Merry Christmas !

To All My Democratic/Liberal Friends:
   Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish.

   To My Republican Friends:
   Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2010.

Universal Healthcare – Say NO!

Article from the "Investor's Business Daily.  It provides some very interesting statistics from a survey by

the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S.            65%

England       46%

Canada        42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S.            90%

England       15%

Canada        43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't think I want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .

Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences

of old age."

SHIP HIM TO CANADA OR ENGLAND AND LET HIM ENJOY THESE BENEFITS HIMSELF !

Obama’s Safe School Czar

Kevin Jennings and “FistGate” Should Make Parents Furious

by Doug Giles

Man, am I about to sound like an uncool, homophobic, bigoted zealot who should be on a terror watch list (according to the paranormal progressives). Why is that, you ask? Well, I think Obama’s G-boy, Kevin Jennings, should not be the Safe Schools Czar for many egregious reasons. Here are just a few.

I believe anyone who thinks it’s okay to teach 14-year-old boys how they can jam their fist up another 14-year-old boy’s tailpipe, or provides “fisting” kits for the kiddos, or thinks it’s neat-o to urinate on one another during teen sex, or passes out literature to your young ones on how they can find old pedophiles to hook up with at “gay leather bars,” or talks to your teen about the tricky pros and cons of spitting versus swallowing should not be the Safe Schools Czar.

Maybe Kevin Jennings could be the “Adam Lambert Eye Liner Czar” or Cher’s “Do You Believe in Life After Love Czar,” but not the Safe Schools Czar. But then again, there I go being extreme. Shame on me for not being a hip parent who’s totally cool with adult flamers filling our fifth grade kids’ heads with filth. I am truly an ignorant, puritanical, buckle-shoed killjoy, ain’t I? By the way, what the heck is up with liberals? They have their hands in our pockets, their noses in our business, and now they want their arms up our backsides.

How crazy of me that I would have the audacity to go public with the notion that someone who headed up an organization (GLSEN) that proselytizes confused kids on how they can insert their knuckles up someone else’s anus should not be the determiner of what is “safe” at school, eh? Hello!

Hey, Kev… last time I checked, trying to make your mate a hand puppet didn’t fall within the city limits of SafetyTown. Sounds kinda dangerous to me. Oh and here’s an aside for the butt pirates: Our rectums are an exit, not an entrance.

In addition, Mr. Jennings, apart from the “arm in arse” thing, from what I remember during 9th grade health class many moons ago, it’s also not wise to place one’s reproductive organ in the end of another’s digestive system.

A fist up a rectum? Are you kidding me? You guys sound like you have way too much time on your hands. If you’re in need of an idea regarding what to do with your fist, here’s one: Why don’t take your fist and smack yourself in the face with it for poisoning America’s kids with your perverted crap?

For those not in the know, Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, who was cherry picked by Obama, is not having a good week as whistleblowers are righteously shouting this guy down and trying to get him removed from calling the shots regarding what is nontoxic in your kids’ scholastic lives.

Why are watchdogs barking this dude down? Well, it’s not because he’s mildly gay but because he’s wildly militant in his homosexuality, and both he and his hombres at GLSEN have had no problemo whatsoever filling your kids’ heads and bodies with weirdness galore. For the unbelievable full list of what this man and his organization have advocated and continue to advocate, check out the fantastic work Jim Holt has done on “FistGate” at BigGovernment.com. Also, don’t miss Jennings/GLSEN’s “Little Black Book” for your sons! Hellish.

I’ve gotta warn you, mom and dad: What you’re about to read regarding “FistGate” is very sick and twisted. You’d better brace yourselves. I hope it thoroughly ticks you off that such baseness is being peddled to your babies. In addition, I hope you raise major hell with your elected reps about permanently removing Jennings from anything that has to do with your children and our schools.

Obama Reducing the Debt? Dream On

Friday, December 11, 2009

Obama Reducing the Debt? Dream On

Two recent news stories illustrate, more clearly than ever, the Obama Democrats' contempt for the free market and individual economic liberty. If given the chance, they will expand government and spend as much of our money as they can get away with.

First we learn that Obama and his party simply will not agree to keep their grubby government hands off the estimated $200 billion the banks are going to repay under TARP. Just when we finally receive this glimmer of good news to ameliorate our reasonable panic over the ever-increasing national debt, Obama announces that he intends to intercept a good portion of the debt repayments and spend it on job creation and assistance to certain debtors.

I assume we're supposed to be too dense to remember that his stimulus spending to date hasn't created jobs and that most of it hasn't even been used for that purpose. So when this administration says its first priority is reducing debt, understand we are being played -- by consummate cynics.

Likewise, the Democrats' various health care plans contemplate $500 billion in Medicare savings between 2010 and 2019. But instead of using the savings to shore up this entitlement's solvency, they are charging forward with a new entitlement: major subsidies to the uninsured to buy health insurance.

They just can't help themselves, what with their firm control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. They barely have to pretend to like capitalism anymore.

Obama's economic radicalism was as plain as day for those paying attention during the presidential campaign and not otherwise hypnotized by his platitudes. But it's not just him; the lion's share of his party is right on board, putting the lie to their long-professed centrism.

We surely all remember two of candidate Obama's unscripted comments that were particularly revealing of his economic philosophy.

When asked in the 2008 Philadelphia primary debate why he wanted to pursue a capital gains tax increase despite historical evidence that such increases generate net decreases in revenues, he said, "I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Plus, he told Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher -- who was complaining about Obama's plan to increase taxes for those, including small-business owners, making more than $250,000 -- "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you ... (has a) chance at success, too. ... My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama Democrats never tire of ridiculing supply-side economics -- which is basically letting people keep more of what they earn -- as specious "trickledown economics." Labels aside, supply-side is just common sense. The economically and historically literate know that small- and large-business owners create jobs when they're prospering and that the less burdensome the tax code the likelier they are to prosper.

But Obama Democrats, as we see from Obama's comment to Joe the Plumber, believe in "trickle-up economics," the self-defeating notion that jobs are created from the bottom up: "If the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody."

Sadly, though, we might as well dispense with any debate over which of the two economic philosophies is more effective. This is just a diversion.

Why can't everyone see the obvious? For Obama and his comrades, this isn't about creating jobs, or they wouldn't be hoarding so much of the "stimulus" money for purposes of "buying" the upcoming national elections. It isn't about getting everyone health insurance. It's about leveling the economic playing field by lowering the common denominator and spreading the misery. It's about evening the score. It's about power, i.e., who makes the decisions over how our money is to be spent.

Obama Democrats believe that they know better than we do how our money ought to be spent and that they have a superior moral right to our money. They might even recognize that supply-side economics works -- just as they know capital gains tax reductions generate more revenues. But to them, the free market isn't fair because winners and losers are determined, not by the government, but by other factors, including people's raw efforts. They believe that economic "fairness" -- or "economic justice," a good old Jane Fonda/Tom Hayden/Marxist phrase -- should be dictated from the top down by government officials and bureaucrats.

If they permit significant reduction of this monstrous debt that they are deliberately expanding exponentially, they lose their main excuse to implement their socialist schemes, which are born from the chaos and fear they've generated. So when you hear them talking about debt reduction, look at their actions, not their words -- except for their unscripted, candid statements.

Fix The Economy

Dear Mr. President,
Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy.  Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can call it the "Patriotic Retirement Plan":
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force.  Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:
1) They MUST retire.  Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They MUST buy a new American CAR.  Forty million cars ordered – Auto Industry fixed.
3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage – Housing Crisis fixed.
It can't get any easier than that!!
P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes...
Mr. President, while you're at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

Global Warming Fraud

 

 

Similarly, the U.N. was caught recently deleting documents that would disclose how member states are leading (or not leading) the way in self-greening efforts.

The scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters documented that ice melt on Antarctica was the lowest in 30 years during 2008-09, a fact being ignored intentionally by NASA.

A U.S. scholar is threatening to sue NASA in order to prompt the agency to release climate change data, which he says have been manipulated here just like in Britain.

Officials in the Environmental Protection Agency gagged one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee submitted an internal critique of the EPA's climate change position.

Unlike the U.S., China and India already have opposed foreign climate governance because it would jeopardize their national sovereignty.

Nearly two months ago, Christopher Monckton, once science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned us that the real purpose of the conference is more about global government than it is about global warming.

Obama Records & the Media

Just read this and it goes back to before the election.    But  it does express a sentiment that I agree with about the bias of the National News Media

Three days before Election Day 2008 and much of Barack Obama’s past remains shrouded in secrecy. The same press that can tell you how much Sarah Palin’s shoes cost can’t seem to muster any curiosity over large gaps in the Obama narrative.

Indeed, that same MSM press is as intent on hiding information as it is publishing it.

Presidential College Records

Senator Obama's life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.

Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.

The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.

For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image.     When Senator Kerry's transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did.

Global Warming Fraud

 From Ann Coulters Website:  http://www.anncoulter.com/

As we now know (and by "we" I mean "everyone with access to the Internet"), the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth's temperature.

Recently leaked e-mails from the "scientists" at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in the Earth's temperature since 1960 -- as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: "[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage" do not mean "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage." These words actually mean "onion soup," "sexual submissive" and "Gary, Ind."

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed "in context" -- the words' check was in the mail, and they'd like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

Obama, Baucus, Healthcare

Obama is lobbying for votes among weary Senators who fear supporting this trillion dollar debacle of a healthcare bill (a bill which amounts to nothing more than a progressive wish list of favors, pork and entitlements) as a vote draws closer. The bill was written by Senator Max Baucus, who was in the news this weekend for a different reason. Baucus could be the most thankful person alive that Tiger cheated on his wife with like 6 ‘women of the night’ - because his alleged affair suddenly doesn't seem so steamy. Should we give the guy who is drafting massive healthcare legislation the same scrutiny as a guy who plays golf?

Climate Change Conference

The big climate change conference is coming up, and it's already been conceded that nothing groundbreaking will happen as a result of the meetings. Considering the carbon footprint of this event is larger than what 60 countries produce in an entire year...combined...maybe they should get something done since they are hurting the environment so much. Perhaps participants feel a little less guilty now that it's apparent, thanks to the ClimateGate emails, much of the global warming hype is exactly that.

George Bush, Queen Elizabeth and Vladimir Putin

George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell.  While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for. The Devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth. 

Putin asks to call Russia and talks for 5 minutes. When he was finished the devil informs  Him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a check.

Next Queen Elizabeth calls England and talks for 30 minutes.  When she Was finished the devil informs her that cost is 6 million dollars, so Queen Elizabeth writes him a check.

Finally George Bush gets his turn and talks for 4 hours. When he was Finished the devil informed him that there would be no charge for the Call and feel free to call the USA anytime.

When Putin hears this he goes ballistic and asks the devil why Bush got To call the USA free. 

The devil replied, "Since Obama became president Of the USA , the country has gone to hell, so naturally it's a local call."

To Congress (And Obama)

To the Congress:

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.

The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.

Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new b***h: the American taxpayer.
And finally, to set a new record:

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments..

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?
20% of our entire economy?
With all due respect,
Are you crazy?

Obama’s Health Care Plan

Let me get this straight…
We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he

doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts

themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't  pay his taxes, overseen by

a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. 
What possibly could go wrong?

Obama: We Noticed

President Obama:
Today I read of your administrations' plan to  re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it's time we had a talk.........
During your campaign, Americans watched as you  made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your  heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one  not honoring our tradition.
YES, "We noticed." 
During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that  you intended to visit all 57 states. 
We all know that Islam, not America has 57  states.
YES, "We noticed." 
When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently  placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly  tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning  over.
YES, "We noticed." 
Every time you apologized to other countries for America  's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our  pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders  berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In  fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.
YES, "We noticed." 
When your pastor of 20 years, "God-damned America " and said  that 9/11 was " America 's chickens coming home to roost"  and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we  wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself  from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically  expedient to do so.
YES, "We noticed."
When you announced that you would transform America ,  we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the  greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, "if not for   America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in  the White House now." Prior to your election to the highest  office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and  from what we can glean from the records available, not a very  remarkable one.
YES, "We noticed." 
All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded  yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for  the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the  majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her  traditions.
YES, "We noticed."
You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions  of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek  to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance  reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt  this nation.

YES, "We noticed."

We seek, by protesting,  to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of  these crippling expenditures and we are  labeled "un-American","racist", "mob". We wonder how we are supposed  to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to  make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until  your appointment, Americans had the right to speak  out.
YES, "We noticed."
On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans  or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and  helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11  was carried out because we are Americans. 
And YES, "We noticed." 
There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done  more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have  failed us.
YES, "We noticed."
September 11 is a day of remembrance for all  Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day".  While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we  pray that history will report your proposal as what it is...a  disgrace.

YES, "We noticed."

You have made a mockery of  our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have  embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits  and policy.
YES, "We noticed.."

We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove  you from office.
Take notice.

To the Democratic Liberals

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the "runner-in-chief. ."/
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more
fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq , like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.
American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer..
You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.
Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

Joke About Today’s Media

A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Washington , DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'

The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'

The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'

The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.' The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

That pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.

Obama – the Afghanistan Indecision

Let me see whether I have the facts straight.

In May, President Barack Obama removed Gen. David D. McKiernan as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and replaced him with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal -- who, in September, issued a dire report warning that without as many as 40,000 more troops for the fight in Afghanistan, the mission "will likely result in failure."

President Obama responded by saying that he would make no quick decision but take as long as needed to do a broad study first on the issue.

Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies.

Roughly a month after McChrystal's requests, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel continued to blame the Bush administration for the chaos in the war. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blamed former Vice President Dick Cheney. Vice President Joe Biden blamed the generals for a bad military plan. And presidential adviser David Axelrod blamed Fox News.

Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies.

Two weeks ago, when asked about Obama's indecisiveness about McChrystal's requests, Gibbs rebuffed: "The president will make a decision in the next few weeks. ... I don't know when that decision will be. It could be before the runoff (election in Afghanistan on Nov. 7); it might be after the runoff."

Meanwhile, more U.S. troops died at the hands of our enemies.

Last Friday, the president met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and discussed the Afghanistan-Pakistan situation some more and then said he wants another meeting.

It has been almost two months since Gen. McChrystal first warned the president of the dire situation in Afghanistan, yet our commander in chief continues to delay a response.

Meanwhile, record numbers of U.S. troop casualties mount in Afghanistan.

Liberal Socialist Hypocrisy – The Deficit

I nearly fell out of my chair as I read this New York Times headline: "Democrats Push for Plan to Cut Deficit." From the headline alone, I couldn't tell whether this was before, during or after they supported President Barack Obama's intentional, exponential escalation of the deficit to $1.4 trillion.

That's simply immeasurable chutzpah. But just in case you're ready to be taken in yet again by these fair-weather deficit watchdogs, the first sentence of the Times article reveals their true -- and true to form -- motive.

"Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats, the White House and Congressional leaders are weighing options for narrowing the gap, including a bipartisan commission that could force tax increases and spending cuts."

Those elections have a stubborn habit of forcing even drunken sailor politicians to pretend to care about other people's money they otherwise have an unlimited appetite for squandering.

But wait; I thought concern about runaway federal spending was the concern only of those "tea party" protestors the administration has dubbed "potential domestic terrorists" who were carrying "political paraphernalia" -- copies of the U.S. Constitution -- and engaging in "right-wing extremist chatter" focused "on the economy."

No, we're supposed to believe the Democrats care about deficits again, the ones Obama is planning on expanding to between $9 trillion and $13 trillion over the next decade.

Liberal President In A Conservative Christian Country

These are the times that try conservatives’ souls.

A liberal president wants funding for defense slashed. Congress aims to increase taxes and regulate just about everything. Activist judges create new “rights” while ignoring long-standing precedent.

So why remain upbeat? Because our country still has the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They’re the touchstones of our liberty -- and the conservative trump cards in the battle of ideas.

“We don’t need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles,” writes scholar Matthew Spalding in his latest book. “The change we need is not the rejection of America’s principles but a great renewal of these permanent truths about humanity, politics, and liberty -- the foundational principles and constitutional wisdom that are the true roots of our country’s greatness.”

In short, we need a roadmap back to where our country should be. That’s where Spalding’s “We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future” comes in. It outlines the core principles of liberty, details the progressive liberals’ assault on those principles, and explains why and how we must defend and reapply them if we are to save our country.

The principles of our Declaration and our Constitution must again become “an expression of the American mind,” as Thomas Jefferson once said. We can -- and must -- insist that our leaders again abide by true constitutional principles. But we also must rediscover these principles as a people if we are to reclaim our future.

The Tenth Amendment

Lawyers are busy writing language only they can understand which seeks to circumvent the intentions of the Founders. But it will be difficult to circumvent the last four words of the Tenth Amendment, which state unambiguously where ultimate power lies: "...or to the people."

Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM, dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and who want their country returned to its founding principles, must now exercise that power before it is taken from them. The Tenth Amendment is one place to begin. The streets are another. It worked for the Left.

Obamacare the Public Option

The public option is back. That is, if you believed it had ever really gone away.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came out from his inner sanctum where only a few of his closest associates are hammering out legislative text in private, away from the prying eyes of both concerned citizens and even other elected representatives.

That’s troubling.

After all, what incumbents in Washington are doing will restructure more than 17 percent of our nation’s economy.

Obama, McChrystal and Afghanistan

When it comes to Afghanistan, what separates President Barack Obama and Gen. Stanley McChrystal?

Not much. Neither wants to destroy the Taliban -- just tamp it down to the point where an as-yet non-existent Afghan state can function. Which is why -- prediction time -- McChrystal won't quit when Obama gives him fewer forces than McChrystal is asking for.

Obama – Polygamy

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Obama Makes Polygamy a 21st-Century Issue

by Phyllis Schlafly

No sooner had we celebrated the exit of Barack Obama's green jobs czar, Van Jones, because of his Communist connections, another off-the-wall administration embarrassment surfaced. President Obama nominated for commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a woman who signed a radical manifesto endorsing polygamy.

We thought our nation had settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but this nomination makes it a 21st century controversy. Obama's nominee for the EEOC, a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner").

This document, titled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.

Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness," in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."

Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"

Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the traditional definition of marriage, including the tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers, both very popular federal laws.

The peculiar push to recognize polygamy as just another variety of marriage is a predictable and logical corollary of the political movement to recognize same-sex marriage. If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

For years, polygamy, even though it is totally demeaning to women, has been embraced by the powerful American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Polygamy is one of the many controversial issues that were not raised during ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg's so-friendly Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." On Oct. 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.

Speaking to the Federalist Society on Nov. 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.

The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that approve of polygamy as well as marriage to children and to close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been admitted to the United States and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.

Attacks on the traditional legal definition of marriage come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle, from the anti-marriage feminists and from some libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private affair, none of the government's business. These libertarians want to deny government the right to define marriage, set its standards or issue marriage licenses.

Government now has and should have a very important role in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person at a time, or marry a child or a close relative, even though such practices are common in some foreign countries.

In socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. British Columbia's Supreme Court is now being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.

We may have to depend on the Republican Party to maintain government's proper role in defining and protecting traditional marriage. The very first platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism," and the 2008 Republican platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it."

Health Care Overhaul

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Health Care Overhaul IV: This Time, It's Personal

by Mona Charen

I labeled it "Health Care Overhaul IV" for convenience. In fact, a new 2,000-page behemoth seems to emerge more than once a week from the maw of Congress, so it's becoming impossible to keep track.

Until now, my reasons for opposing this fright mask were entirely dispassionate and flowed from 1) common sense (how are they going to provide more care for less money, and can we afford another huge entitlement when existing ones are going bankrupt?); 2) experience (government entitlements always cost far more than projections and government is far less efficient at providing services than the private sector); and 3) philosophy (the way to reduce prices is to increase competition -- not reduce it). But now the proposals being considered will hit my family particularly hard. This time, it's personal.

In order to pay for its new entitlement, the Senate Finance Committee bill (Baucus) proposes to tax medical device manufacturers $40 billion over the next 10 years. To the average person, medical device manufacturers may not mean much. They produce heart monitors, stents, and pacemakers.

They also produce insulin pumps. My 16-year-old son, who has had Type I diabetes (an autoimmune disease distinct from Type II) since the age of 9, depends on a pump to live a reasonably normal life. If he didn't have an insulin pump -- a device the size of a cell phone that delivers insulin through a tube directly under his skin -- he would be required to give himself as many as four injections a day, as he did before he got the pump. And his life expectancy would be shorter.

In just the six years since David began using the pump, the technology has improved markedly. Whereas he used to have to insert the catheter (which must be changed every three days) with a 2-inch needle, he now uses a much less painful spring-operated inserter. The programming has become more sophisticated as well. The pump can now deliver carefully calibrated doses for high-carb foods like pizza and ice cream -- foods that are otherwise parlous for diabetics to enjoy -- and the pump is preset with carb counts for many common foods.

Insulin pumps provide better blood sugar control than other diabetes treatments. But they are far from perfect. Even careful users will frequently experience highs (which increase the likelihood of long-term complications like heart disease and blindness) and lows (which can be immediately life-threatening).

Yes, we families with Type I pray for a cure. But the recent progress in technology has offered really tantalizing possibilities. Medical device manufacturers have recently debuted a new technology that is key to the health of Type I diabetics -- continuous glucose monitors. These provide 24/7 data on the patient's blood sugar to supplement the six daily finger sticks. Eventually, the combination of these two technologies -- the insulin pump and the continuous glucose monitor -- could provide the Holy Grail for Type I diabetics: an artificial pancreas. The AP would keep blood glucose at normal or near normal levels and thus prevent worst effects of diabetes. We've heard estimates that the technology may become available within five years.

Unless the medical device industry is hit with a major tax.

While the U.S. leads the world in medical technology, most device makers are not huge conglomerates, but smaller companies already hurting in this recession. According to the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the industry consists of about 6,000 companies, most of which earn less than $100 million annually. The chief executive of B. Braun Medical, which makes pain control devices, told the Washington Post that paying his share of the new tax would "exceed my research and development budget." The $4 billion annual tax would represent about 40 percent of the industry's outlay for research and development ($9.6 billion).

If this tax is enacted, medical device manufacturers will cut back drastically on R and D, and may have to lay off employees. In addition, they will charge higher prices for their products to compensate for the money confiscated by Washington. Since health insurance plans frequently cover half or more of the cost of these already expensive products, health insurance rates would have to rise as well. This is just one more example of the ways health care costs would be driven up, not down, by the Democrats' reforms.

As for David, he will see the prospect of an artificial pancreas -- his greatest hope for a healthier and longer life -- recede over the horizon.

Political Bumper Sticker

Saw this bumper sticker while waling to my car after church and I loved it;  if I ever find out where to  buy them I will get one.  Here it is:

Dont blame me, I voted for Sarah Palin.

Stop Obama

No big message I just think we have to stop this administration from destroying the USA as we know it.

We can gain ground with every succeeding election if we all get active and campaign.   We can refuse to watch any news from the major networks and just watch FOX. 

Recession Is Over?

The recession is over, we are told. The Commerce Department announced Thursday that the economy grew in the third quarter of 2009 by 3.5 percent. Great, huh?

Maybe not. About half that growth came from the Cash for Clunkers program, which transferred into the third quarter auto sales that would have occurred later. The expiring tax credit of $8,000 for first-time homebuyers stimulated some house sales. Most of the impact of the $787 billion stimulus package, we are told by the Obama White House, has already been felt.

"There were few signs in the new data," writes The Washington Post's Neil Irwin, "that the private sector will be able to sustain that growth once the government pulls back." Or, as Peggy Noonan writes in The Wall Street Journal, "No one has any faith in these numbers."

And no one has much confidence that unemployment, which hit 9.8 percent in September, will decline significantly any time soon -- or that the policies of the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders will stimulate the creation of new jobs.

Higher tax rates on high earners, which will take effect when the Bush tax cuts expire next year, will certainly not create jobs. The taxes and increased federal spending in the Democrats' health care bills won't, either. Nor will the increased cost of energy that would be imposed by the Democrats' cap-and-trade legislation.

As for the stimulus package,  twice as many Californians filed for unemployment benefits last week than the total number of California jobs that were "created or saved,"

Dismantling America

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Dismantling America: Part II

by Thomas Sowell

Many years ago, at a certain academic institution, there was an experimental program that the faculty had to vote on as to whether or not it should be made permanent.

I rose at the faculty meeting to say that I knew practically nothing about whether the program was good or bad, and that the information that had been supplied to us was too vague for us to have any basis for voting, one way or the other. My suggestion was that we get more concrete information before having a vote.

The director of that program rose immediately and responded indignantly and sarcastically to what I had just said-- and the faculty gave him a standing ovation.

After the faculty meeting was over, I told a colleague that I was stunned and baffled by the faculty's fierce response to my simply saying that we needed more information before voting.

"Tom, you don't understand," he said. "Those people need to believe in that man. They have invested so much hope and trust in him that they cannot let you stir up any doubts."

Years later, and hundreds of miles away, I learned that my worst misgivings about that program did not begin to approach the reality, which included organized criminal activity.

The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.

Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.

Here too, it seems as if so many people have invested so much hope and trust in Barack Obama that it is intolerable that anyone should come along and stir up any doubts that could threaten their house of cards.

Among the most pathetic letters and e-mails I receive are those from people who ask why I don't write more "positively" about Obama or "give him the benefit of the doubt."

No one-- not even the President of the United States-- has an entitlement to a "positive" response to his actions. The entitlement mentality has eroded the once common belief that you earned things, including respect, instead of being given them.

As for the benefit of the doubt, no one-- especially not the President of the United States-- is entitled to that, when his actions can jeopardize the rights of 300 million Americans domestically and the security of the nation in an international jungle, where nuclear weapons may soon be in the hands of people with suicidal fanaticism. Will it take a mushroom cloud over an American city to make that clear? Was 9/11 not enough?

When a President of the United States has begun the process of dismantling America from within, and exposing us to dangerous enemies outside, the time is long past for being concerned about his public image. He has his own press agents for that.

Internationally, Barack Obama has made every mistake that was made by the Western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes that put Hitler in a position to start World War II-- and come dangerously close to winning it.

At the heart of those mistakes was trying to mollify your enemies by throwing your friends to the wolves. The Obama administration has already done that by reneging on this country's commitment to put a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and by its lackadaisical foot-dragging on doing anything serious to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That means, for all practical purposes, throwing Israel to the wolves as well.

Countries around the world that have to look out for their own national survival, above all, are not going to ignore how much Obama has downgraded the reliability of America's commitments.

Iraq, for example, knows that Iran is going to be next door forever while Americans may be gone in a few years. South Korea likewise knows that North Korea is permanently next door but who knows when the Obama administration will get a bright idea to pull out? Countries in South America know that Hugo Chavez is allying Venezuela with Iran. Dare they ally themselves with an unreliable U.S.A.? Or should they join our enemies to work against us?

This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.

The Obama White House: Bundlers' Paradise

The Obama White House: Bundlers' Paradise

by Michelle Malkin

Like Capt. Renault in "Casablanca," I am shocked, shocked to discover that access peddling is going on in the Obama White House. Perks for deep-pocketed donors? Presidential meetings for sale? The stale Chicago odor of pay-for-play wafting from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Knock me over with a feather.

Despite the president's claimed distaste for the campaign finance practice known as "bundling" (rounding up aggregate contributions from friends, business associates and employees), the House of Obama has been a campaign finance bundlers' paradise from Day One. A new report by Matthew Mosk of The Washington Times just confirms the gob-smackingly obvious: It's business as usual in the era of Hope and Change. O's wealthiest Democratic donors have received lavish receptions, golf outings, bowling dates and movie nights with Obama.

And internal Democratic National Committee documents acquired by the Times reveal that "high-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections." Yup, they're just haggling over the price.

Many Obama bundlers have secured slots on federal advisory panels and commissions. Still more have benefited from the time-honored patronage tradition of rewarding political benefactors with ambassadorships. Clinton did it. Bush did it. And despite all his fantastical, Balloon Boy-level rhetoric of bringing a "new politics" to Washington, Obama's done it, too.

His ambassador to London, Louis Susman, is a Chicago crony with no diplomatic experience who bundled between $200,000 and $500,000 for Team Obama and is known as "The Vacuum Cleaner" for his fundraising prowess. His ambassador to France, entertainment mogul Charlie Rivkin, headed up Obama's California fundraising operations, raking in $500,000 for the campaign and another $300,000 for the inaugural. His ambassador to Spain, Boston moneyman Alan Solomont, also bundled the same amounts for the campaign and inaugural.

In June 2008, candidate Obama railed: "We need a president who will look out for the interests of hardworking families, not just their big campaign donors and corporate allies." Immediately after the speech, he headed to a campaign fundraiser at the Manhattan headquarters of Credit Suisse, one of the major investment companies caught up in the subprime lending debacle. President Obama collected $3 million last week at another Manhattan fundraiser after carping about Wall Street's "self-interestedness." Audacity is his middle name.

When Obama inveighs against Wall Street greed and politicians beholden to Big Business, remember this: The Wall Street gamblers that Obama and his wife carped about on the campaign trail shoveled money to his campaign hand over fist. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, hedge funds and private equity firms donated $2,992,456 to the Obama campaign in the 2008 cycle. No fewer than 100 Obama bundlers are investment CEOs and brokers: Nearly two dozen work for financial giants such as Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup.

Obama happily accepted more than $200,000 in bundled contributions from billionaire hedge-fund manager James Torrey, more than $100,000 in bundled contributions from billionaire hedge-fund manager Paul Tudor Jones and more than $50,000 in bundled contributions from billionaire hedge-fund manager Kenneth C. Griffin, chief executive officer of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago. Another notable: Chicago investment banker James Reynolds, who raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign while chief executive of Loop Capital Markets. The municipal bond specialist was a longtime friend of Obama's -- feting the rising star in his Hyde Park home and convincing friends and associates to open up their wallets more than a decade ago.

In 2003, USA Today reported, Reynolds was caught on FBI wiretaps arranging what prosecutors called a "sham" consulting contract with a gal pal of a Philadelphia mayoral adviser. After the conversations, Reynolds snagged $300,000 in no-bid city contracts for Loop Capital Markets. City officials went to jail over the scam. Reynolds skated. The Obama campaign's only statement? "Jim Reynolds has admitted that he made mistakes, but he has not been charged with any wrongdoing."

Fortunately for Obama bundlers who may find themselves in legal trouble in the future, Clinton-era donor-maintenance fixer Eric Holder (who oversaw the pardon for fugitive financier Marc Rich) is guarding the henhouse at the Justice Department.

Every corner of the Obama administration is stuffed with crony moneybags. Take the first lady's social secretary, Desiree Rogers. More than a party planner, she's a fundraising machine in her own right. According to left-wing watchdog Public Citizen, Rogers bundled more than $200,000 for Obama and contributed $28,500 to Democratic committees. Rogers' ex-husband, John W. Rogers Jr., chief executive of multibillion-dollar Ariel Capital Management, played basketball with Michelle O's brother, Craig Robinson, at Princeton. Mr. Rogers also served as a campaign finance bundler for Team Obama -- and hung with Obama in the White House on Super Bowl Sunday.

An indignant White House says this is about "friendship," not influence peddling. But as Obama himself noted in 2007: "It is no coincidence that the best bundlers are often granted the greatest access, and access is power in Washington."

Indeed, the Obama White House policy can be summed up in four words: No Bundler Left Behind.

Divorce Agreement - America

DIVORCE AGREEMENT
THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement: 
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by Blue and Red majority landmass each taking a portion. That will be most difficult part, but I am sure  our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security. 
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. 
We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. 
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World. 
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.  
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years. 
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.
P. S. S.  And we won't have to press 1 for English.

Obvious Media Bias

Politico Notes the Obvious Media Bias

Politico, in a well written article, notes the double standard that exists with the Obama administration and the media. Worth a read, the point should be less about sympathy for the Bush administration, and more about the media’s complete lack of objectivity…

What if Bush had done that?

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

Liberal Socialists – Playing For Keeps

Here is a column worth reading:

Monday, October 26, 2009

Playing For Keeps

by Joseph C. Phillips
I was an innocent - not pure as the driven snow, but certainly unwise as to the level of the stakes at which we were playing. I entered the debate believing it would be an intellectual exercise; we would joust with each other and after it was all over shake hands and exit with mutual respect. I couldn't have been more wrong. Mutual respect? The black panelists on my side of the question were called Uncle Toms, the white member was accused of seeking to repeal the civil rights act. Honesty? No lie was too large to tell; statistics were made up, facts were created to suit the argument. And there would be no shaking of hands at the conclusion of the debate, in fact barely a graceful word was spoken. It was in that moment I realized the left not only disagreed with me; they hated me. I was not only wrong; I was evil. That slap in the face knocked the rose colored glasses from my eyes and I am now seeing clearly: we are in the midst of a cultural and ideological war and while Conservatives concern themselves with civility and rules, progressives are playing for keeps.

It is a continuing fascination for me that conservatives are constantly depicted as wearing Jackboots and engaging in intimidation, violence and general thuggery. However, current events suggest that more often it is the new left that is wearing jack boots and not the right.

For instance who was doing the goose-stepping when radio host Rush Limbaugh was booted from an investment group trying to buy the NFL franchise St. Louis Rams? The new left lied and slandered Limbaugh with the aim of denying him an economic opportunity. Denying a man opportunity because we don't like what he believes, what he says or what he looks like is (or should be) anathema to a free society. Shame on Dave Checketts and Roger Goodell for giving in to cheap intimidation and ideological bigotry! By their cowardice we are all diminished.

Many on the left disagree and are no doubt satisfied at the outcome. But for whom does the bell toll next? Who else's opinions will be objectionable? What makes a football team any different from any other business that employs people? Should anyone with unpopular beliefs be barred from owning, say, a Burger King franchise? Should we then also check ideological credentials at the gates of certain neighborhoods? The doors to our schools?

The left often dons the coat of righteous indignation because it tends to give one an air of civility. They are not, however, above some good old fashioned name calling or back alley beat-downs.

Recall the response of Dennis Rivera, health care chairman of the Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) - as well as a master of irony -- following the arrest of two of his esteemed members for allegedly pummeling a conservative protestor senseless. Rivera denounced conservative "terrorist tactics" aimed at derailing the debate on healthcare reform. Terrorists tactics are now defined as peaceful protest.

Rivera is not the only one with a rather elastic definition of terrorism; Rosabeth Moss Kanter a professor at Harvard business school writing in Politico justifies the depiction of tea partiers, conservatives and healthcare reform protestors as racist buffoons because they are enemies of America. Kanter writes: "President [Barack] Obama is marginalizing not just his enemies but those of the American people. He is attacking organizations standing in the way of progress toward reforming health care or cleaning up the conditions that led to the financial crisis. He is putting on notice advocates of greed - instead of the greater good - that they no longer have public legitimacy."

Yes you read it correctly. America's enemies are not Islamist, North Korean demagogues, or even Maoists and admitted communists working at the highest levels of our government. Rather they are American citizens that disagree with this president and other new liberals on the degree to which government should interfere and control our economic and cultural institutions. No doubt they had better keep their opinions to themselves lest they be greeted with some of what Rush got.

I have been working on a collection of thoughts by Americans on their love of America. After agreeing to participate a comedian friend of mine reneged. He joked that he didn't want to be dragged from his car and beaten for having his name appear in a conservative book. Two things struck me as peculiar: first, that loving ones country and writing about it is a "conservative" activity (not my belief but apparently his), and that he would joke of his concern that the liberal thought police would find him and give him a beat him for stepping out of line.

As my mother used to say, "Many a truth is said in jest."

Obviously my friend had discarded his rose colored glasses long ago.

Funny Isn’t It?

That it was the liberal/socialist and their media lackies that first used the term tea baggers while us Christian Conservatives didn’t know that it was all about.  But then morality was never their strong suit. 

Do you align yourself with the good values and morality of the Right or the everything goes excess of the Left.

Fox News

Keep up the good work!    The Whitehouse Obama thugs are showing their true Socialist colors.   Can you imagine what this Bozo would do if he was trashed and demonized the way President Bush was.   

So all of you Lemmings keep following this scum bag Socialist over the cliff – and hurry up would you. . . .

Obamacare – Lies

As liberals rush Obamacare through Congress, let's review the disparity between promises and text. Joe Wilson's declaration "You lie!" is ringing truer with each passing day.

Barack Obama promised "transparency" and to give the public five days to read the bill, but Sen. Jim Bunning's amendment to require the bill, along with a final Congressional Budget Office score, to be posted online 72 hours before the vote was defeated.

The Democrats still hope to rush the bill through unread. The 1,100-page stimulus bill was posted online only 13 hours before the vote, and the 1,200-page cap-and-trade bill was posted only 15 hours before the vote.

Obama promised that the health care bill would not cover illegal aliens, but Sen. Chuck Grassley's amendment to require immigrants to prove their identities with photo IDs was rejected.

Obama promised that if you like your current health insurance, you won't have to change it, but Sen. John Cornyn's amendment to assure present insurance owners that they wouldn't have to change their coverage and that they could keep the coverage they have with their current employers without government driving up cost was defeated.

Obama's appointment of 34 czars includes a health care czar, but Sen. John Ensign's amendment to require any health care czar to be subject to the constitutional Senate confirmation process was defeated. Obama's new regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, defends removing organs from terminally ill patients and from deceased people, even when they did not consent to be organ donors.

Obama promised that under his plan, "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, tried to divert attention from this bold lie by obfuscating the Hyde Amendment. But the Hyde Amendment is not a law; it's a one-year-at-a-time rider that applies only to current Medicaid programs, and it would not apply to the health care law.

The Democrats five times (twice in Senate committees, three times in House committees) defeated amendments to prohibit the health care plan from spending federal money or requiring health insurance plans to cover abortions.

They also defeated Sen. Orrin Hatch's amendment to respect the conscience rights of health care workers who do not want to perform abortions because of moral or religious objections.

One amendment that did pass was Sen. Maria Cantwell's amendment, which would give the secretary of health and human services the power to define cost-effective care for each medical condition and to punish doctors who treat high-cost patients with complex conditions. That has been Obama's goal from the beginning and inevitably will lead to the "death panels" Sarah Palin warned about

Finally, we are subject to the deviousness of what House Minority Leader John Boehner calls the 70 phantom amendments, which were added in secret after the bill was voted out by the committee. The bill may be even worse than we think.

Democratic , Liberal , Socialist Hypocracy

And the concept of attempting to intimidate the press was, for many people, among the most serious of misdeeds by Richard Nixon.

So, where is the outrage over the public war the White House is waging against the Fox News Channel?

Can't find it.

Barak Hussein Obama

Sorry to disillusion those of you who are still in denial about President Barack Obama's true socialistic and dictatorial nature, but this guy's militancy against his perceived enemies puts Richard Nixon's White House to shame. His war on Fox News is just his latest salvo.

Obama's perceived enemies are all those who have the temerity not to roll over for his extreme agenda. They all must be demonized, marginalized and silenced by a president who has turned the Oval Office into a glorified street organizing headquarters to attack his opponents. Indeed, this self-described uniter is the most divisive president in memory, and his uncontrollable ego can't countenance legitimate dissent.

Michael Moore – Not A Christan or Patriot

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Capitalism: A Big Fat Smelly Love Story

by Mike Adams

Michael Moore says he’s a Christian. I think he’s an ungrateful hypocrite who makes millions of dollars lying and defaming real Christians without blinking or, for that matter, shaving. He rarely checks his facts and, like John Edwards, has charged as much as $30,000 to speak out against capitalism and poverty for a whole hour. But at least he didn’t father an illegitimate child while his wife was suffering from cancer. Remaining perpetually un-bathed does have some advantages.

But enough about Michael Moore’s good qualities. One of Moore’s worst qualities is that he supports a 70% income tax rate, which would virtually destroy charitable giving in this country. Let me be clear: No man who would implement tax policies that would virtually destroy charitable giving can call himself a Christian. And few Christians can fulfill their duty to tithe when faced with a 70% tax burden.

Christian capitalists are the backbone of this great Christian nation. Take my good friend Jim Weaver. His wife quit a well-paying position last year to take care of their three small children. They are living off of one income now. But that hasn’t changed Jim’s commitment to using the money derived from the greatest economic system ever devised – capitalism, not socialism – to help others in need.

He gives 5% of his gross business profits to my friend Pastor Jackson from Kenya. You may know the story of Pastor Jackson. He felt a calling to build a mission seeking to take young boys off the streets of Kenya, to give them a home, and to teach them about the Gospel. He had an overwhelming sense that a small church in North Carolina was somehow supposed to help him fulfill that mission. So he sold his car to buy a plane ticket to go to America and visit these people he had never met.

The capitalists that run the church – mostly white males, I hear - decided to pledge 10% of their offerings to his mission. And now, driven by capitalist profits - and not a cent of government money - the mission is thriving. The man who sold his car to get to America has built a new school for the boys. They just bought a new school bus. They even decided to open up a new school for girls.

Around the time Pastor Jackson was taking his leap of faith, Michael Moore was harassing Charlton Heston – a Christian suffering from Alzheimer’s – with abrasive questions for an award-winning documentary. I think it was called “Bowling for the Special Olympics” but I could be wrong. I never check my facts when I’m writing about Michael Moore. I didn’t even take a shower today.

When Michael Moore did his “Fahrenheit 911” documentary he featured an anti-war group in Fresno that had been infiltrated by local police. Soon, the ACLU was teaming with Moore to come to the aid of the anti-war radicals. Imaging that: America’s biggest (literally) Christian teamed up with the organization that has done more to exclude Christians from the public square than any in our Christian nation’s history.

By contrast, my capitalist friend Jim Weaver also gives 5% gross profits to the Alliance Defense Fund – the greatest defenders of Christian legal rights in our Christian nation’s history. If Michael Moore doesn’t believe me here’s some evidence that not all capitalists are greedy and uncharitable.

While Michael Moore is teaming with the ACLU, the profits derived from my buddy’s capitalist risk-taking will defend another Californian who had his First Amendment rights violated. I wonder whether Michael Moore will give any of the millions made in his last (capitalist?) venture to help Jonathan Lopez.

Surely Michael Moore has heard of Jonathan Lopez. He was the student given a chance to speak on any topic whatsoever in his class at Los Angeles Community College (LACC). He decided to speak about God and miracles. In that speech, he quoted two Bible verses and expressed his support for traditional marriage. His instructor halted the speech, called him a “fascist b*stard,” and, remarkably, refused to give him a grade.

After his instructor wrote “ask God what your grade is” on his evaluation sheet – instead of actually giving Jonathan a grade in the class he paid for – he contacted the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Lawyers for the ADF contacted the LACC administration. They tried to explain that a public school cannot ban as “offensive” the view that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. But the school brazenly stood behind its patently illegal speech code. LACC administrators then flippantly told ADF lawyers who they could call in order to serve papers.

In other words, LACC dared ADF to sue them. So ADF sued them. And, now, the LACC speech code has been nullified with a federal court injunction. This victory was made possible by small business men, like Jim Weaver, who take capitalist risks and use the profits to help fellow Christians in need.

If Michael Moore succeeds he will destroy the capitalist choice to give, which is necessary to qualify any act as charitable. Even liberals will lose the freedom to donate money to their favorite causes – such as saving the delta smelt and terminating their girlfriend’s pregnancies.

Barack Hussein Obama’s Enemy List

Sorry to disillusion those of you who are still in denial about President Barack Obama's true socialistic and dictatorial nature, but this guy's militancy against his perceived enemies puts Richard Nixon's White House to shame. His war on Fox News is just his latest salvo.

Obama's perceived enemies are all those who have the temerity not to roll over for his extreme agenda. They all must be demonized, marginalized and silenced by a president who has turned the Oval Office into a glorified street organizing headquarters to attack his opponents. Indeed, this self-described uniter is the most divisive president in memory, and his uncontrollable ego can't countenance legitimate dissent.

Consider:

--He has smeared medical doctors with reckless charges that they administer unnecessary courses of treatment for profit, e.g., tonsillectomies and limb amputations.

--He publicly berated Chrysler's senior creditors as a "small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else," merely because they wouldn't acquiesce to his demands and insisted on asserting their contractual rights.

--He has demonized "big oil" and other energy producers, free market capitalists, corporate executives, pharmaceutical companies, Republicans who oppose his health care plan as dishonest and partisan, the wealthy, municipal policemen who dared arrest his Ivy League professor friend for disturbing the peace, pro-lifers, global warming skeptics, the CIA, the military, the best health care system in the world, and George W. Bush every time he needs cover for the inevitably negative consequences of his policies.

--He uses his White House blog to attack his political opponents.

--He condemned opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens as "demagogues."

--He foreshadowed his true nature in the campaign with his spontaneous denunciation of small-town Americans as bitterly clinging to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.

--His administration has likened "tea party" protestors to an "angry mob" and "potential terrorists." His adviser David Axelrod has said they "are not in the mainstream and not in the majority" and represent "the angriest and most strident voices."

--In reference to opponents of his health care scheme, he said in a speech to a joint session of Congress, "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it." He also said: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so (Democrats) can clean up the mess." And this: "If you misrepresent what is in this plan, we will call you out."

--He has targeted and vilified the entire insurance industry for daring to oppose his plan, describing them as "those who would bend the truth -- or break it -- to score political points and stop our progress as a country," and accusing them of "filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads ... designed to mislead the American people." Even the liberal New York Times acknowledged Obama's use of "unusually harsh terms" in attacking the industry as being "interested only in preserving their own 'profits and bonuses.'" And in a true Stalinesque intimidation move, he is threatening to repeal the industry's antitrust exemption.

--He has abused the office of the presidency to personally attack Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and conservative talk radio in general. As we speak, his "czars" are devising schemes to shut down that very medium.

--Now he has launched an orchestrated attack against the only television network that makes a sincere effort at offering balance, Fox News Channel, in an attempt to isolate, demonize and delegitimize the organization because it won't follow suit and join the state-run media. The administration is vacillating between boycotting and allowing some administration officials to appear on the network. Obama singled Fox out as "entirely devoted to attacking my administration." Rahm Emanuel said it's "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." David Axelrod said, "It's really not news; it's pushing a point of view." Axelrod implored ABC's George Stephanopoulos and his network "not to treat (Fox) as a news organization." White House communications director Anita Dunn, who has bragged about her success at controlling the media, said Fox is "like a wing of the Republican Party" that "spouts Republican talking points."

The common denominator of all these vicious White House attacks is that their targets are those who oppose the administration's agenda. Instead of selling its agenda the old-fashioned way -- by convincing the unconvinced -- it attacks those who dare to articulate and air the opposing point of view. This is a totalitarian, bullying administration, which is revealing its heightened state of panic and desperation over the public's growing awareness of the dangerousness of its policy prescriptions for America.

U.S. Borders

Let me see if I understand all this....
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER, YOU GET SHOT.

BUT, IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY

, YOU GET A DRIVERS LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, AND FREE HEALTH CARE?

Oh well sure.  That makes sense.

Liberal Hypocrisy on Gun Control

Anti-Gun Advocate N.C. State Senator Shoots Intruder

Aug 24 , 2009
RALEIGH — Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles , 74 , shot one of two intruders at his home Sunday.
The victim was taken to a hospital , but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening.
"I am not in a position to talk to you , " Soles said by telephone.
Soles , a top-ranking Democrat already was the subject of an SBI investigation over sexual misconduct with former male clients.
The Senator , who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public , didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in danger.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion , the "Do As I Say And Not As I Do" Anti-Gun Activist took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record in North Carolina shows that the actions that he took to protect his family , his own response to a dangerous situation , are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have.
It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety are more valuable than ours. But , this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives , raise our kids , and protect our families better than we can.

Robot Bartender

Guy goes into a bar, there's a robot bartender.

The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini."
The robot brings back the best martini ever and says to the man,
"What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "168".
The robot then proceeds to talk about physics, space exploration and
medical technology.

The guy leaves, but he is curious, so he goes back into the bar.
The robot bartender says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini".
Again, the robot makes a great martini, gives it to the man and says,

"What's your IQ?
The guy says, "100."
The robot then starts to talk about Nascar, Budweiser and John Deere tractors.

The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will
try it one more time.
He goes back into the bar.
The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini", and the robot brings him another great

martini.

The robot then says, "What's your IQ"
The guy says, "Uh, about 50."
The robot leans in real close and says, "So, you people still happy
you voted for Obama?"

Robot Bartender

Guy goes into a bar, there's a robot bartender.

The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini."
The robot brings back the best martini ever and says to the man,
What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "168".
The robot then proceeds to talk about physics, space exploration and  medical technology.
 

The guy leaves, but he is curious, so he goes back into the bar.
The robot bartender says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini".
Again, the robot makes a great martini, gives it to the man and says,
"What's your IQ?
The guy says, "100."
The robot then starts to talk about Nascar, Budweiser and John Deere tractors.

The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will
try it one more time.
He goes back into the bar.
The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini", and the robot brings him another great martini.
The robot then says, "What's your IQ"
The guy says, "Uh, about 50."
The robot leans in real close and says, "So, you people still happy
  you voted for Obama?"

Democratic / Socialist Corruption - Healthcare

Do you think Congress should vote on bills without reading them? How about voting on bills that don’t even exist yet, except in fragments?

The Senate Finance Committee is poised to vote on a massive health care reform bill on Tuesday allegedly authored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). A glaring, outrageous, unreported fact is that the bill’s actual text has been kept secret. No one actually knows what’s in it – not even the senators who will be told to vote for it.

Perhaps the Nobel committee will award President Obama another prize to share with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, for “imagination in medical financing.”

Bits and pieces are leaking out, but entire sections will be added later. That’s what happened with the House version. Nobody read the bill, and 75 “phantom” amendments were added after the vote. A similar maneuver happened in the Senate when a key committee approved another version of a sweeping health care bill in July without seeing the text. Actual language was unveiled months later in September. 

In short, senators will follow recent precedent and be voting on something that does not even exist yet.

Even the Congressional Budget Office, which issued a report this week saying the Baucus plan would cost under $900 billion instead of more than a trillion, was operating without actual text. When the CBO crunched the detailed, 1,018-page House version this summer, it reported that it would cost far more than President Obama claimed.

Obama then broke precedent and summoned the CBO director to the White House for a “talk.” Now the CBO says the Senate bill will cost less. They think. They hope. They speculate.

Obama - War

I thought you were going to end war.     But more soldiers are dying now than when we had President Bush running things.  You have made us a much weaker nation and soon to be the laughing stock of the world.  Do this country a favor and go away. . . . . go live in one of those Socialist countries that you seem to love so much.   Go worship with the Muslims and leave us Christians here in the U.S.A. alone.   

Instead of running around seeing how much face time you can get from your media lackeys I think you should actually start governing. (or don’t you know how).

Government: Change

The latest installment of "change we can believe in" is sweeping reform of the financial services industry.

Central to proposed Democrat reforms is the establishment of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This agency would have broad authority to oversee and regulate financial service products like mortgages and credit cards and will be responsible to protect consumers from "unfair" and "abusive" products.

Unfortunately, when bureaucrats get authority to determine what is fair, the very people who they supposedly are charged to protect -- us -- are the ones who get hurt.

The most important product in our country is freedom and, unfortunately, it's this product that President Barack Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank find most defective. They really think that politicians and bureaucrats can take better care of people than we can take care of ourselves.