't favor the working class. These classes are broken down in a 1) provider class (the employer), 2) the recipient (the worker) and 3) the access class (the wealthy, aka employer, celebrity). Put a simpler way as it relates to health care...what wealthy group is out there touting the most that we need government run health care? Hollywood! And their cadillac plans will leave them with the best quality health care. I mean, do you really think that Ashton Kutcher or Ben Afleck is going to stand in line next to you while trying to see a doctor? Not on your life. Is your elected politician going to hang out in the waiting room to live with the same level of health care service they voted to have you live with? Yeah, that's about as likely as Obama turning fiscally conservative. So what does that do? It places an even wider barrier between the working class and the class who provides the work. Get used to it. It's the 'change' and 'hope' you voted for. You asked for the mandate, its just too damn bad you have to live with that mandate. Like I now say, just because I empowered you doesn't mean you are empowered. Think about that for a second. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean that that person does not now have to answer to me. But your liberal democrat friends say, 'we were voted in on a mandate.' No you weren't. If you were then you would have already passed health care, passed cap N trade, probably would have already rammed through another stimulus bill and would have gone ahead and bailed out another failed industry. Mandates are governed unfortunately by economics in a capitalist society. Of course, with the current administration it's just a matter of time before the laws of economics in a free market society ceases to exist.

If you want to understand a great example of economics 101, please click on the link below. This very short book, easily readable in about 20 minutes online, is an elementary guide to understanding the laws of economics and how it effects us every day. It's called, Economics in one lesson. It quite simply is the best, shortest and most to the point economics lesson one can learn. This teaches you for free what an economics major will teach you for about $100,000.

http://jim.com/econ/

Democrats, Racism & Slavery!

2009-10-17T01:05:00.001-07:00

When the left in this country demonizes conservatives as racists, it and the media then push the claim with headlines and lead stories on the 24/7 news cycle with the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton headlining and supporting the claims. What these people unbelievably FAIL to tell you is that history and RECENT history doesn't support the claim that the republican party is the racist party. Sure, are there conservatives that are racist? Of course. Just like there are equally as many liberals that are racist. These racists can be found all over the country but in extremely small numbers. The south garners the most 'racist' attention because of the Civil War and events leading up to the civil rights movement in the 1960's. Which then begs another question. What party was in control of the southern states during the mid to late 1800's who believed it was their right to keep and harbor slaves as property? And, who was the party who first championed civil rights for blacks?

So let's look at the history of race in the U.S. and how democrats have effected the evolutionary rise of the black American. Also, if you so choose the National Black Republicans go into great detail of the democratic parties racist views and positions dating back over 150 years (http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-OBAMA-CanYouSpareAPROCLAMATION).

1. Who was president and decided to fight the Civil War to end slavery of black Americans?
2. Who signed the Emancipation Proclamation?
3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
4. What political party filibustered in 1964 prior to voting on the Civil Rights Act?
5. Who was the president who invited the first black American (Booker T. Washington) to the White House and what political party was he from?
6. What party was the first black VP candidate (Frederick Douglas) on the ticket for?
7. Who was the party who refused to seat black delegates until 1933?
8. What political party during the reconstruction era, had as their slogan, "It's a white man's party, let the white man rule." And in 1948 campaign, what political party's slogan was "Segregation Forever!"?
9. What party was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, fought to free blacks from slavery and championed civil rights for blacks?
10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
11. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP who were themselves white?
12. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Fritz Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who recently insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
13. What was the Party of President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after his becoming president, and who later had the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
14. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
15. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
16. What political party currently has a black man as their chairman?

People in this country are, for the most part, afraid to discuss race. One of my best friends, a very successful black man, and I have had several discussions about race. Of course, I can never relate to his situation, just like I cannot relate to the life experiences of my Korean best friend, my Indian best friend, or my Jewish best friend. However, we can have an open discussion about it which I wish every American could do with all races in this country, not just black and white. It will be educational to each race to understand the others viewpoints, outlook and historical context by which we arrived here today and how to progress forward. Constructive discussion would go a long way to removing 'racist' labels from being placed on someone for simply saying, "You lie". But, no matter how constructive those discussions are, it of course will never put to rest the fact that some very ignorant people will always judge a person based upon the color of skin and not the content of their character.

The point of this blog entry was not to show that republicans/conservatives don't have, included in its party, racist voters. Nor was it a 'ha, ha, ha, gotcha'. Any person who believes that the republican party, especially after labeling Joe Wilson AND all tea partier's "Racist", must ask themselves...what political party, historically, has done more for helping to push black America's progress? Study history and the truth may very well surprise you. Also, since your federal government took over education how much better have blacks done, and even whites, in their graduation rates? You might want to research that for yourself. For all that democrats claim to do to help the black American, the evidence points to far different facts.

Thomas Sowell (links below) speaks from experience and I wish I could hear someone with facts that clearly demonstrates that welfare's expanse has helped increase jobs, lower abortion rates, lower children being born out of wedlock, increase wages, increase education and graduation rates, etc. It's unfortunate that the rod and staff that so many like to hit with is also the crutch that so many use. Ironic? And a great article was just written about minimum wage and what the detriment to the black community minimum wage has done to their job skill acceleration and employment. Democrats continue to push minimum wage hikes claiming it 'helps blacks and minorities', yet the exact opposite holds true. So, if democrats are so for blacks succeeding then why are literally all their policies flawed to the point that it actually holds back blacks and minorities?

But like liberal democrat socialists like to say, if you are against continued dependence upon welfare and minimum wage then you are a racist since these programs helps poverty stricken minorities. When will minorities have the freedom of thought to wake up and ask themselves, "Demonstrated by my constant support of the democratic party agenda, how much better is my life today?"

http://www.youtube.com/user/FightTheGoodFightUSA#p/a/f/1/2GklCBvS-eI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyG1zmdh1pA&feature=PlayList&p=BE7B862704D31B44&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

10 Conditions for transition to Communism

2009-10-16T13:56:00.001-07:00

I have provided a link from another blogger who eloquently points out the road we are headed down if we don't wake up quickly as a nation. Please read the 10 points memo and ask yourself, "Is he a crazy right wing nut or does he make legitimate points that I need to be more concerned about?" If you do feel that he is speaking on things that you feel directly are effecting you and what you see then follow his support of "TakeAmericaBack2010" (www.takeamericaback2010.com). You can follow his blog to...and no, I do not know this gentleman other than to say that I agree with much he has to say.

http://myspiritof76.blogspot.com/2009/09/calling-spade-spade-or-in-this-case.html

Good luck and lets hope that saying of "God bless America" will continue well into our future generations. It's up to you to help make that happen!

Obama, the Olympics and failure!

2009-10-03T01:29:00.000-07:00

As Barack took off on Air Force One there were many, including myself, that thought 'he wouldn't go there unless he knew, with underhand dealings, promises of future endeavors and untoward dealings that Chicago was a sure bet to win the 2016 Games. Many here in America lauded the presidents effort and said that well 'with health care seeming to now be on firm footing showing signs of promise' then the 'be all' president had time to be all to Denmark. In the middle of a huge health care debacle, with the cap and trade travesty looming at our front door, and with the economic numbers indicating strongly that the stimulus isn't working, the international president has the time to travel on AF One for 8 hours and pitch why Chicago should be the IOC choice to host the Olympic games.

Forgetting for a second that we have two wars going on in far away lands, one in which the president said we 'took our eye off the ball' in the war that 'really matters in Afghanistan,' Obama also convened for the first time under any US President, the role of the head of the UN Security Council. So now the man who takes over companies, fires GM's, sets executive level pay, won't meddle in Iran elections but cuts off ties to Honduras who constitutionally had the right to remove their expectant tyrant by law, the man who can't go on TV enough to push his far left health care reform bill, who touts the success of his Stimulus Bill as having saved the US economy from the brink of collapse, who gets involved in the arrest of a black professor by a white cop, and who is so childish as to not grant Chris Wallace a Sunday morning round of interviews while he did 6 others, but now this man has time with all this on his plate to go pitch the 2016 Summer Games in Chicago aside from his trying to be the savior to so many? I mean who could possibly have the time? He wants credit for everything but takes blame for nothing. In fact, he delegated the writing of all his major policy initiatives to Congress and Senate democratic leaders so that his 'hands' aren't on the bills.

You see, by having Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Harry Reid write most of the legislation for Stimulus, Omnibus, Cap and Trade, Health Care and other major economic policy, Obama can say, "hey, they wrote it and when it came to my desk I signed it because so much had gone into the crafting and political capital had been spent by so few to give health care to so many." But if the bill fails then Obama can say that his fingers weren't on it. "It was up to the house and senate to deliver me a bill" he would say. This way only that which he personally touches would turn to gold!

Except for the Chicago Olympic games bid. The man who supposedly the international community reveres and loves just got a right-cross to the left chin in the 1st round of a major heavyweight fight. The liberal pundits out there now say, 'this is not a story. It's no big deal.' However, had the tide been different and Chicago had won, do you honestly believe for one second that these same pundits and Obama himself would not have been taking credit for this? Hell, Michele and Barack in their two separate speeches referred to themselves in the "I" or "Me" context exactly 26 times each in telling their story. Then both of them at the end of their respective speeches said that Chicago winning the Olympic games is not about 'them' its about Chicago. Really? After spending your 5 minutes cramming in reference after reference of yourself in the first or third person you are able to actually hope that the reader believes that your touching speech is about something greater than yourself and is actually about others?

The sad fact of the matter is that the US could have used the 'spirit' of the games to pick itself up off the mat, much like LA did in 1984 and possibly help rejuvenate American society into believing again. But, I suspect, that had we won the bid for the Olympic games, not only would Chicagoans and Illinois have been broke, the taxpayers of the US would have had to pick up a large piece of the pie and the only ones who would have gotten rich and had their pockets lined were the one's using our taxpayer dollars to fly to the country whose citizens wear wooden clog...Valerie Jarrett, Michele Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Mayor Daley and David Axelrod.

Hell, it would have been 2016 and what else are you supposed to do after you have quite possibly ruined the greatest superpower the world has ever seen? You light a torch to go out down in flames. Sleep well Obama's and cronies, so far the international stage is pitching shut out against you and we are fairly deep into the ballgame. Who's your ace in the bullpen and who is the DH who can swing for the fences?

Senate panel blocks GOP's abortion, illegals measures - Washington Times

2009-10-01T10:25:00.001-07:00

Liberal democrats block GOP explicit request to block federal funding for ABORTIONS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS! Who's looking out for you? Be honest with yourself, ask yourself the tough questions and demand answers from your politicians.

Senate panel blocks GOP's abortion, illegals measures - Washington Times

Shared via AddThis

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/at-the-presidents-pleasure/?source=newsletter_opinion_headlines

2009-09-28T15:55:00.001-07:00

'Safe school Czar' promoted homosexual sex and statutory rape! Obama's czars are VERY RADICAL to the ideals of America's majority.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/at-the-presidents-pleasure/?source=newsletter_opinion_headlines

Shared via AddThis

End of America's moment - Washington Times

2009-09-27T12:29:00.001-07:00

Is Obama ending America's reign as the last remaining superpower for Liberal Utopianism? You be the judge.

End of America's moment - Washington Times

Shared via AddThis

Remembering Mary Jo Kopechne!

2009-08-31T18:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/99960/Remembering_Mary_Jo_Kopechne

For all the glorious hoopla that democrats and the Kennedy family are seeking to shine on Ol' Ted and his championing of 'affordable health care for all Americans,' let's not forget that this is also a man with a very dark past. His death calls for remembering a person who today may have been one of the biggest supporters of Obama/Kennedy care had she not been left to die in a drowning car driven by Ted Kennedy. Way to go Ted...fight for your own life but disregard that of an innocent woman catching a ride with you in order to hopefully make her ferry home. And just when you think the Kennedy Camelot clan couldn't sink any lower they usher the Kennedy kids up to speak about their 'uncle's' wish for all Americans to one day have affordable health care. Sadly, the family didn't even try to pretend that the statement was written by a 12 year old. It sounds like it was written by a Kennedy speech writer. And this is Camelot?

Ted Kennedy has passed away, so how about a solemn tribute for the dead, said Henry Rollins in Vanity Fair. Not Kennedy—that's covered—but what about Mary Jo Kopechne? As people mourn Kennedy, it would be "negligent" to forget the young political activist who, at age 28, died trapped in Kennedy's car when he drove it off a Chappaquiddick bridge in 1969.

Fine, said Melissa Lafsky in The Huffington Post, but remember that Mary Jo Kopechne, a former Robert F. Kennedy campaign worker, "wasn't a right-wing talking point"—she was a dedicated civil rights activist who believed in the things Ted Kennedy spent his life fighting for. Nobody can say what she would have thought "about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history"—she might even have thought it was "worth it."

That may be the "most amazingly shallow, myopic, and ultimately self centered sentence ever written," said Rick Moran in American Thinker. Mary Jo Kopechne, no matter what her political beliefs, would have preferred to live a "full life" with family, career, and kids, over being "a catalyst" whose death pushed Kennedy to give up his presidential ambitions and serve in the Senate. "What a despicable thing to write."

No, what's despicable, said Zennie Abraham in the San Francisco Chronicle, is demonizing a man who dedicated his life to serving others over of an accident 40 years ago. Mary Jo Kopechne's death was tragic, but Kennedy had his day in court and took his punishment. (watch Kennedy's speech after Chappaquiddick) So forget what the "Internet trolls" say about Chappaquiddick, and give Kennedy credit for a "great life's work after a mistake."

So, as you can see, even in death the liberal left pundits and editorials still put this man above his fellow man and shower him with praise. These are the same liberal bloggers and media outlets who said of Ronald Reagan at the time of his death that he 'caused Aids and millions of deaths worldwide.' Liberals, when faced with the facts that Kennedy killed an innocent woman choose to only focus on his policy issues while with no shred of evidence, only pure lunacy, they attack a president who happened to simply be the leader of the free world at the time that AIDS was identified and during its initial spread around the globe. Personal responsibility never factor into their logic. At the time, it was unfortunately believed that AIDS was spread through drug use and homosexual intercourse. If you continued to participate in either these actions then its your fault, not President Reagan's. However, staying on the basis of personal responsibility, it appeared that Kennedy had little of it, at least at the time of Kopechne's death. And if one does recall, it was the Reagan's who pioneered the "Just say No" campaign to at least try and curtail drug usage...however, it's up to the individual to adhere to the moral choices that lie in front of them.

Mary Jo Kopechne, let it be known that on the day of Ted Kennedy's death and memorial there were hundreds of thousands of mourners for his life, but there are still hundreds of thousands of people who also remembered that it was at this man's hands that your life was snuffed out at an early age. Regardless of your political affiliation and whatever radicalism may or may not have come from you if you had survived that fateful day, a human life is God's gift and should be valued as such. It appears that Ted Kennedy valued his life over yours, much like he continued to value his life over the rest of ours until his dying day. For it's Kennedy's belief that we should have health care afforded to us by us, but it's not the health care that he, Ted Kennedy, would himself sign up for. People should remember that as they wait and see if their politician will sign them up for something that is not good enough for the politician. Mary Jo may you rest in peace and I can only hope that Ted is now there with you trying like hell to make his peace with you. It's your call if you choose to forgive him and you have my support either way. However, its ultimately up to God and that is where, I believe, Ted is trembling in his boots.

Thomas Sowell

2009-08-27T22:38:00.001-07:00

Thomas Sowell

Shared via AddThis

Eric Holder, Liberals and the CIA

2009-08-25T15:30:00.001-07:00

Eric Holder, either runs the country or just does Obama's bidding while operating under the guise of pretending to be in direct conflict of what his boss, President Barrack Hussein Obama, says to do. However, to absolve himself from any responsibility and being able to claim bi-partisanship, Holder cleverly appoints a 'Special Prosecutor' to oversee the investigation into crimes (independent investigations only turned up 1 in 2004 and he was convicted) committed by the CIA interrogators. So Obama says not to investigate and lets 'look forward and not behind us' but Holder on his own (?) presses forward with the case but then turns it over to someone else? Sounds like pure partisan politics to me. Isn't there an astounding reverberation of hypocrisy here considering the Liberals, the CIA and Valerie Plame. Lest you forget:

"Once upon a time, Valerie Plame Wilson was a hero to liberals everywhere, a covert CIA operative whose cover was blown by a vindictive Bush administration out to ruin its critics. Today, liberals within government and without are betraying covert CIA operatives as if it were the very essence of virtue. Consistency, principled or foolish, has never been a hobgoblin of the liberal mind." (Bret Stephens writing in the WSJ)

"There is nothing more important than protecting the identities of CIA officers. So I need everybody to be clear: We will protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your missions."

—Barack Obama at CIA headquarters, April 2009.

So now that Pelosi has called the CIA liars, despite myriad documents totally dispelling that statement, and Obama said that the identities of the interrogators and legality of what they did during EIT's would not be made public nor see prosecution, why is that Holder who works FOR OBAMA decides to overrule his boss and maybe seek criminal prosecution? Liberals will tell you that the Justice Department works completely independently of the White House. Yet, doesn't the White House nominate the AG? Liberals respond, 'well, the president also nominates supreme court justices.' True, but those are LIFETIME appointees. In politics there is a very large difference between term and lifetime appointments.

Also, why won't the White House or Justice Department now release the memo's that show the plethora of attacks that were in planning stages or imminent that were thwarted by these EIT's so that we can see for ourselves how many lives were saved by such techniques? The 'holier than thou' crowd (Pelosi included) likes to stress that laws were broken and the constitution shredded by EIT's. What laws? And the last thing that liberals need to be doing now is speaking of how Bush shredded the constitution. Look in the Obama transparent mirror before you throw stones. When highly regarded legal teams are assembled and interpret the law as it is written and Justice Dept, CIA and Congress signs off on them as what should be done 'to save American lives' then why Monday morning quarterback only when its politically expedient for you to do so? Liberals didn't seem to have a problem in 2004 or even in 2006 when these cases were brought up and discussed. In fact, these same instances that Holder has chosen to investigate (AGAIN) have already been vetted and it turned up one criminal act and that person was punished and sentenced to a jail term. Is Panetta really standing up for his operatives? Do you really think this strengthens America's security?

Eric Holder is playing Obama's politics deflecting attention away from Obamacare. Liberals are making themselves look like asses when they blame everything on Bush and call the CIA liars. In fact, water boarding was not voted on as 'illegal' in the House and Senate until early 2008. Bush vetoed it and the House did not have the 2/3 vote to override the veto. This means that waterboarding along with other EIT's were never considered 'illegal' and so therefore how can you prosecute something that is not 'illegal'? Now, the CIA interrogators, whether under republican or democratic president, when asked to interrogate a prisoner will do so with major concern as to whether or not the techniques they use will be second guessed when 'politics of the day' sweep in on a 'mandate' of 'change'. This weakens our nation, lowers our defenses and puts our people at risk. But hell, as long as the terrorists aren't touched but instead are subjected to simple, pointed questions, then what do we have to fear, right? I am sure they will buckle under the pressure. Can we show them a naked picture of Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton? That is sure to make them buckle...but then, that is real torture to a Muslim!

A hypothetical question (liberals love to do it on so many issues so lets have some fun playing their game). To save your family from certain death, an interrogator places a drill beside a kidnapper and murderer's head, pulls the trigger, and pretends that he is going to push it through the man's eyeball (but never does); meanwhile the man begins to cry like a baby about the details of where your family is and who has them (even giving up other acts he has partaken in during his past). Now, once your family is found safe and you have hugged and kissed your wife and your kids is it wise to ask that the interrogator be investigated as to whether he broke the law? Let me then ask, if he is found innocent the first time, is it wise to ask again even if it's a liberal democrat now asking?

As everyone with half a brain knows, the New York Times (losing tons of subscribers) does the liberals and ACLU/Moveon.org's of the worlds bidding by pushing the liberal agenda. It's clear why they would release the names of CIA interrogators but not captured journalists abroad, right? They claim 'privacy rights' for captured journalists but with CIA interrogators the 'public has a right to know.' Interesting that those out gathering news should be kept secret but those keeping America safe from attackers hell bent on killing us should be exposed. Identifying an interrogator, against the wishes of himself and the CIA, is worse than identifying a journalist already in captivity. But to the Times, it lent credibility to their story. Yeah, right!

As Americans awaken to the fact that 'change' never happened, partisan politics are even more out of control now than before and we are finally paying attention to what is going on in DC is it any wonder that America seems to have moved center right? The evidence is in the following: 1) the nations liberal newspapers are losing scores of subscribers while the Wall Street Journal (generally conservative with great Op-Ed pieces) was the only top 20 of nations newspapers to actually gain subscribers, 2) the evening cable prime-time news slots are dominated by Fox news (sometimes winning against all others combined) while MSNBC, CNN and CNBC are losing viewership in droves, 3) liberal talk radio ratings are so low that even Al Franken, who could win a US senator seat but couldn't carry enough audience to stay on the air with his progressive left wing rants, and 4) the scores of 'grassroots' protesters showing up at town hall meetings that still carry larger numbers than the Moveon.org and liberal funded proponents of Obamacare. Liberals have played their trump cards and fortunately for the rest of the rational and logical common sense American thinkers, it appears their hand should have been folded a long time ago. An old wiseman, Kenny Rogers, once said, "You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. You never count your money when your sitting it the table. There will be time enough for counting when the dealing's done."

It seems the democrats just don't know how to play a stacked hand. They control the house, the senate and the presidency. Yet playing politics with the American people will be their downfall. The liberal madness in DC just proves one major point that both party's are guilty of but should again learn. If you are drunk on power it will turn into your kryptonite. Liberals didn't fold when they could have, they should have known to walk away and they counted their money too soon. Instead, they are left to hold their sucker bet hands and when the dealings done they won't have any money left to count and the people of America will run them out of town. Keep it up, good card players love to play at a table with suckers. It's "Easy Money!"

"We are God's partners"

2009-08-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

Speaking in front of a group of Rabbi's this past week while trying to rally support from religious leaders to push his 'moral objective' of government run health care Obama made the following statement: "We are God's partners in matters of life and death." This is the same Obama who told Rick Warren that when asked the point when a human embryo achieves personhood, Obama said that the question is “above my pay grade.” As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama argued against a law requiring a second doctor be called to provide care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion. Obama argued that this would only make it harder for a woman to choose abortions, saying it was “…really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the decision to induce labor and perform an abortion.” This is also the same president who had the Crucifix covered up while giving a speech at Georgetown University, a Roman Catholic University.

So Obama says "we are God's partners in matters of life and death" but doesn't seem to make the "pay grade" to determine when life begins and once argued against a doctor administering care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion? Does this seem odd to you? There is One who knows when life begins and when life is going to end...God! Obama is not God but Newsweek columnist Evan Thomas seems to think so when he said, "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

"I thought the use of religion in order to convince the people to follow anything political was prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings," said Christians Reviving America's Values president Don Swarthout in a statement. "Now the President of the United States is using religion to convince people to follow his political position."

He continued: "As a Pastor I may understand the Bible a little better than the average person. Apparently, the President thinks the Bible says government should help the poor instead of the Bible calling upon Christians to give to the poor...The truth is our very salvation may depend upon helping those in need. However, there is no place in the Bible which tells us that the government is supposed to do these things for us."

As a Christian I have some words of advice for Mr. Obama. We are not God's partners. We are his children. God may have made us in His image but he did not grant us the insight into His complex creation of human existence and the universe's miraculous beginnings. He granted us the authority over earth's abundance and to administer its growth and evolutionary process until He returns. For Obama to say "we are Gods partners" to me demonstrates two very important aspects on the way he chooses to 'rule' America. First, it proves that he is a major megalomaniac; and second, he will 'use' God when it is politically expedient for him to do so. BHO had to run away from being labeled a Muslim and then tried feverishly to demonstrate to America that he was Christian. But then he ran away from Reverend Wright, his pastor of 20 years, when the seas got rough. So clearly one can see that Obama uses God for political expedience and in fact has done so more often than George Bush did in 8 years (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/09/politics/politico/main5074470.shtml). Although, to Bush's credit, he never denied God in any political forum or speech. However, Obama is using God to try and help his 'ends justify the means' argument on the government take over of health care. Obama had reinstated the 'Your Life, Your Choices' manual for our military veterans, which is a tip of the hand in how Obamacare will help you determine your termination from this existence.

Hypocritcal? Obama proclaims to the Muslim world that "America is NOT a Christian nation" but yet he uses God when trying to pass his main political agenda issue. Well, if we are not a Christian nation then I doubt God likes being used by the denier as a catalyst for his politics. Obama will wake up one day feeling naked...just like Adam and Eve did when they tempted God. It's a lonely world in that place. He should hope Waxman Markey passes so he can have some plants and leaves to use for cover.

'We the people'...the Sleeping Giant awakes!

2009-08-07T18:16:00.000-07:00

November 4, 2008 happened and to the 67 million voters of Barrack Hussein Obama all was right with the world. Yep, to them the 'Evil one' that in their minds was George W. Bush was finally finished breaking all the priceless China, stealing the sterling silver flatware, and defacing the white house busts with sharpie mustaches and triangular shaped eyebrows. Oh, thank God (or whoever you worship, if anyone at all) the evil one with horns and a tail was to be replaced with someone so trustworthy, so flawless and of such high moral clarity that the nation would be reunited again and joined in a 'have a Coke and smile' Utopia that would heal our deep wounds.

Eight months into the formation of this Utopia we have begun to realize that there were serious flaws in paradise. Paradise is still being constructed, I guess, which to most should be extremely sobering and frightening. If we deconstruct the months since Utopia was created on January 20th, 2009, what is being learned is that the foundation seems built on sand, its erect pillars thin of support, its roof lacking adequate coverage and the amenity pool substandard on appeal. If this remains then the house will certainly collapse. And if it does, the "I told you so" voices will resonate in the ears of the snookered and the drum will beat louder. The evil empire that preceded Utopia of course had its flaws, without question, but that evil dictator that ruled for 8 years didn't threaten its own citizens and talk down to the elite and proletariat alike if you disagreed with its policies. Hell, if that was the case then 67% (approval rating when the evil one left office was 33%) of the population would have been imprisoned or quarantined...for breaking what law I have no idea.

But, in this new paradise, the Utopian King and his surrounding lords of the manor have taken to attacking its citizens for just that, disagreement. They demonize those who rule with them but who are of a different belief on ideology. But this was to be paradise right? Weren't we all told that the new King would bring everyone together and put aside the childish ways that had consumed the land on which the evil empire once stood? It was to be a new day, a new kingdom ruled with equality and to be defined as a love generation. Who wouldn't want that right?

Instead, the Utopian kingdom has been more defined as 'Rule by absolutes' and 'directives' as opposed to forums and debates that then construct law for the 'greater good' and equal representation under the law. No, this kingdom now defines the 'greater good' as only those who need assistance (poor) but that in most cases refuse to be gracious to those who actually provide for the service. The poor don't take time to 'thank' the hard working class who provide them the service, no, instead they ask, 'shouldn't I receive more?' The king then repeatedly demonizes those who provide jobs/services, own land, titles and other luxuries and now wishes to choose how much land, title and luxuries they can own. Damn the fact that the same citizens who own these luxuries and pay proportionately more for the services that are provided to the proletariat also employ the same proletariat. The king that now oversees the kingdom wishes to try and provide all goods and services to the proletariat at the expense of their employers, thereby trying to lift the oppressed up and depress those who possess the means of production and have wealth creation ability. In doing so, what the whole of this kingdom's citizens are now realizing is that when those who are willing to work and take initiative to better themselves have less and that the possessions they had are now given to those who don't care to work or make the choices to better themselves that you create class warfare, mediocrity and less initiative. In other words, you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. What you give to one must first be taken from another. Any employer with a solid business plan will succeed when it understands it cannot be all things to all people. You find your target audience and you devise how to best provide for that specific group.

But in Utopia, the king and the lords try to be all things to all people. In order to try and be all things to all people the king promotes 1) higher taxes on higher income earners to produce more revenues that he can then give as he sees fit to those less fortunate, 2) more spending at the kingdom level that will increase deficits and ultimately create a majority ownership of those debts by foreign nations with whom it trades and which are relied upon to produce the Utopia's goods, 3) hoarding the dollars that the kingdom is printing at record pace to try to stave off inflation, 4) what services are managed and controlled by the kingdom and who gets what and who actually pays for said services, 5) looting of the treasury by a supposedly independent and nonpolitical federal bank, 6) dividing power between those of his ideology against those of an opposing ideology, and 7) controlling the debate and crushing dissent of its citizens if its views differ from the kingdoms views, especially if the dissent is of how the previous 6 items listed should be managed, dissolved or altered.

It is now becoming more evident that when this Utopia is compared to previous great empires and why they fell its very easy to see the correlation. The main reasons for the fall of the Roman empire were a religion began to take away power from central government, its weakening of the military due to improper training, drastic inflation of silver (debasing its currency made up mostly of silver), poor management of the economy, a kind of feudalism (whereby a person with land, a possession, would sell it to a lord and thereby himself into slavery, since slaves didn't have to pay tax and freedom from taxes was more desirable than personal liberty), hoarding of gold bullion by its citizens, a gross imbalance in trade deficit and the looting of its treasury. Essentially, it ran out of money and was weak militarily. The great British empire collapsed as it transitioned into a commonwealth but could not afford the expense of defending and administering its large population (at the time 1/4 of the worlds population) and it lost revenue sources from the colonies that they used to control such as India, America, Iraq, etc., demanded its independence. It was also heavily in debt to the US after WWII, which capitalized on its position of banker and forced the UK to abandon the empire by threat of economic collapse otherwise. This was so that vast markets were opened to American companies and to weaken the UK in general.

Hopefully, you can see from the above examples of the fall of what many revere as the two greatest empires (prior to America's superpower reign) that our Utopia is ironically on the same path to collapse. If you do not grasp the similarities let me try to help you out. Our government mismanages everything it tries to control (Amtrak, postal service, social security/medicare, and education are just a few shining examples of efficiency and proficiency and is there a shred of logic to believe all that will change under this administration), and it is letting religious views (Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc.) take away its power to govern by appeasing the minority religions in America at the expense of the religious majority's views. Further, its cutting funding for its military gradually over time thereby weakening it and it now has close to 60% of the population who no longer have any tax liability to the federal or state governments. Deficits are expanding at lightning fast speeds, its trade imbalances are grossly disproportional, it ultimately will debase its fiat currency through rampant inflation and it will inevitably have to raise taxes on all its citizens in order to try and pay for all the services it has promised its citizens. And I haven't even mentioned that 1) foreign nations own most of our debt thereby threatening (like America did to the UK) economic collapse if we don't play by their rules, 2) the fact that we are out of money ($1.8 trillion deficit means our expenses far outweigh our revenues) and our national debt is over $11.6 trillion (this means we are borrowing funds from the future to unfortunately consume today), and 3) the Utopia's citizens have learned a valuable lesson from the lifestyle of the last couple of decades, that it spent too much and saved too little. You now see the savings rate (see Rome's citizens hoarding gold) at near all time high's while many financial advisors are also trumpeting owning gold.

In other words, the Utopia that the majority on November 4th believed they were getting has unfortunately become a dispirited Dystopia in 8 very short (but long) months. The citizens are no longer finding the Utopia to be the triumphant Shangri-La it was assured it would inherit if this king was elected to govern. In fact, if anything this king assumed the evil empire's road map, expanded it three fold and then also is wanting to have its agenda adopted, but not later down the road. Instead it wants it now because time can't wait. Just because one ideological party won a 'mandate' that doesn't mean it can just jam through whatever it pleases based on what happened on election day. We the people are growing restless and while we have been lured to sleep with the king's elixir, the effects of it are wearing off and the sleeping giant is awakened. Hell hath no fury like a people scorned!

So we should once again recall the words our forefathers chose to begin our governing document: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Cap and Trade - Take action

2009-06-25T16:53:00.000-07:00

Please click on the link and take action to stop this tax increase. Stop our government from passing legislation in a hurry when there is no need to speed things through. This is a HUGE TAX INCREASE yet Pelosi and Obama and Waxman want to cram this through without a debate!!!!

http://capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=13628131

Iranian Muslims ask - Where has Obama gone?

2009-06-19T09:17:00.000-07:00

This from a Muslim blogsite written here by American Muslims. You can read the full article at (http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/). While Obama was releasing internet video speeches just a few short months ago to the Iranian Islamic Republic where he stressed that America is not at war with them and that he will support the people of Iran in their unyielding desire to live free from totalitarian regimes, where is his actions based on those words? It appears that the Iranians are beginning to learn what we Americans already know...Obama says one thing but does the exact opposite. He said on Tuesday that there is no difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad. Well, apparently the Iranian people disagree strongly with you Mr. President.

This from Jonah Goldberg at muslimsagainstsharia.blogs

pot.com:
"During the campaign you mocked those who belittled your rhetoric as "just words." Well, what you've offered so far is less than just words. You've put a fresh coat of whitewash on Iran's sham "democracy." On Monday, you proclaimed yourself "troubled" by the events in Iran, before hinting that you'd negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no matter what an official investigation into his "landslide" victory found. (Would you trust Mafia internal audits, too?)"

Reportedly, you are biding your time, waiting to see what happens, as if it is a great mystery. Your campaign lived and breathed YouTube. Check it now, check it often. You and your team promised "soft power" and "smart power." How about moral power? Because by not clearly picking a side, it appears you have chosen the wrong side.

In the 1990s, liberals championed "nation building," and many conservatives chuckled at the naivete of it. Then came Iraq, and Republicans out of necessity embraced what liberals once believed out of conviction. The result? Liberals ran from their principles, found their inner Kissingers and championed a cold realism whose chill emanated from the corpse of their ideals.

Labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO, once battled tyranny abroad on the grounds that workers everywhere need democracy. Today, the president turns a blind eye to the independent labor movement in Iran, and the unions and Democrats spend their time trying to figure out how to eliminate the secret ballot in the American workplace.

So far, "hope and change" has meant spending trillions we do not have on expanded government we do not need. Meanwhile, the huddled masses of Iranians yearning to breathe free think hope and change means something more. But the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished.

Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong. Stop voting "present" on democracy.
------------------------------

Will Obama ever do what he says he will do? Apparently the world is beginning to learn what we unfortunately witness every day. Whether it be taxes, GM, banks, health care, Gitmo, torture, Iraq, etc., he has done the exact opposite of what he said he would do during his campaign, his acceptance speech and daily to the media. Poor Iranians are going to be left like the Iraqi's in 1993 when Bush Sr. left them high and dry. They dissidents were crushed, their faimlies slaughtered and they lived in fear of the regime for the next 16 years. If this happens to Iran you can guarantee that this event will be their 'rally against America' and the Jihad recruiting tool that Al-Qaeda has so desperately been needing. Is this what Obama thinks is good for Americans? It's complicated I know, but I have not heard one person on Fox, CNN or even MSNBC say that we shouldn't help the Iranians out at this very crucial time. To stay silent is to give credibility to Ahmadinejad, the Supreme Leader and to the mullah's. Obama looks extremely weak right now as he is being rabbit punched by North Korea, Russia and now Iran. So much for peaceful wishes of talks with your enemies changing the global landscape. Let's hope and pray that this situation does not result in calamitous consequences for the Iranian people and ultimately the people of Israel, the Middle East, Europe and America. We are at the witching hour domestically and globally. So many people pinned their 'Hope' on man with absolutely no leadership to 'Change' the way the world sees America and the way America sees America. So far we are left with a different kind of hope because the only change we have seen is that America and the world now sees how Chicago politics can change the leadership landscape very quickly.

God bless everyone and I pray for the leadership of this country that we will stand up against tyranny and fight for freedom.

Costa Rica Rendition...

2009-06-09T14:39:00.000-07:00

For those of you blessed enough to have been to Costa Rica, you know its a lovely country, with very nice people who are passionate about their futbol, their Imperial, their surf and Pura Vida. So, why on earth would NBC want to air a program titled, "I'm a celebrity...get me out of here" when is filmed in such a beautiful paradise. Having probably answered that question, you are now following with a "Why on earth are you watching such a pathetic reality TV show of old has been actors, models, comedians and Hill's stars, when you could be doing something so much more productive with your life?" This is a very fair question and I will respond in the following manner.

While my normal tv time recently has been centered around the NBA playoffs, Seinfeld reruns, Bachelorette (until my buddy was booted from the show after week 2), Fox News for fair and balanced news coverage and MSNBC for the leftist slant on all things anti-bush/conservative, I did find some time to witness "I'm a celebrity...get me out of here." Names like Lou Diamond Phillips (has he done anything since La Bamba), John Salley (last played in NBA in 2002 I think), Torrie Wilson (WWF has women wrestlers), Janice Dickenson (wasn't she just in rehab still), Sanje from American Idol fame, and some couple named Heidi and Spencer grace the program with their elegance and style (sense the sarcasm there). The point of the show is to put these people in teams and see who can't hack it. They then get eliminated.

Despite being in a controlled environment in Costa Rica one of the 'challenges' of the bottom 2 was to have to unlock yourself from 5 masterlocks with chains wrapped around you while you were in a 8 ft' high square tank. The catch was that you had to unlock the locks from a keychain that had a dozen or so keys on it and that's not all. The tank would slowly fill with water. But wait, while it filled with water things like frogs, insects and snakes were put through contraptions around the person's ankles. What I witnessed was poor Janice Dickenson struggling to get the keys to fit in the locks while a look of sheer terror remained permanently on her face the entire time she was in that tank. The gasps, screams and breathlessness that she experienced to her was torture. Despite her knowing that she would not drown, knowing that the snakes were not poisonous nor was there anything being placed in the tank that could do any long term physical harm she went nuts. To her this torture was hell.

Well, for all the stink that was in the press several weeks ago about enhanced interrogation techniques and how Bush is an evil person then you should have seen real torture to the human spirit in the episode I watched (it was torture for me to watch it let alone how Janice and Sanje must have felt). Placing someone who willingly goes into a tank to win a contest but experiences some not so comfortable things is not torture. Look, to me, putting a bra on someone's head and making them pose on all 4's with a dog collar and leash around one's neck isn't torture. Is it hurtful to your dignity, of course. But its better than watching Daniel Pearl have his head chopped off. Now that's torture...depending on your view of things, of course. I mention all of this because it brings me to the 'torture' memo's released by Obama that he still has gotten away with in the MSM for not releasing the full details like Cheney and others have requested him to do. As well as all the hoopla that the 'evil one,' George W. Bush, has had to hear from the far left lunes who claim human rights were violated in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. Waterboarding may be torture but we waterboard many in our military, according to army training manuals and CIA intelligence statements. While waterboarding may or may not be torture what I can attest to is that if I knew that there was a man in this country or anywhere in the world that was to harm my neighbors family (innocent and with children) I would waterboard and torture the hell out of them. Why? Because human life is sacred to me and according to the God that Christians follow (radical Islam seems to follow a god who suggests killing all non-believers). If the person that has information that can save a human life doesn't value the life he is about to help take then why should I care about his mental anguish or his physical pain so long as I maintain the sanctity of his life's existence? God brings life to existence and it should be left to God to terminate that existence. Asking this person questions like, "So are you going to tell me what you know?" aren't going to get you answers. I apologize to those of you who think that you break a person by asking them questions. That's how you get confessions and evidence not information about attacks. Even Obama reserved the right, just like Bush did, to use enhanced interrogation techniques when he signed into law the banning of enhanced interrogation techniques (read the fine print, again what this man says in public and what he does are two totally different things) because he knows that if pouring a bucket of water over someone's face who is lying on their back at a 33 degree angle will save American lives then he must retain that right. Imagine the outrage American's would have had against Bush if in the months after 9/11 they had not waterboarded KSM who had information on an impending attack against Los Angeles. If an attack happened with thousands of more Americans dead in Bunker Hill and people said "the mastermind was in your custody and all you did was talk to him and just ask him questions about what he knows. Of course he is not going to just freely give up the information." It's simple, the ACLU and the moveon.org's and those of our elected government placed in their power seat due to organizations like these care about everyone's rights but yours 100% of the time. They always care for the little guy until it does not personally benefit them to do so.

When will America wake up and realize that those who want to take your life do not care about their own life or else they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice themselves to pilot planes into buildings, strap suicide bombs on expectant mothers and detonate roadside bombs that will also kill their own people.

While Janice Dickenson experienced what to her was torture, I caution anyone to watch the tape of Daniel Pearl being beheaded. Now come here to UCLA and ask his parents if what they and their son experienced was torture? As you are walking away from that conversation then ask yourself, "if that was my son who was beheaded would I torture some muslim or any extremist who had information that would save someone else's child from the same fate?" If you answer no, then I hope you rest peacefully knowing that you were just as bad as the terrorist who took the life as you were an accomplice to it. You can rest easy now.

All Hail the King has arrived!

2009-06-03T15:42:00.000-07:00

These are images of B.H.O. being used in the Muslim world as Obama prepares to arrive there. Is it getting just a little bit scary that this man is 'worshiped' by at least the 65 million people in America who voted for him, millions in Europe, Central and South America as well as throughout the Middle East and Africa, and many believe that this man can do no wrong? As the world prepares for his speech to the muslim nation of Egypt he is being compared to the greatest Pharaoh, King Tutankhamon.

This is the same man who had the crucifix covered up at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, when giving a speech there back in April. Granted he requested that ALL religious relics be covered so as to not appear to promote a single religion. Meanwhile, when he gave a previous speech as a Senator at Georgetown he did not make any such request. So what has happened in the past 2 years? It's not just the media who lay down for Obama but the most prestigious Catholic universities in the U.S. are now abandoning their ideals and beliefs in order to get close enough to touch Obama's cloak.

In Las Vegas, a teacher puts up a large image of Obama next to the American flag as the kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance (where is the ACLU on this). In Toledo, Ohio, in one K-12 school, kids are being made to either write letters to Obama or to write down 5 facts and opinions of Obama. Even in Toronto, Canada they have their own 'Obama Curriculum' where Obama themed music is played and children in that school have to complete 'Obama video worksheets' while learning about the presidents life (not policies or party) and his rise to presidency.

So where does the idol worship stop? Try to address this topic with one of your liberal friends who voted for and still supports Obama. To prepare you, the response will be smug with a little laughter and then it will be dismissed as no big deal. Keep in mind, these were the same people that hated the 'religious right' for their idolotary of Bush while he was president. These are also the same people who also compared Bush to Hitler. They also loved sending as much anti-Bush cartoons and stories around, that many of us who were Bush supporters actually laughed at because we can be self-depricating. Obama and many of his followers cannot laugh at themselves and they do not find the Obama cartoons (now showing up in inboxes around the world) remotely funny. To see how Obama does poke fun at himself one only has to listen to his correspondents dinner speech. His general comedic wit (and his speech writers who know him very well) is directed to others close to him, Biden, Emanuel, Axelrod to name a few. When he does make fun of himself one of his jibes was "Finally, I believe that my next hundred days will be so successful I will be able to complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest." Surely this man thinks he is godlike.

So it shouldn't be ironic that his followers turn a blind eye to his arrogance and rhetoric. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king! In this case, the one eyed man is Obama but he is in no way a king. But don't tell Barack Hussein Obama.

Fast track passing those bills, we will figure out how to pay later!

2009-06-02T15:12:00.000-07:00

While Obama's popularity remains relatively high (plus 60% although the gap between approval and disapproval has narrowed from +56% at its peak to now +28%) the popularity of his policy agenda is losing steam fast. So what does Obama instruct Congress & Senate to do as fast as possible. Get a health care and climate bill on his desk before the summer break. Why? Because everyone old enough to vote or who is subject to paying federal income taxes understands that the economy is teetering with the onslaught of higher interest rates or hyperinflation just over the horizon. So, don't let the fact that, as Obama recently said that "America is already out of money" get in the way of spending more money on an unproven science (more scientist dissenters of manmade global warming now than supporters) and a tried and true failure across all other socialist economies who dole out free health care. But we are America, surely we won't fail at these experiments. Impossible!

Your taxes will certainly be increased to pay for this...but wait, in the recent health care bill currently moving forward the issue of how to pay for it is amazingly NOT IN THE BILL! I guess we will just figure it out as we go along. We can trust our government to do the right thing right? I mean look at how well they managed TARP and are so efficiently handling the Stimulus monies. Whew, we are in good hands, thank God. {Oh, sorry, I need to be more careful in thanking God aloud since home bible studies are now being shut down for worshiping the Savior as our president canceled and chose not to endorse the National Day of Prayer (in existence by every other president since Truman and made permanent by Reagan) but does go out of his way to proclaim June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."}

I digress...Wow, our government officials really do think we are dumb doesn't it? Oh, I guess we are that stupid. We voted for these bums and we elected a non-leader with little to no experience of balancing anything but maybe a spinning basketball on his index finger to shepherd the greatest nation on the planet into tomorrow's destiny. How bright our future must be with the inmates running the asylum that so long as the tax rebates, tax credits and other free government handouts continue to flow most of us won't hold them accountable ?

Dismantling GM - overseen by 31 yr old Poly Sci grad!

2009-06-02T13:46:00.000-07:00

A Romanian man, named Ion Mihai Pacepa, who was the so-called 'Car Czar' wrote a very eloquent article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124381203054570397.html) in the Monday, June 1, edition of the WSJ about when he was commissioned by then dictator Ceausescu to run the car industry in Romania. His previous job? The head of the Romanian industrial espionage program. With no experience running a company, nor having never worked in the auto industry, his job was to build a car that was "Good enough for the idiots," Ceausescu decided. While 3 western companies (doesn't say whom) competed for the project of a 'model' car, it was French owned Renault who won the license. The first car assembled was "Too luxurious for the idiots," Ceausescu decreed and immediately had the radio, the right side mirror and backseat heating dropped (it gets darn cold in Romania in the winter). Other "unnecessary luxuries" were eliminated by bureaucrats and the worker's union that was running the factory. The final car, named Dacia, that hit the market was the 'stripped-down version of the stripped down version of the Renault 12.' Ceausescu approved that this car was "Perfect for the idiots." No Dacia car was ever sold in the U.S. and sales were abysmal in Romania. Undaunted, Ceausescu tasked Pacepa to build yet another car as he was determined to have Romanian cars on the roads in the country and abroad. The new car was named Oltcit and designed by Citroen. Ceausescu who didn't know how to drive a car let alone run an auto industry demanded that the components for the Oltcit be manufactured in the 166 plants throughout Romania. Let's just say, that it would prove an impossible task and the project lost billions of $$.

Other examples that Pacepa lays out was the Trabant. The East German govt designed this car and 'what rolled off the assembly line was a kind of horseless carriage that roared like a lawn mower and polluted the air worse than a whole city block of big Western cars.' Its production was stopped, labeled an embarrasment, and now the cars that are piled high in junkyards cannot be recycled because burning the 'plastic covered cardboard bodies would release poisonous dioxins.'

Let's not forget how unbelievably unreliable the Jaguar was when the British Govt produced the car. When Ford bought the nationalized British car maker in 1988he is quoted as saying, "Apart from some Russian factories in Gorky, Jaguars were the worst."

Ah, the successes of government run auto makers. Our fate, of course, will be dramatically different because Obama would never appoint someone to oversee the auto-industry that has no experience running an auto-manufacturer, right? Ah, think again fools!

Fast-forward to present day America, where a 31-year old who has not yet graduated from Yale Law School will now rewrite American capitalism and be tasked with dismantling General Motors (aka Government Motors). Here is his bio according to wikipedia: Brian Deese works at the National Economic Council and is special assistant to the president for economic policy. Previously, he served as a member of the Economic Policy Working Group for the Obama-Biden transition.^[1] He emerged as "one of the most influential voices" in the Obama Administration relative to the auto industry, and specifically the Chrysler and GM workouts.^[2] He has appeared in videos posted on change.gov by the transition team.^[3] Before joining the transition team, he was deputy economic policy director for the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign^[4] and, before that, for Gene Sperling in the 2008 Clinton campaign.^[2] He graduated from Middlebury College in 2000 with a degree in Political Science^[5] and is now on leave from Yale Law School.^[6] Previously, he was a senior policy analyst for economic policy at the Center for American Progress.^[7] Brian also worked as a research assistant at the Center for Global Development^[8], hired by founder Nancy Birdsall, according to The New York Times,^[2], where he co-authored the book Delivering on Debt Relief.

Keep in mind that Center for American Progress is one of the most far left organizations in the country, run by John Podesta. How does a person who graduated with a degree in Poly Sci, is on leave from Yale Law School, did not major or specialize in economics, and never run a company, let alone worked in the auto industry get the position of overseeing the collapse and 'rebuild' of the largest car manufacturer in the world? Politics maybe?

For the American taxpayer to get its money back, the smaller version of GM must achieve a market capitalization of $80 billion so that we get back our $50 billion. At GM's value peak in 2000, its market cap was $56 billion. So we must now take a smaller version of the original leading car manufacturer on the planet, and grow its market cap by more than 60% in order for you and I to get the return of our money. Does anyone really believe that this is going to happen? Can someone explain this to me?

This is mind blowing! If you can't see the politics involved here and that this project to be overseen by someone who has absolutely no idea what he is doing is doomed to fail, then I don't know how more obvious you need it to be. Funny that the 'negotiated' labor agreement with the UAW is set to be renegotiated in 2 years by an Obama administration running for re-election and will need to weigh keeping Big Labor happy versus the return of the taxpayer-shareholders money. Guess who will win that White House debate? Best of luck Detroit, your fate lies in the hands of a 31 year old graduate from Middlebury College, which the college to its credit has a very good reputation with its recognized strengths being Liberal and Environmental Studies along with Activism. Activism is synonymous with protest and dissent. Trust me, if GM fails AGAIN, there will be plenty of protest and dissent. And that is a task Deese should be very familiar with.

Stimulus and Highway Trust Fund

2009-06-02T13:34:00.001-07:00

It was only 4 short months ago that the US Govt passed the $787 billion stimulus bill with the one of the primary focuses being on infrastructure building, repair and jobs. However, it was just announced today that the Highway Trust Fund is $8-$10 billion short on current in progress works according to CA Senator, Barbara Boxer who chairs the Environmental and Public Works Committee. What does she propose to make up the shortfall? You guessed it, raising the gasoline tax which will be a tax on ALL AMERICANS who use gasoline.

How can we be short $8 - $10 billion on infrastructure when the stimulus bill includes $47 billion for transportation projects, including $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repairs? Imagine that, government officials wanting to raise taxes because they come up short on gas tax revenues (2 years in a row) to fund transportation projects yet just passed a bill to spend money on TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. $47 billion is apparently not enough!

What are we missing here as US citizens? Maybe miscalculated oversight on the job, overallocation of funds, inefficiency of completion, etc. So this is what we continue to get when the government oversees the US economy. We are all doomed...

Home Bible Study shut down by San Diego County!

2009-05-29T08:56:00.001-07:00

Now, I know we are in a lot of trouble here in California where we, like the great ol' USA, has spent and continues to spend more than it takes in. So our government feels that its better to raise fines, taxes and everything else that involves money flowing to the capital versus cutting spending like the rest of us responsible human beings do. However, to now prey on religious worship? This has just gotten out of hand. Again, like I have said many, many times in the famous words of the prescient Ronald Reagan, "So goes California, so goes the United States of America." So far he has been spot on in every aspect. So it shouldn't surprise you if the below story ends up taking place across this once great nation.

A pastor and his wife have been ordered to pay hefty fines and purchase a 'Major Use Permit' if they continue to have bible study in their home. The war on Christianity continues, meanwhile those of Islamic faith get taxpayer funded dollars to pray in school and have foot bath's available for them at a major Michigan university. Ten Commandments have been ripped out of state or federally owned buildings. Christians cannot have dedicated prayer time in schools like Muslim's. What's next? The World Net Daily article is attached below for your review.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98895http:

Nazi Germany and Communist Russia also began forcing people out of their homes who held religious worship. Are we on that path? I sure hope not but with today's continued assault on God and Christianity one has to wonder whether or not this country will have its First Amendment rights abolished and have its Constitution re-written. Or will you demand that Christians be withheld from injustice like this and alert your government officials that this cannot continue. The Constitution's 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What San Diego has done has violated the most coveted of our freedoms. Our forefathers fled Britain and Europe for this very reason, religious persecution.

Obama and car Czar targets dealers who donated to GOP

2009-05-28T11:19:00.000-07:00

A World Net Daily article is below that demonstrates that many PROFITABLE dealerships are being closed. Why you ask? Don't most companies retain profitable divisions and cut where they constantly lose money? Well, common sense would lead you to believe that. However, the way Obama runs things is drastically different than common sense. Remember, Obama has never run anything before taking over the largest economic superpower in the history of the planet. So it shouldn't surprise you that the engines (literally) that run the economy are being run into the ground. I am sure this makes all those who supported Obama very proud of their annointed leadership. Those of us who understand how business runs, and run our own businesses in fact, see things quite differently. Do you really think Obama is looking out for you and acting in your best interest? Did Bush bail out Enron, Worldcom, Kmart and other major employers and important parts of the economy back when republicans had control of DC? Nope! It wasn't until 2008 (dems in control pushing socialist agenda) that bailouts flowed to any failing company. The spicket is full throttle now so expect the travesty to continue especially with a new imperialistic leader in the white house.

OBAMANOMICS
Find out which GOP donors getting Chrysler's ax Obama receives only $450 in entire inventory of political contributions
-----------------------------...
Posted: May 27, 2009
7:57 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WND reviewed the list of Chrysler's 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership owners making contributions in the recent election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates.

The following dealers are scheduled to lose their Chrysler franchise designation. Based on available records and databases, each of them contributed to political campaigns during the 2008 election.

Many of the dealers who donated to Republican campaigns last year also contributed additional thousands to George W. Bush's presidential 2004 campaign and to campaigns to elect GOP representatives. Those donations are not included in this list.

The listed franchise owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP in the recent election while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.

Of all political contributions from dealers on the list of closing facilities, President Obama received a combined total of only $450 toward his election.

For a full list of the contributors and dealerships that are being closed down please read the full article at: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99328

Henry Waxman - author of Cap and Trade bill

2009-05-27T22:33:00.000-07:00

This post does not need much more detail other than to say, if you think that YOUR representative and those who represent YOU in Washington have any clue about what is in bills they pass...I point you to this Henry Waxman statement he made when asked a direct question from a chairperson on the committee for Cap & Trade. First and foremost, we have now learned that the TARP bill was voted on prior to ANYONE reading the full context of the bill. The Stimulus package and subsequent Budget Bills were not vetted prior to the vote. All this amidst Obama's transparency pledge. As a show of 'in your face' politics that your beloved DC representatives demonstrated, they hired a speed reader who could read a page every 7 1/2 seconds aloud to the committee. Are you freaking kidding me? Is this a "I will show you to question my authority" or what? Wake up America, your politicans take you for a joke and they just played you a fool on camera. Did you buy it or will you stand up and demand more of those you elect to represent you?

Waxman, was directly asked by the chairperson to his left, "Before I ask this question of counsel did you know thiw was in this bill?" Waxman's response will leave you breathless if you have any wits about you whatsoever. His response, "You asking me? Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything in this bill. I know that we left it to...we relied very heavily on the scientists, on the IPCC and others on the consensus that they have that there is a problem of global warming thats having an impact and we need to try and reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. But I don't know the details, I rely on the science."

If this is the response that you want to hear from the person who chairs the committee for Obama and Pelosi on how we as a country address the US stance on carbon footprints, global warming and the US taxpayer's pocketbook then you are doomed to live a life you were not brought into this world to desire. This is a pathetic response to a question especially when the 'science' that Waxman refers to is in fact NOT SCIENCE. If it were, then it would not be disputed.

This is another attempt to catch the US citizen when they are not looking and pass a huge tax increase that even if the legislation is successful will reduce global temps by less than one half of 1 percent over the next 50 years. Yet, the government needs to find as much money as it can to pay for its liberal left wing agenda and they are suckering you into paying for it. When will you wake up and realize what is happening to our country. Stop blaming republicans and Bush for all your problems and realize that its the DC elite who own you yet you can take your country back. Or, as so many very dear to me believe, "we can't do anything about it so who cares?" I am sure the spirit of Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and all those who died in battle to make this country the most blessed nation in the history of the world would weep at your weakness. Those liberals who's hatred of Bush makes them believe that they can usher in change that in hindsight will be to the detriment of the country will only be able to blame themselves. It will no longer be Bush's fault although I am positive that all liberals and secularists will still say that the their buy in to these liberal progressive ideals was only brought on because of 8 years of Bush and if not for those 8 years they would not have done so. In other words they are saying, 'Its really me who is at fault for this but it makes me feel better to pass blame on to someone who I feel that if not for my hatred for them that I would not feel this way.' Yeah, that will make you feel better years from now. Hatred does never brew success, it only brews contempt. Sooner or later each of those who act only to say that the 'last 8 years were an utter failure' will have to own up to their own demise. Enjoy the fall America. Its your day to make a difference.

Kim Jong Il - 2, U.S. - 0

2009-05-25T22:54:00.001-07:00

Is it ironic that John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the U.N. (although democrats never allowed his appointment), titled his May 20th op-ed piece in the WSJ "Get Ready for Another North Korean Nuke Test"? Then why did the Obama administration admit that they only learned of the attack 'one-hour' prior to the test? And just two weeks ago, the Obama administration's special envoy for disarmament talks with North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, said during a visit to Asian capitals that "everyone is feeling relatively relaxed about where we are at this point in the process...there is not a sense of crisis." Maybe 'relaxed' was mistaken for arrogance. And to this president the North Korean 'crisis' does not equate to what Obama feels is a real 'crisis', like global warming and healthcare. This president portrays to believe that every leader across the globe will sit down with him and hash out their differences. Once he is finished apologizing for U.S. behavior and foreign policy lo' these last 3 centuries, of course.

During the Clinton years we ended up giving NK billions of dollars in aid as agreement that they would adhere to international pressure to suspend nuclear proliferation. On July 4th 2006, North Korea failed, comparatively, to test a nuclear weapon in a capacity that would put it on the world stage of being able to produce large scale nukes. And the game was played right into this tyrant's hands. U.S. and China initially took a strong stand and stepped up sanctions and tough rhetoric only to back down by providing aid and recognition that N. Korea would dismantle its nuclear weapons program. As John Bolton said then, 'they will not dismantle their weapons programs or cease in their attempt to create a long range nuclear device.' Despite the criticism from his own Ambassador, Bush removed N. Korea from the 'state sponsored terrorist list.' Bush, yielding to democratic pressure, agreed to trilateral talks and even 6 party talks that NK used to their benefit to buy them time to upgrade their weapons systems and uranium enrichment program. Now, on Memorial Day 2009, NK tests an underground nuke with same kilotons as nagasaki and hiroshima bombs and subsequently fired 2 straight days of medium and long term missiles as if to say to the world "we have nukes and will sell to the highest bidder." Iran are you listening? Subsequent to that, KJ Il removed U.N. inspectors from

Military action is now a very remote possibility since nuclear weapons are now in the hands of N. Korea and its rogue dictator. This is what the world gets for allowing the U.N. and the waste of its existence to continue to write 'legally binding resolutions' toward countries who are oppressive regimes consistently acting in contrast to international treaties. Much like Saddam Hussein did in Iraq, now its Jim Kong Il's turn to play the U.N. for the fool. The UN will keep convening its very soft Security Counsel and issuing statements condemning such tests. In April, the U.N. Security Counsel condemned another N. Korea luanch with tighter sanctions. It apparently didn't work. Does anyone take the U.N. seriously anymore? And why do they have a Security Counsel if resolutions they make are constantly broken? To quote Obama's famous diatribe from his campaign, his statements regarding NK are "just words." There is absolutely no follow through with it. We will see if Obama decides to actually have a spine or will he bow to his 'anti-war, pro-peace' constituents and be soft? Not much has worked from either Clinton, Bush or Obama up to this point.

Obama's 'words' were in no way a strong statement. Where is Reagan when this country needs a real leader during tough economic and international times?

"The Government Deception"

2009-05-24T12:35:00.000-07:00

This 1 hour and 50 minute movie is titled the "Obama Deception" but this is not about just Obama. Please do not roll your eyes and think this is an anti-Obama movie. This video is really anti-Government and mentions many presidents including Bush, Carter, Roosevelt, Reagan and their being pawns in the game. It's about the lies and deceit taking place in D.C. and around the world right now. It is chilling, utterly chilling to our core if this is the underbelly of what our nation will become under the 'New World Order' which Ron Paul, Kucinich and others are speaking out about. The Bilderburg Group is, to anyone who does know about it, a group of elitist individuals who control trade, currency and elections. Have they been controlling world governments for decades?

Is it true? You decide. If you feel it is true, will you take action? What will you do? I challenge you to make a stand and take our citizenship back into our own hands and stop following the rhetoric. Think for yourselves people. This is beginning to get scary and anyone who thinks for themselves can see the dots are beginning to be connected due to common sense.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025025800195

Obama and "Values & Morals"

2009-05-23T11:24:00.001-07:00

Can someone tell me what 'morals and values' America broke in its war on terror to save innocent American lives? And can Obama really lecture America about honoring its values and morals when he sends hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to foreign shores to be used for aborting innocent babies? Or, how about his voting 'present' while serving in the IL senate on a bill allowing partial birth abortion to be legal that he helped sponsor and write? How about his appointing the governor of Kansas- Sebellius to be the head of the HHS dept who just days before being nominated rejected a bill that would end late term abortions and her record shows a very liberal stance on abortion issues. And lastly, Obama's federal funding of embryonic stem cell research despite many breakthroughs occuring in the medical field in recent years where many are now saying that we don't need to kill innocent embryo's to get the breakthroughs we need.

Does it seem that he really holds morals and values at heart? Someone should tell Obama to leave his ivory colored glass house before he decides to lecture (or read from his teleprompter) us on what this great country was founded upon and the morals and values that this country holds dear.

Dear Mr. President, stop killing innocent babies and lecturing us on the morals of holding prisoners, who mostly were on the battlefield to kill our soldiers in the name of Jihad, while putting 3 of these prisoners through what you view as torture despite the fact that we waterboard thousands of our own soldiers before they go off to battle. If it were torture, would we do it to on our own soldiers? I think not!

What a self-righteous and arrogant speech. Not to mention that the hall in which you gave it in doesn't allow camera flashes and high intensity light. Yet, what did you do? You dishonored that long standing policy and allowed (for your own grandstanding and staging) the media and their barage of cameras to get awesome photo ops of you in front of our founding document not to mention the intense lighting to be shined down upon you and the 'aging parchment' you stood in front of. What a hypocrite and someone who is not worthy to lecture on morals and values. Come down from the perch Obama and live with the rest of God's creation and stop acting like you control the earth's rotation and can dictate how humanity lives.

And lastly, please stop making America look like the bad guy and apologizing for the morals and values in which you say you hold in high regard.

The Obama Brand!

2009-05-22T23:48:00.000-07:00

A "brand" in today's lingo is defined as a 'recognizable kind of which there is no confusion.' For instance, when you here Coke you instantly think of the cola, when you hear Nike you instantly think of the shoe and when you hear McDonald's you instantly think of the Golden Arch's. So now, when you hear Obama you automatically think of the smooth-talking king of rhetoric with the chin in the air and the arrogant swagger of the president of the United States.

Obama has not shown much interest in working from both sides of the aisle and 'doing away with the partisan politics' in D.C. In fact, he has rebuked Pelosi, Biden and Dodd. He won't stand up for anyone who he needs. Instead, if it is going to impact his 'Brand' he throws them to the dogs. In case you did not know, Obama is working on copywriting his name and the "O" Obama logo that you see on so many bumbers and window shields (at least here in our liberal Los Angeles, CA). This is a man who governs, like Clinton was famous for doing, by polls. And witness what just started happening this week, the White House has now formed its own media machine. Yes, that's right, the White House is now putting out its own propoganda on the White House lawn. The narcissism of this President is unprecedented. Obama is beginning to make Clinton look humble in comparison, which about as impossible as keeping Oprah from swinging from 300 lbs to 150 lbs back to 300 lbs in 18 months. To continue, the press core has been instructed to stand and cheer when Obama enters the room to take the podium. Seriously!

If that isn't an "All hail, the king" I don't know what is. This country will be drastically different 4 years from now and those 'independents' who voted for Obama will be kicking themselves for rushing in this form of leadership. Just wait and see.

Obama vs. Cheney?

2009-05-21T13:55:00.000-07:00

Here we are now. Four months removed from Obama's inauguration speech. One month away from the CIA memo release and leading democrats fumbling of what they knew vs. what they said. Now comes Cheney, who started this campaign against democrats who believe they know best how to keep America safe, by pointing out that if Obama believes in transparency as his campaign and inauguration speech stated then release all the memo's about what was done, who knew what, when they knew it and what information was gleened from EIT's. However, Obama trying to CYA for Pelosi, himself and the rest of the liberal dems, only releases selected portions of the memo's only which serves to cause America harm, not good.

So, as vilified as Cheney is you have to now ask yourself on this debate...who do you trust more? Obama or Cheney? Cheney knows that actually protecting a country and its citizens happens by doing. Obama only knew by 'saying' since he stated numerous times on the campaign trail that he would end EIT, close Gitmo, and bring the troops in Iraq home by March 2009. Leadership is defined by action not words. All Obama has really done up to this point is words since he flip-flopped on bringing the troops home by the time he said he would, flip-flopped on closing Gitmo when he said he would, and flip-flopped on releasing the torture photos that the ACLU and a liberal court ruled to release. It's on this last point where Obama has actually shown leadership toward protecting America and not putting our soldiers at risk. It's on all the other points that he wrecklessly endangers all of our safety.

As Cheney delivered knock out punch after knock out punch to the raised chin of Obama here is what I gleaned from the two speeches. The moral of the past 8 years on the issue with which Obama and Cheney spoke is that it is Right to enact Article II of the Constitution and save American lives and it is Wrong to not administer harsh (but not illegal) techniques in which those lives can be saved. The Value that Cheney quite clearly holds high above what Obama can reach is that American lives are to be held sacred to the President and government that they swear on the Constitution (see Article II again) to up hold. And also keep in mind that while Obama lectures (for the far left and his media minions) that EIT's are banned under his administration he does keep it open as an option in times of emergency. "This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances."

Cheney in his speech said, "In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

Obama gave a 60 minute (yes 60 minute diatribe) that literally left you wondering where does he stand. He, like he so famously can do, took all sides of the argument that left you, like his Harvard professor once said, feeling like he appealed to your side of the argument no matter what side you were on. This is not leadership but rather a stance of riding both ways so that no matter which way it goes he wins. When will America wake up and see that this person we have to stand and applaud as he approaches the podium is a far cry from a real leader who, no matter how unpopular it is, will make a tough, hard decision that will better the country? 2012 can't come quick enough.

Firing US Attorneys...is it true Obama?

2009-05-15T18:25:00.000-07:00

Well, how much trouble has the Bush administration been in by democrats for 'firing' US Attorneys? Karl Rove is slated to go in front of a 'commission' next week to address why Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired these 9 US attorneys. Ironically, AG Eric Holder testified this week that he plans to 'replace a batch' of US attorneys because 'elections matter.' Again, its the 'We Won' mentality that Obama has stated before when passing his stimulus and budget bills. Sounds like a 'if you are not for us you are against us.' Exactly the same sentiment that the all powerful liberal media labeled on Bush. Where is the NYT, MSNBC and WA Times on this? It will be interesting to see the media blitz that will ensnarl Rove but they will ignore their annointed Messiah's AG's statement mentioned in the transcript below.

Here is part of the transcript (and can be found in the article in weblink below):
Pressure from lawmakers and local Democrats to replace the sitting prosecutors has been significant. Holder's comments Thursday came in response to a question from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) "Many jurisdictions are waiting desperately to see what is going to be done. As we understand it, the protocol has been that U.S. Attorneys would hand in their resignations and would give the new administration an opportunity to make new appointments, we don’t see that happening quite fast enough," she said, pointing to complaints about prosecutors in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.

However, by using terms like "elections matter," Holder seems to be signaling that Obama plans to install new leadership in most offices.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0509/Obama_to_replace_US_Attorneys.html

Funny that Obama is going to simply fire people because "elections matter" which is D.C. speak meaning 'political'. I thought this president wanted to usher in a 'new era of responsibility' and do away with the 'partisanship of the last 8 years.' Yet it appears that he plans to continue that partisanship by firing Bush appointee's and appointing Obama liberal appointee's that will carry out his agenda. Where is the uproar from the left on this? Please, leftist readers, Obama supporters and Bush haters, tell me why this is not a double standard and just more of the same.

Chrysler & Obama

2009-05-14T22:24:00.000-07:00

It started under Bush, the bailouts for autos, and continued under Obama. Ask anyone with half a cell in their brain about the ultimate outcome of GM/Chrysler and everyone would have called it...Bankruptcy. Politically, the media and administration(s), wanted to look as if they were worried about job losses and 'systematic risk to the economy' and try their hardest to save them. Then Obama gets in and given that he rode the coattails of the unions into the white house he was not about to leave them out in the cold. So what does he do? He breaks every contract law in the book and every lending practice there is by screwing the secured creditors (in any normal BK they get paid 1st since they had most at risk from $ standpoint) and putting them in 1st loss position vs. last loss which is how the law is written. Also, he gives the company to the union which was a major catalyst in why Chrysler was forced to file BK. Secondly, the next biggest ownership of Chrysler is the Government and the french. Sweet justice when the French have equal risk really as the US Govt. We bail them out of being run by evil tyrants TWICE and they come to our rescue economically. Sad. Lastly, the bond holders (the second most secure in any transaction) ends up with 10% ownership. But the real crime is the taxpayer. Poof, $7 billion to Chrysler gone of our hard earned money.

You liberals and those who hate prosperity just learned a valuable lesson but chose not to indicate you learned from it. You vilified AIG, Lehman, Merril, etc., for receiving tax payer money and paying bonuses but choose to say nothing when every person in the room knew Chrysler was going BK but sat by while our government kept spoon feeding them money that they knew we would never get back. What are saying now? Why aren't you upset that our (your) govt just played their full pot on a hand that didn't even have two pair?

If you thought this was over...just wait for GM. I can tell you now how its going to play out. UAW wins, govt comes in second and the US Taxpayer and those with supposedly the least amount of risk get SCREWED. Welcome to the new U.S.A. It stands for Union States of America, headquartered in labor union bosses offices across the nation. Enjoy your demise. Let's just hope the American citizens stop burying their head in the sand and take back their country!

Social Security and Medicare - Broke much, much sooner

2009-05-13T19:59:00.000-07:00

As we continue to push off addressing what will push our country to the brink of collapse, I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention that has, up to this point, failed to see the reality. I have attached a couple of articles that address the dire circumstances we are about to face. But, lets first focus on how we can raise taxes on ALL U.S. CITIZENS by 1) trying to do the work of God and control the climate and 2) give health care to every PERSON living in the U.S. Trust me, the current budget deficits will pale in comparison to what our budget and deficits will be as we teeter on the brink of collapse of Social Security and Medicare. This is a $60 trillion problem and anyone who believes that there is a social security trust fund are fooling themselves. Every year the government borrows from the SS account to cover budget deficits. Its similar to what the CA govt is trying to do with multiple programs now like lottery, mental health education, etc. Waiting to try to save these programs further in the future, rather than addressing now by CUTTING SPENDING, indexing to inflation, and shoring up its solvency will cause deficits to be at least triple what they are now. Triple!!! Good luck Obama on cutting your budget in half. At least you will look under every crook and cranny to tax the hell out of us to find as much money as you can since actually cutting spending seems out of the question. Would love to have a look at he and D.C. leaderships personal account books to see if they run their house the same they do the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_25

http://dailyreckoning.com/entitlement-lifespans-get-the-axe/

Finally congrats are in order to President Obama!

2009-05-13T19:05:00.000-07:00

Today was monumental for the current administration. Why? Obama decided against a judge's order to appease the ACLU and allow torture photos to be released. Obama in his statement addressed the fact that the release of these photos will cause our troops to be put in further danger. He is correct in this assumption. The ironic part of this, and hopefully it will be a trend in the Obama admin, is that he has again slapped the ACLU in the face. The first time was about the Gitmo detainees and their release without trial. The ACLU wanted these detainees to be released from Gitmo either with a trial like we citizens would get or without trial. I am sure Anthony Romero is irate and bleeding hatred for Obama at this very moment.

Keep in mind, Obama did originally allow the photos to be released but luckily now understands what being a commander in chief is all about. Its about the lives of those who you rule over and for those who fight to allow you to rule. This begins to help him rebuild his reputation that was originally permanently damaged just after taking office when he let the bomber of the USS Cole go free rather than allowing him to stand trial (like a federal judge had ordered, much to the happiness of the ACLU). The ACLU loves anything anti-American and that makes America look bad. See Anthony Romero's opinion letter piece in the WSJ in today's paper. If you don't sense Anti-American then you must be a supporter of the ACLU and its far left causes it chooses to speak out on.

Now, lets give credit where its due to the person who really caused Obama to halt the release of these photos. This persons name sends liberal democrats skin crawling...Dick Cheney! If not for Cheney's constant berating of the issue on the Sunday morning news shows and Fox News, I seriously doubt if Obama would have made the decision he made today. No matter, I would like to think Obama would have come to this conclusion despite the media hoopla. To his credit, he made the right decision. Now lets hope he continues to put the country first and truly leads rather than letting politics tip his hand.

Maher, Garofalo, Olbermann pay attention!

2009-05-11T21:21:00.000-07:00

For as much as you and your ilk want to rail on Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and Levin about how 'off the planet' they are...have you listened to yourselves lately? Tomorrow morning when they wake up they should take a long look in the mirror, study the wrinkles, the gray hair, the imperfections that they undoubtedly wear underneath the makeup.

Bill Maher - doesn't believe anyone should be personally responsible for their actions and that they should just feel free to do what they please. Well, of course, except Bush/Cheney, etc., who seems to have made decisions that impacted his life. So while Bill feels that he can make whatever choices he wants regardless of the consequences, to the contrary any person that makes decisions that end up adversely affecting him should be prosecuted since they screwed up his life. Kind of nutty. Listen to his program and you will hear a delusional man who should have secular progressive, more power to ACLU and George Soros rules inked to his body. He probably does actually.

Keith Olbermann - His program was about to get canceled for poor, poor ratings back in 2006 but then he jumped on the 'hate Bush' bandwagon and went on a tirade that was anti-Bush. This tirade was picked up on you tube and every liberal news show in America. Finally, crazy lefties had a voice. Olbermann then would start and end his show each night with anti-Bush rhetoric. He has picked a fight with Bill O'Reilly that he is losing miserably but he feels he is winning. Too bad the ratings tell a much grimmer story for Mr. Olbermann. So while his ratings have picked up since the lights were about to go out in studio 7, they are still dismal. But what else does MSNBC have to hang their hat on? Rachel Maddow? She smacks of a skater punk who couldn't hack it in a man's world so she cross dresses as a woman but kept the Gator and G&S gear from the 80's. What a dimwit she is. Again, the only basis for her show is 'dog and smear Bush, Cheney, Rove and any republican you can fit into your hour long program.'

Chris Matthews - Oh, you mean the man who hated Obama and was firmly in the Clinton camp about this time last year. Then when it was obvious that Obama would win the dem nod he turned on Hill about as fast as Obama turned on Rev. Wright. You can you tube CM berating a supporter of Obama by continuing to ask, "Tell me something he has done. You have nothing." Then in a blink of an eye he says that Obama 'gives me a tingling feeling up my leg.' Well, it appears when the Imelt and NBC bosses tell him to saddle back onto what they want his spineless being doesn't ask questions but just says 'so long as my paycheck stays the same I will compromise anything to stay the voice of NBC.' Case in point, his latest stupid rant and line of questioning this past Sunday on his morning show. What a dope. And he used to be somewhat credible, but that was about 5+ years ago now.

Garofalo, on Oblermann's how said that anyone who attended a Tea Party were "a bunch of teabagging rednecks," adding "this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up." Did Olbermann, as a responsible journalist would have, stop her in her tracks and have her back off her statements, ala Bill O'Reilly? Not a chance. Did MSNBC issue a public statement denouncing Garofalo's statements as over the top or not representative of NBC or its parent company, GE? Nope. In fact, Jeffrey Imelt who was speaking at the GE stockholders meeting was asked in front of everyone about this exact issue and he did all he could to dance around the subject. Imelt is on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and GE will profit huge from Cap and Trade legislation as well as government run health care (see http://www.healthymagination.com/news/index.html).

However, here is Garofalo speaking about the right to speak out and offer dissent. Conflicting isn't it? I guess it matters whether the person is speaking out for something that she believes in or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxP9ZHz4FQs&feature=related

So while Rush, Savage, Levin, Hannity and Colter say some stupid things, let's be honest, what the left parades out is just as stupid. I am open to debate on this topic for anyone who wants to debate the merits of what the pundits on the left/right speak about each day. Feel free to add your comments below.

Is it any wonder why Fox News crushes, literally crushes, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC combined in every time slot between 5 PM - 10 PM (EST & PST)? Fox News ranks #2 among ALL cable channels in primetime. CNN is 14th and MSNBC is 19th. In daytime, Fox was #4 while CNN was 17th and MSNBC was 29th. In fact, Fox News dominates 24/7 news morning, noon and night. If the country was really that liberal then you would think that MSNBC wouldn't be dead last when news shows compete head to head at CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

Obama's 1st 100 days - D.C. bi-partisan politics?

2009-05-10T15:44:00.000-07:00

On November 4th, the United States elected a man who promised 'change', 'hope' and 'to improve America's image around the world.' On January 20th, his eloquently chosen words extolled the American way of life and made millions of American's once again be proud to call themselves a citizen of such a great and honorable country. The rest of America has and are proud to call themselves American. They didn't need a rallying speech in order to shed a tear at the pride they feel when they think about what their country has endured since the 1700's. Admittedly, I get choked up every time I hear the "Star Spangled Banner", "My Country, Tis of Thee", "America the Beautiful", "Taps", and "Battle Hymn of the Republic". These songs remind me of what all America, its fallen heroes and still living veterans have sacrificed to endure its freedom.

But sometimes a speech is needed to heal those who are weak and sick, to pick those up who have been knocked down and dust off their shoulders, and most of all, a speech is needed when it is indicative of a people who need rhetoric to follow instead of actionable leadership. Well, in President Obama's first 100+ days everyone in America surely has their take on whether we have been following rhetoric or actionable leadership. Let's compare his words that so many have chosen to follow versus his actions that have proven less courageous.

Leading up to election day, one of Obama's most prominent campaign promises was to change Washington politics by changing the partisan tones and the influence of lobbyists. His inauguration speech included this, "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." During his campaign and after the election, he promised 'a new era of responsibility', promised to end 'earmarks', and vowed to 'increase transparency.' He claimed in his campaign that 'no bill that comes to my desk will be signed into law until the American public has had 5 days to read it and offer their perspective to their representatives.' However, his actions tell another story. Let's review.
On Partisanship - he handed Pelosi the reigns to write the stimulus and budget bills but he claimed to have a 'reach across the aisle' cocktail hour at the White House to get everyone on board. Most republicans at that meeting will say that it was a 'Come to Jesus' meeting and not a heartfelt 'bridge the gap' affair. He also used the phrase, "We won", (alluding to democrat victory in the election) at a press conference to address a question that arose over whether or not republicans were correct in calling for more tax cuts or to dramatically reduce spending in reference to the stimulus and budget bills. His statement reeks of the 'its his way or the highway' approach that so many blame that Bush took to new heights. It appears there is no height that Obama can't outdo.
On Earmarks - 485 earmarks and the Omnibus budget had 9,000 earmarks and $13 billion in total. Obama called the $13 billion ...but claims that the $17 billion in spending cuts to his new budget a large sum of money. Interesting how when it the ends justify the means on spending that $17 billion is a lot of money. But when 'earmarks' are $13 billion that its not worth getting worked up over. The Omnibus bill represents nearly everything Democrats had criticized about the earlier Republican Congresses. It forces lawmakers to vote quickly on a bloated package combining nine separate appropriations bills. It irresponsibly expands the already-record budget deficit. And despite strongly worded proclamations about cleaning up Washington, the 2009 appropriation bills will have the second-most earmarks in history.
On Transparency - 13 bills have come to his desk for signature, all but one was signed into law within 5 days. The largest budget bill in the history of our country was signed into law 2 days after both chambers agreed on the bill. The Stimulus package, four days. SCHIP signed within hours of passing. To Obama's defense, he did, in a few speeches say that this transparency would be on 'non-emergency' bills. Well, budget bills are not emergency bills as they are not enacted for months after signing. The Stimulus bill was rushed through both chambers, most of your elected officials never read what they were signing, and as of today only about $20 billion has been spent to 'stimulate' our economy. Doesn't sound like passing the $787 billion was much of an emergency after all, especially if you look at what liberals want you to notice about the leading economic indicators. Our economy is stabilizing!!!! Good thing they don't want to write another stimulus bill...oh wait, many of them do. Sorry. Of course, Obama's White House will point you to Recovery.gov for the example of this 'transparency.' However, this site will offer very little oversight into where our taxpayer dollars are going. Why? Well, for instance, the stimulus package will only require that states and cities disclose project-specific expenses. For example, we will know how much the federal government gave to California but the state must show how it distributed those funds. Therefore, while we may know that over $25 million was used to pave Olympic Blvd, between Sepulveda and Beverly (all that drive that route know we need it badly), none of us will know how many Starbucks coffee's or McDonalds lunches were purchased with that money. Also, to hammer this point home even further, Congress is not requiring that stimulus contracts to be competitively bid. Based on all the above, if Obama wishes to have real transparency then he will have mayors, governors and all grantees account for every stimulus dime. Anyone with any scruples know that this will not happen so there will be plenty of opportunity for corruption.
On Lobbyists - Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect. But the order has a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver. However, below is a section from an Executive Order that Obama had written and vowed to uphold by 'the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America...' that was to be enacted on January 21, 2009.

Executive Order -- Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel
"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or

(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.

To wrap up this evaluation, it has become increasingly clear that passing the president's agenda with the help of the far left has become the priority. Meanwhile working with republicans to 'end the petty grievances' and 'change the last 8 years' partisan politics' has become secondary. If his broken promises and actions that have occurred in his first 100 days is a precursor of what we should expect for the next 1360 days, then we can expect everyone to trust the government a lot less. This doesn't mean, however, that those Obama supporters will ever look beyond the rhetoric to the actions. Hitler once said, "The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force." It's in this frame of mind that many will again support Obama for reelection in 2012, as those who are weak (uneducated, welfare recipients, can't climb the corporate ladder, etc.) will follow his rhetoric. Unfortunately, it is my belief that unless there is a quick change as to the path America is on, that there will be fewer leaders in America in the coming years due to the Government's influence toward a socialist agenda whereby innovation is driven by politics and not by capitalism and one's desire to succeed.

Repeat recent history?

2009-05-06T19:07:00.000-07:00

AP article, May 6, 2009 - "Trying to curb home foreclosures, the Senate voted on Wednesday to make it easier for homeowners with risky credit to switch to a lower-cost mortgage backed by the government. The bill, passed 91-5, also would give banks a break by encouraging reduced fees they must pay for the government to insure deposits."

Everyone knows that easy credit (coupled with no real regulatory watchdogs manning the oversight since they were getting bankrolled not to) is what helped get us into the mess we are in now. Too many citizens with shoddy credit getting risky loans with little money down and no real income to support the loan to begin with. Having had hearing after hearing lambasting all the Angelo Mozillo's, Lehman Bros and Ken Lewis' of the world and telling them it was the fact that they provided too many loans to risky borrowers, what is congress proposing to do as of today? You guessed it. Make loans to risky borrowers easier to get. This is your government in overdrive trying everything they can to spur lending activity so that it will demonstrate, no matter how erroneously, that or economy is getting stronger by showing that banks are lending again. Guess who is backing these loans? Could you believe its the government (which means the taxpayers)? We already back all the defunct loans now through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae so why not add more coal to the fire?

It absolutely amazes me that our government can get away with this without any uprising from the people. Of course, its hard to get the people to rise up when they are uneducated due to the fact that the media will spin this news in a way that makes you think its actually a positive, not only in the short term but also in the long run.

So the taxpayer is the backer of the toxic asset program, the FDIC insurance on all bank accounts less than $250(k) although I have Citibank guaranteeing up to $1 million until the end of the year, AIG, Citibank, FNM/FRE, Amtrak and soon to be Muni bonds if Barney Frank has his way. Yet, so many of us shrug our shoulders and just say, 'whatever'. Of course, they shrug now because Obama can't do anything wrong according to his worshipers but if this was Bush guaranteeing the potential fall out after having loaded up the taxpayer with deficits from here to the moon you can bet your last penny that the media storm would be a category 5 right now.

Give it time...when the far left liberal agenda fails miserably many of you will wonder why you ever voted for the smooth talking, good looking, black man who holds hands with his wife and plays with their children and dog...Didn't Bush hold hands with his wife, have a loving dog, and have 2 girls that had a good relationship with their father? But somehow it means so much more when its the current White House family. Interesting?

Enjoy the default and foreclosure's that will surely come despite this government guaranty!

Obama doctrine: "Don't blame me"

2009-05-06T09:46:00.000-07:00

As of inauguration day and leading up to the passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill Obama and his minions were blabbing to any open mic and tv camera about how terrible this economy was that he inherited. Remember his now famous quote to a group of workers in Michigan when asked about the deficits, "Don't blame me" was his retort. When he was at the Summit of the America's and Ortega went on his long rant about Central America's opposition to U.S. Policy, Obama took the mic and responded, “I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old." When Bill Ayers came up during the campaign about his bombings Obama said, "I was eight years old." So from his character associations with past terrorists, to his inherited budget deficit and to his American apology tour the simple underlying theme was "Don't blame me, it didn't happen on my watch."

So I guess he wasn't a senator with a vote in 2005, 2006, 2007, & 2008. Oh yeah, he was and he voted 'no' on Bush's budgets which were 1/3 less than Obama just signed into law. He campaigned on 'reducing the deficit and cutting spending should be our number one priority to help grow the economy.' But in defiance of logic and in direct contrast to what he campaigned on what are his actions? He intends to triple the deficit and grow spending...well, except for the $17 billion he found to cut by going line by line. Whew, thank God he found 1/2 of 1% to cut. Now our economy can truly grow. Bush, in his last budget found $34 billion to cut and democrats said that wasn't enough. Funny how now those same dems are hailing Obama a hero for 'cutting spending'. Seriously, are there still educated people in this country and that actually read?

Ayers was of course a situation that happened many years ago when Obama was a small child. However, that doesn't excuse him from being friends with him and associating with the man. And we can 'Blame' Obama for being friends with him as that is fact. Obviously we can't take blame for other peoples actions but show me who your friends are and I will tell you what you are.

The apology tour that the liberal media here in the U.S. hailed as a success was nothing more than a 'please forgive America for all its past transgression's, we are truly sorry.' Sorry for what exactly President Obama? Liberating Europe (twice) from fascism and Nazism? Eliminating the enslaving of blacks from our land and defeating segregation? The cold war fight that all but ended Communism's spread? Or how about liberating Kuwait in the 1st gulf war when the UN authorized military action and 34 countries (including arab countries) joined the US in defeating Iraq? Or defeating Milosovich? Should we apologize for always being at the back of Israel and supporting them while other rogue nations want nothing but to destroy them? Maybe we should apologize for always overflowingly giving money and aid to nations in need. Remember the 2005 Tsunami for example, I guess we should say sorry for helping. How about Bush's major push to fight the spread of Aids around the world:

"No world leader has done more for world health than President George Bush," said California megachurch pastor Rick Warren on the 20th anniversary of World AIDS Day. "Literally millions of lives have been saved in the last five years." As of Sept. 30, the initiative has provided lifesaving antiretroviral treatments for more than 2.1 million people around the world with HIV/AIDS, including 2 million in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the White House. The president proposed the program in January 2003 and has already put nearly $19 billion into funding for treatments, according to the White House. It was recently reauthorized by Congress in July, giving an additional $48 billion to ongoing efforts to combat the pandemic.

Terrible, hated America. You should be ashamed of yourself. But don't blame Obama, it didn't happen while he was on guard. Better say your prayers!

$384k and no photos?

2009-05-05T22:28:00.000-07:00

It was learned today that the Obama administration, who created panic with a F-16 chaperoned 'photo-op fly over' of AF1, does not know where the photos are but we do know that it cost the American taxpayer over $380,000. So if the photos cannot be viewed by the taxpayer who paid for the fly over then isn't it our right under the freedom of information act to have these posted on MSNBC and CNN since its was them and the ACLU who so badly wanted the interrogation memo's leaked. What is more hurtful to national security, leaking CIA interrogation memo's or photos of our presidents plane flying over NYC? Now, with all the hoopla over the shenanigans pulled that day by Obama and his administration, in particular Obama coming out and saying he knew nothing about it, it bares asking...who is running the show in D.C.?

Do all sitting presidents allow their plane (owned by the taxpayer) to be borrowed for photo op events without the president knowing? So what happens if King Abdullah calls Barry O and says, "I need to see you right away and it cannot wait. Gas up your plane and meet me in Uzbekistan." Does BHO have to say, 'Sorry King Paula Abdul but my plane is being used to fly over and scare the hell out of a city of 15 million unsuspecting innocent civilians just so we can get some cool photos of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background. Can we make it for tomorrow when the rental is returned?'

This is a disgrace and its telling that Robert Gibbs, the white house press secretary, who looked as if he knew the question was going to be asked but couldn't hide and end the daily briefing quick enough. This administration has dropped the ball on so many things and flip flopped on more issues in one week than Clinton did in one month (and that is saying something). It leads the sane person to ask, just who is the president of the United States and where is his lead following? Notice the subtle play on words there.

Uh...Um...Uh, its...Uh...Call that a press conference?

2009-04-29T19:20:00.000-07:00

The media love fest for the great one named Barack Obama continued tonight at the White House press conference. Mr. Obama is a very good teleprompter speaker. He absolutely is terrible speaking on the cuff. My ears went numb with all the 'uh's' and 'um's' during his speech. At least under Bush we just listened to crickets while he gathered his thoughts. Say what you will about Bush, but at least he didn't mumble and stumble around on answering questions by bloviating! But Bush surely mumbled and stumbled but he also didn't have to pause for 30 seconds while the teleprompter operator had to catch up to where the president was in his speech. That's embarrassing! What's more embarrassing is that the press who loved to grill Bush lob such softball questions to this president. Obama walked off that stage, made a left at the first hallway and was high fiving Rahm Emanuel because they know that they have the media in their back pocket. If it wasn't for Fox, WSJ and to some degree CBS asking tough questions we would continuously get 'enchantment' questions asked to the leader of the free world.

It astonishes me that the 5 finalists for Miss USA gets asked tougher questions than the leader of the free world. It wasn't Ms. North Carolina who tripled our budget deficit in her first 90 days of receiving her crown. It wasn't Ms. Utah who released, selectively, secret CIA memos but has promised to outlaw interrogation techniques that resulted in American lives being saved and then flip flopped on whether prosecutions are in order for those who interpreted the law. It wasn't Ms. California who has gone soft on Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah (gaza/syria) and Venezuela but instead has shown remorse for America's behavior toward them then watched Iran prosecute an American journalist and NK test fire a missile. It wasn't Ms. Arizona who wants full control of the banking sector, the rail lines, the automakers, the healthcare system and make a college education an entitlement. It wasn't Ms. Kentucky who is handing our children a debt to which they cannot repay. So how about asking Obama questions that centered around these topics instead of asking him about how 'enchanting' it is to be president? Obama's first 100 days has been strong on rhetoric and very weak on leadership. If you follow rhetoric then you have a 'thrill up your leg' like Chris Matthews does over Obama.

What's more astounding is that one question about gay marriage can be answered the exact same way and one person wins the white house and the other loses a beauty pageant. Our nation has truly become a comedy of errors being run by the inmates. Who runs the asylum? Sadly, its 'We the people' since we keep electing these baffoons and letting them get away with it. It's time we stand up as a nation and have our leaders take ownership for their actions.

Speaker of the House - - - of Cards!

2009-04-25T10:03:00.000-07:00

I get my fill of Nancy Pelosi since I live here in California. But many of you that live outside CA probably don't get the level of coverage that she receives here. For those of you who don't know Pelosi has very selective amnesia and is prone to stretch the truth a little...No, make that a lot. The most recent case of this selective amnesia is on the release of the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques ("EIT").

Mrs. Pelosi claimed this past week that "we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions that they could be used." Anyone who believes this has never witnessed or been party to a lie.

Pelosi wants a 'Truth Commission?" Why don't we just release the minutes from those 'secret briefing' meetings to see just what Pelosi was told and how enthusiastically she called for 'torture' of these people sworn to kill innocent Americans? This will be all the 'truth' we need. Harry Reid, sagaciously stated that there should not be any such commission. Probably because he knows that no matter how much you want to politicize something (with the main stream media in your back pocket) the truth shall prevail. And when it does Harry knows that the evidence will likely implicate many on the left who are right now on their soap box about a 'higher moral ground' that Americans should aspire to.

Ms. Pelosi, when the house of cards fall, and they surely will, be sure you are not still living in your glass house. But since I know you will be still residing at that address, keep the tweezers and bandages handy because you will need something to pull the shards out. Enjoy the house of lies you are cloaking yourself in.

Barney Frank's At It Again

2009-04-21T07:11:00.001-07:00

Barney Frank, known primarily for his irritating lisp, incoherent rambles and of course his now infamous statement "Fannie and Freddie are not in danger...and pose no systematic risk to the financial system." Of course, further research found that he once dated someone at FNM who was basically the lobbyist for the upper echelon there to have their will imposed on lawmakers to 'look the other way' and as we all know now, Frank was one of the largest recipient of FNM/FRE campaign donations. Also, keep in the forefront of your mind that Frank chairs the House Financial Services Committee and this committee can set forth proposals to shape the financial services industry of our country.

Having said all that, now we are at the point where Frank, obviously having not learned anything about the FNM/FRE collapse wants to spread the 'zero risk to the taxpayer' model to Municipal Bonds. This spells doom if history is any professor. He stated that FNM/FRE would 'pose zero risk to the taxpayers' but of course we know how much that has cost us now...well over $200 billion that we can actually document. So what exactly is his proposal that could effect the Muni Bond market?

First a recent history review...State and local govts have been having a hard time issuing debt because citizens in those states and buyers of that debt feel that the default risk is inching higher, meaning repayment of that debt is growing more unlikely and that taxes will have to increase. Late last year Frank pushed a bill to force S&P & Moody's to raise their bond ratings on municipal bonds. This would effectively make 'Joe Public' feel more secure that the rating they are getting when purchasing the bond is more secure. So the rating agencies wouldn't be rating debt issuance based upon actual default risk they would be rating debt based upon pressure from, not only shareholders, but also the US Govt. Wait, they are now one and the same right since we the taxpayer's elected government owns FNM/FRE. Sound familiar? If not, look into the MBS nightmare that now plagues our financial system.

So, not having learned the lesson that 'for profit' rating agencies will do the bidding of the shareholders to boost profits, Frank intended to have them forced to issue faulty debt ratings. Wow! But now, an even more dubious stretch to doom the taxpayer he wants an FDIC like insurance program whereby jurisdictions issuing debt would pay insurance premiums into a government fund and the government would guarantee the debt against default. Large private companies, like Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, MBIA and Ambac, already insure muni bonds. If Frank believes that the state and local governments overpay for this insurance than one must assume that the government will charge less and thereby undercut the private market by charging lower premiums. What did we just learn about purchasing insurance and cheap costs spread across a debt obligation? If you don't recall google 'credit default swaps and economic collapse' and you will get over 101,000 links.

Who is one of the largest holders of municipal bonds? Pension and retiree plans. So who does this 'zero risk' really effect? Anyone who ever wants to retire and has some financial advisor or institution controlling your money investing in muni bonds as a 'safe haven of protection against a decline in equity markets.' Many state and local governments have run up huge pension and health-care obligations to retirees that will come due over the next couple of decades. When these bills hit these localities will have to choose to raise taxes, cut benefits or screw the bondholders. Hmmm, I wonder which one they will choose? Raise taxes on the middle and lower class? Not likely. Cut benefits to the elderly and retiring working class? Not a chance. Well, that leaves...you guessed it.

Barney Frank had already issued one guaranty, that FNM/FRE posed zero risk to the economy. Now he wants us to double down on his new ploy. You would think that would collapse of the Ponzi Scheme that was the GSE's would have ruined his career (like Madoff) but when Joe Public is told to look the other way while a politician dazzles you with 'AIG bonus outrage' or 'Stimulus Bill or risk the collapse of our economy.'

Is it any wonder why we don't trust 90% of our elected officials? Sound the alarm on this one if you invest in retirement plans managed by an institution and you ever plan to retire. At the alarming rate our government is changing the landscape none of us will be allowed to retire lest we live by paultry means to do so.

Pelosi's blatant lie about the TEA Party rally's

2009-04-16T19:14:00.000-07:00

The great ol' Nancy Pelosi took to the mic and camera yesterday to speak out about the TEA party rallies.

Here is what she said on KTVU-SF San Francisco:

"What they want is a continuation of the failed economic policies of President George Bush which got us in the situation we are in now. What we want is a new direction. … This [tea party] initiative is funded by the high end — we call call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."

Astroturfing is used to describe fake grassroots campaigns.

Apparently, Pelosi has no problem when George Soros is funding known far left groups like MoveOn.org who smeared Petraeus. Where was she speaking out on that? Soros himself does not believe in victory in Iraq and wants to keep America from achieving it.

"The war on terror cannot be won," he has said.

She clearly supports Soros as she appointed as her Senior Counsel, Joseph Onek. Onek is also a Senior Policy Analyst for two organizations funded by the Austrian-born billionaire, the Open Society Institute (OSI) and the Open Society Policy Center (OSPC).

So long as a protest or rally's funding come from wealthy liberals then its all okay. Interesting!

Sites and sounds from the SM Tea Party 4.15.09

2009-04-16T18:41:00.000-07:00

TEA PARTY - Santa Monica 4.15.09

My wife, her mother-in-law and I attended the TEA Party rally yesterday at the Santa Monica pier. The crowd was very cordial and it was very spirited. As at any protest there were an occasional time when some person (generally not a protester) made outlandish statements. Of course there were anti-Obama statements made by a very small few. This was to be expected.

But, overwhelmingly, most in the crowd were there as the advertisement promise...to protest what many feel is quickly becoming over-taxation, class warfare and burdening our children with too much debt just so we can quickly fix our problems of today. Several people, both men and women spoke to the crowd near the cannon that looks out over the pier. Here were a couple that spoke and what they had to say.

One man spoke eloquently about his being a veteran of the previous Iraq war and served in the military for 9 years. He passionately described how his country has changed so much from when he entered the service and returned home. 'I see a country who doesn't care about my children's future but only cares about the here and now' was one of his pointed statements at the leaders of our country. He is also a small business owner, feeling the pinch given our fragile economy, especially in the state of California. To hammer his point home that this was about America...he started off his speech with 'I am a registered Democrat.'

The last person to talk spoke intelligently of what he sees as America's strong shift toward socialism. He talked about how so many in this country no longer pay taxes but still want the same benefits that all those who pay taxes (some way higher than others) receive despite not paying for them. The best point he had was about the health care system in a socialist society and how America has, despite what many might try to contradict, the best medical system in the world and that getting treated here is easier and the medicine is better than in his home country. Which country does he hail from? The United Kingdom, our strongest ally. He has been in the states for 9 years and should be getting his green card this year he said. This is a man who knows what we are about to become as he lived it and got out because as he said, 'I work hard to support my family and didn't want government telling me that someone who didn't work should have the same things that I do despite paying less for it.'

Amen to both of these men! One a military hero, small business owner, democrat and father, who cares about his children's future much more than his own. The other, a dreamer who came to America to escape creeping socialism and was there to speak out to warn Americans of what we have in store if we don't quickly change the path of our country.

So for anyone who watched the CNN or MsNBC coverage don't be fooled to think that these protests were far right wingers that were funded by republican groups. Do your research and understand that people from all walks of life attended these events, every one of them were Americans first and party affiliation second. Make your voice heard as an American. You as an individual can make a difference.

Tea Party Day!

2009-04-14T10:35:00.000-07:00

Here is the state to where we are heading...in fact, we are already there on 2 accounts. Obama has rescinded George Bush's halt to US aid funding abortions worldwide. So now US taxpayer money is funding these acts worldwide. The welfare state is at the point that a new release of data shows that nearly 50% of all Americans pay $0.00 in income taxes and the top 10% of wage earners pay almost 75% of the tax revenue to the government. We don't need redistribution of wealth, it appears we need redistribution of poverty.
Today is TEA party day and is not republican vs democrat. It's to be a demonstration of any American who feels that the country is heading in the wrong direction and that the government will raise taxes more and more to pay for the massive spending imposed on all US citizens in the passage of the stimulus, tarp, and budget bills.

Obama wants to 'Reduce the taxes on working Americans' but this implication hints at the underbelly of his logic...that wealthy Americans didn't or don't work or are lazy. Please read this article from Ari Fleischer who does an eloquent job of detailing in elementary fashion the giant complicated problem that is at the vortex of our economy. Here is an exert to get your attention

According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 -- 60% of the country -- paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden. Their share shrank even when taking into account the payroll tax. In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%. All the while, this large group of voters made 25.8% of the nation's income.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958260423012269.html?mod=relevancy

If you are in opposition to the massive spending and ultimate taxation (unfair to tax the smallest % of the population the most amount of money while almost 50% of American's pay no income taxes) then please go out and protest at your local gathering of the TEA party. I am and always will be in favor of a flat tax so that bottom feeders will start working for a living. See Sweden - they are reducing their tax rates dramatically now because their workforce was shrinking so badly because the govt had made it such a large welfare state.

I am on my way to the Santa Monica pier right now to take part in my local TEA party.

Foreshadowing for the U.S.???

2009-04-09T07:52:00.000-07:00

Scottish History professor Alexander Tyler (1787):

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship".

Obama denies return of $340 MM in TARP funds

2009-04-07T11:21:00.000-07:00

TARP was originally jammed down the bank executives throats as a 'take it or else' authoritarian move at the behest of Paulson, Geithner, Lambright, and Bush. This decision was forced on them in the guise of 'saving the financial system from overall meltdown.' What it has now produced should be the meltdown of American's confidence that our government has the slightest clue as to what it is doing to help the problem. It was also propped that this money would be 'lent' to the banking institutions and repaid in the future and any profitability would be returned to the taxpayers. That was October. Read below for what happened just last week. But first some of Obama's recent words to the international community.

"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Barack Obama's statement about N. Korea's missile launch. His words should be stretched to apply to bank bailouts (AIG - govt agreed to retention bonuses), and TARP let alone N. Korea/Iran/Syria. Having said that, to the person writing this blog this presidents words are as empty as Geithner, Napilatano and Holder's suits. His actions speak way louder than his words and I hope readers of this blog are beginning to realize the path this country is down. At the fork in the road...Obama says, go left, way left! Obama's exact words to the banking executives who visited his office two Fridays ago, “My administration, is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” Sounds like great words of encouragement to a banking executive who thinks that its his actual bank officials who will be deciding the fate of its firms future.

April 1, 2009 - 4 banks sent the Obama administration and the Treasury department notice that they would be returning a combined $340 million in TARP funds and that they no longer needed government assistance at those institutions. They likely didn't need it in the first place but being forced to take it 'or else' did they really have any other alternative? Upon first being notified that these banks were returning the funds Obama hailed it as a 'demonstration that the decisions his administration has made to repair and return the financial system to stability' are showing signs of working. In this, the economy is turning the corner he alluded.

April 4, 2009 - After having 3 days to think about it while he was on his around the world 'glorify me' travels with world leaders he decided to REJECT the return of the money. I'm sorry Mr. President, did you just reject the repayment of $340 million in TAXPAYER money? Apparently it is not our money anymore...its his administrations money. By not accepting the money from the banks what this demonstrates is Obama's push to control the banks and lending institutions and his dictating who will receive money they are forced to lend.

Being in the financial world this has been a topic of discussion on a daily basis with my colleagues and clients. Unanimously, we are absolutely dumbfounded that more attention has not been paid to this matter and are beside ourselves as to why he would do this. It is appalling that this nations leader rejects repayment of loans originally made in distress. The WSJ/Fox News are the only major news organizations who carried the fact that they money was returned to Treasury and then rejected by Obama. The NYT wrote an article about the banks' return of the money but not Obama's rejection of it. I wonder why?

This should be alarming to all citizens as our government demands to exert more control of our institutions, our daily lives and who makes decisions for us. Sovereignty is slowly eroding in America. Fight to take your country back and demand less government. On April 15th please join a Tea Party protest like I will be attending at the Santa Monica pier.

read the full article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html#

Card Check and Big Labor!

2009-04-07T09:04:00.000-07:00

Every election cycle the people of America go to the polls and vote in secrecy. It's not defined in the constitution of the land that this is so, however, its up to the individual to decide if he/she want to disclose whom they voted for. It is uniformally agreeable that there is not someone standing over them to intimidate a specific person to vote a certain way. And if there is then there are people that chronicle the 'voter intimidation' taking place and election officials remove those people who are intimidating individuals.

"Card check--the most radical revision of labor law since 1935--would allow unions to do away with secret ballots, a fundamental right in a democracy, and unionize companies simply by coaxing, cajoling or coercing a majority of workers into signing a card. It came alarmingly close to being enacted last year when the House overwhelmingly passed the fraudulently named Employee Free Choice Act. The Republican minority in the Senate eventually filibustered the legislation" writes Shikha Dalmia for Forbes.com. Barack Obama--who was one of the co-sponsors of the legislation--has already declared that he will make card check "the law of the land when I'm president of the United States." Is it any surprise that Big Labor is pumped almost $400 million to elect him and his fellow Democrats--likely the single largest buying spree ever by an interest group.

Fast forward to today, many 'Big Labor' politicians like Obama, Pelosi and Reid want to pass 'Card Check' and use the guise of 'workers rights' to get the American people to be in support of it. Well Washington D.C. brass, many of us are too smart for your political gamesmanship acts. If this passes an individuals rights to vote without fear of intimidation are removed. Like on the healthcare issue our politicians try to get you to sympathize with some ailing person in need of medical attention or in this case a worker who doesn't have the same 'workers rights' as those un-unionized workers. This way they, like a magician, get you to focus on one hand while the other is stealing your wallet. The devil is in the details and with as far left as this administration has taken us our individual rights are about the only thing we have remaining. Our sovereignty is slowly dwindling away and this bill would help strip many in the workplace's sovereignty. Do everyone in America a favor and tell your congressman to vote "NO" on this bill.

Big Labor has helped cause the collapse of GM/Chrysler. FedEx and Caterpillar threaten that if Big Labor wins 'Card Check' that it will lead to unemployment and canceled equipment orders. This is not an idle threat but a reality. If Card Check passes expect to pay more for goods since the costs to produce those goods will increase under unionized labor (see GM/Chrysler for example). Not a very good scenario in the current economy. If Card Check passes expect to see more layoffs as companies will have to cut expenses (meaning 'payroll'). If Card Check passes expect to see a further deterioration of the economy as companies will look for alternative ways (offshore) to manufacture goods. So to reiterate, if Card Check passes you can expect companies to cut payroll, unemployment will increase, jobs will be shipped overseas and the cost of goods will increase regardless. Sounds like a good tonic for the pandemic we are currently experiencing in our once great nation. Hopefully you can sense the sarcasm in that last sentence.

Martin Sheen, who played a politician (admirably, I might add) on tv and is part of a Union, is in favor or 'Card Check.' However, what Martin fails to tell you is that in his union they vote 'secretly.' Hmmm...maybe he should push his union to vote openly and under intimidation before he becomes an advocate of this bill. Again, its the 'Do as I say, not as I do' mentality that infects so many of the hollywood and political elite.

The unintended consequences of this bill could be dire.

Nationalize Health Care...see Massachusettes first!

2009-03-29T10:15:00.001-07:00

I will be the first to admit that I was in support of Mitt Romney for president once Fred Thompson bowed out. Mr. Romney had many strong proposals and I assure you is much better equipped to deal with the current economic and financial crisis than McCain and Obama put together. As he campaigned on knowing the real stimulus behind a growing economy and what it takes to make tough decisions that the CEO of our country needs to make, he also touted his MA "universal" health care program as being a success. This was one area I disagreed with him. So how is his health care program working in MA right now?

The WSJ had a good article about how the MA legislature had pushed for the bill, along with Romney (RomneyCare), and made the argument that if 'everyone' was covered by state sponsored health care that it will actually decrease the costs to cover that care. Furthermore, as spending collides with reality (i.e. price controls) the inevitable outcome is that there will be coverage restrictions and long waiting periods (see Canada, most of Europe and Australia). Obama endorses 'Universal Health Coverage' and as McCain pointed out to Obama in the debates, what if an individual doesn't obtain insurance under the "individual mandate...Are you going to fine them?" Obama's response was of course, "No." But what is MA doing in order to get individuals to obtain insurance under the individual mandate? You guessed it. Individuals are being fined, businesses are seeing increased penalties and democrats in the state have taxed insurers & hospitals, they have raised premiums and pumped up the state tobacco levy. It's still not enough money. So now what?

A panel has been appointed to figure out how to control costs and preserve "this grand experiment." One option being considered is to "exclude coverage of services of low priority/low value." Another would "limit coverage to services that produce the highest value when considering both clinical effectiveness and cost." Who do you think would make the decision here? Not patients or doctors. And yet another alternative is a 'overall spending cap' which is a 'limitation on the total amount of money available for health care services.'

The NYT had a page 1 article that reported on this issue and it was not a glowing review. The NYT reported that Mr. Romney and Democrats' 'expedient choice' that they made to defer "until another day any serious effort to control the state's runaway health costs...Those who led the 2006 effort said it would not have been feasible to enact universal coverage if the legislation had required heavy cost controls. The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent - doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumer groups - would probably have been driven into opposition by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they said." Reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues. Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers.

This brings us to DC where Obama, Kennedy, Baucus and Pete Stark. They are devising their own 'bait and switch' by first creating vast new entitlements than can never be repealed, then later take the less popular step of rationing care when its their last hope to save the Treasury. As the WSJ article points out, "The real lesson of Massachusettes is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing."

Welcome to the Universal Health Care debate and over $685 billion in taxpayer money to fund the program...Initially of course! Further bailouts will be required...VB will keep you posted.

Ban Black cars?

2009-03-27T08:55:00.000-07:00

The CA legislature is proposing issuing a ban on black cars in CA beginning in 2012. Research proved (who didn't already know this) that black cars retain more heat inside the cabin of the car thereby causing more people to 'maybe' have to use the AC more to cool it down. This of course impacts our ozone layer as more energy is needed to cool down the effects of the suns radiant heat being trapped inside a black car. Obviously, anyone who has ever gotten in a car regardless of color after it has sat in the midday sun knows that to get the heat that is trapped in the car out quickly you simply lower the windows and the heat miraculously moves out of the car. If you don't believe me, try it next time you find yourself in a similar situation. Wow, can you believe it actually works?

Even more, its not that the CA loony toons want to just simply ban black cars its only really wanting to ban black cars that are painted with todays paints. Their consensus is that there are paints (not invented yet for autos) which reflect heat more than today's paints. However, their tests of this reflective paint comes from those paints on buildings. Just in case you are not the wizard that those with common sense are, paints for buildings and car are totally different.

What does this mean for the auto industry? Well, they cannot uniformly make black cars with reflective paints (not yet invented and tested) in some states and have a different black paint for all others. So this means that the entire auto industry will have to overhaul the paints it uses and that will of course soon become blanketed to all cars.

And you thought your state had crazy loons running the asylum. Come to California where the sun in the sky is high and the elected officials and environmentalists intellect in theory is much, much higher. God bless everyone and I am sure even the big guy in the sky is getting a chuckle out of this one!

Important Day in DC - White House

2009-03-27T07:35:00.001-07:00

Obama today welcomes the top Banking CEO's to the oval office for a roundtable of meetings. Inside sources understand that this meeting is similar to the meeting that Paulson/Geithner had with the bank CEO's just 7 short months ago. In that meeting the ceo's were not allowed to leave until they signed on to the Paulson plan of rescuing the banks. Today hold's great interest because Obama will likely inform the banks that the bankruptcy proposal abuzz in DC is very likely to pass along with asking for their 'allied interest' in curing the financial meltdown. Well, if the BK law passes and judges are allowed to 'cramdown' mortgages to the level of the remaining equity value of the home you can expect bank ceo's to push back harshly and they will likely stand up to Obama about additional changes he should expect to occur.

All in all, 1) expect the housing mess to continue for about anotherr 2 - 3 years as values continue to decline, 2) expect banks to tighten lending requirements even more, 3) prepare for the financial arena to sieze up, 4) watch as more banks are mentioned in the 'nationalization' talk and 5) see how the govt allows the irresponsible borrowers get their 'get out of jail free' card while the banks get hosed therefore depressing banks shares and lending more and more.

Its Pennsylvania Avenue and the Hill that is pushing its 'populist' and class warfare agenda. This will ultimately come back to bite America in the ass. DC bites the hand that feeds the country and the world, expect the rabies from the rabid DC dog to be very infectious and lead to a lot longer illness. What DC should do is ask the banks, 'What should be done to lift the current stalemate off the lending arena? How can we help?' Instead, its the lawmakers who are imposing their will and instead of asking those type of questions they are entering the discussion not as a topic of discussion, but as a 'matter of fact' that its our way or the highway. Plan to see many bank ceo's to leave the white house and head back to NYC with grins but clutching their briefcases with white knuckles. This is a standoff that the American people will end up being left holding the bag on that will in no way be kind to us. But this will ultimately not be at the hands of the banks but of our masters in DC. Expect 2010 to be a good year for republicans at the voting booth.

AIG and the truth behind this controversy

2009-03-25T19:54:00.000-07:00

Why do so many people in our great country ignore the true realities behind the AIG 'Bonus' fiasco? While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax. So, obviously everyone who read the mammoth 1,070 page Stimulus bill prior to its passage knew about this right? Its safe to say that our politicians in DC on both sides of the aisle did not read the bill that was deemed 'vital to America's economic sustainability to keep it from the brink of collapse' in order to know that this provision was in there? I actually believe that none of our politicians read more than the 3 - 4 pages that impacted their earmark to their district. This is what should outrage the American people more. Of course, we should care about AIG and bonuses paid if it is taxpayer money...but when its the very government who agreed to use YOUR taxpayer money to pay these bonuses should your outrage not be guided toward the real culprits?

This is only the start as the govt will continue to hand out billions in taxpayer funds to save the auto industry, more banks, amtrak, our airports, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. Isn't it about time we the people stand up and actually demand that our politicians work FOR us rather than us being slaves to their agenda's?

Renewable energy and democrats double talk...

2009-03-24T19:32:00.000-07:00

Living in California we are not short on left loons who want everyone to live in a tree, ride a bicycle, eat only the food we grow, have our pets spayed/neutered, and have all our energy derived from wind, solar and our trash. Yet, I can point to the windmill proposal off of Cape Cod as the first evidence that its the 'not in my backyard' response from Dems. You can research this issue on your own.

Fast forward to today, the much ballyhooed Diane Feinstein, senator from CA, today announced that she wants to have hundreds of thousands of acres in the CA desert reserved as a national monument. The land is between Ludlow and Needles. I have lived here for 8 years and have financed real estate all over the state and have never even heard of these two towns. Tells you how important it is to CA and its growth. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a speech last year at a Yale University climate-change conference: "If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it." So Feinstein wants to tell you in all other states that she is for renewable energy and so is CA but she just doesn't want that renewable energy (AND JOBS) here in her state. Why?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-desert25-2009mar25,0,6168582.story

Obama's press news conference

2009-03-24T18:53:00.000-07:00

Did he really say that his budget cuts the deficit in half during his first term? He says the CBO, his team, and other forecasts at their 'most conservative estimates' show the deficit decreasing at the end of his term. Yet, the CBO (non-partisan group made up mostly of democrats btw) is the exact group who said that this budget increases the deficit $1 trillion/year for the next 10 years. And those are the conservative estimates by the way from the CBO. How does he really expect the American people to buy this garbage from his mouth? He keeps blaming the past administration yet he was the one who said the blame 'must stop.'

Its quite time that Obama owns up to the fact that the last player is no longer in the batter box and the fact of the matter is that its a 1 run difference late in the ballgame. Does he keep looking over his shoulder at the bench or does he stare down the pitcher and try to at least get on base and live to fight another batter? The bat is in his hands now...

Volunteer Beacon

Herman Wins FL Straw Poll - 37%

Cain/Gingrich 2012

Frederick Douglass Foundation files class action suit against Democrat Party

How States & Nations Regulate their Commercial Intercourse

Unions, tea parties and 'equality'!

General Welfare Clause meaning - Federalist Paper #41 - Madison!

The Federalist No. 41

General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution

Independent JournalSaturday, January 19, 1788[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

Judge Napolitano on Why Opinion Polls Are Irrelevant!

Want to know the truth about slavery? | The Black Sphere

Does Obama hate white people?

Liberal vs Conservative media perceptions

Sebelius warns insurance execs of demise - Washington Times

Obama Media Strategy

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Democrats and Nuclear Option hypocrisy!

Politicans just don't get it!

An Imam vs. Christian Minister

Breitbart.tv » MSNBC’s Matthews vs. Howard Dean: ‘You’re Whistling Past the Graveyard’

Progressives pervade the current political landscape

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

Ronald Reagan - 1980 RNC Convention

Climatologists challenge the UN to present data!

Copenhagen - the fluff you need to know! Hypocrisy?

http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Climate Express sets off for Copenhagen

Your Fair Share is not in MY WALLET!

Democrats, Racism & Slavery!

10 Conditions for transition to Communism

Obama, the Olympics and failure!

Senate panel blocks GOP's abortion, illegals measures - Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/at-the-presidents-pleasure/?source=newsletter_opinion_headlines

End of America's moment - Washington Times

Remembering Mary Jo Kopechne!

Thomas Sowell

Eric Holder, Liberals and the CIA

"We are God's partners"

'We the people'...the Sleeping Giant awakes!

Cap and Trade - Take action

Iranian Muslims ask - Where has Obama gone?

Costa Rica Rendition...

All Hail the King has arrived!

Fast track passing those bills, we will figure out how to pay later!

Dismantling GM - overseen by 31 yr old Poly Sci grad!

Stimulus and Highway Trust Fund

Home Bible Study shut down by San Diego County!

Obama and car Czar targets dealers who donated to GOP

Henry Waxman - author of Cap and Trade bill

Kim Jong Il - 2, U.S. - 0

"The Government Deception"

Obama and "Values & Morals"

The Obama Brand!

Obama vs. Cheney?

Firing US Attorneys...is it true Obama?

Chrysler & Obama

Social Security and Medicare - Broke much, much sooner

Finally congrats are in order to President Obama!

Maher, Garofalo, Olbermann pay attention!

Obama's 1st 100 days - D.C. bi-partisan politics?

Repeat recent history?

Obama doctrine: "Don't blame me"

$384k and no photos?

Uh...Um...Uh, its...Uh...Call that a press conference?

Speaker of the House - - - of Cards!

Barney Frank's At It Again

Pelosi's blatant lie about the TEA Party rally's

Sites and sounds from the SM Tea Party 4.15.09

Tea Party Day!

Foreshadowing for the U.S.???

Obama denies return of $340 MM in TARP funds

Card Check and Big Labor!

Nationalize Health Care...see Massachusettes first!

Ban Black cars?

Important Day in DC - White House

AIG and the truth behind this controversy

Renewable energy and democrats double talk...

Independent Journal
Saturday, January 19, 1788
[James Madison]