Herman Wins FL Straw Poll - 37%

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

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

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

How States & Nations Regulate their Commercial Intercourse

How States & Nations Regulate their Commercial Intercourse

Unions, tea parties and 'equality'!

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!

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!

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Posted using ShareThis

Democrats and Nuclear Option hypocrisy!

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!

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

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’

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

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

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

Ronald Reagan - 1980 RNC Convention

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.