Our chosen providers average 20 years in the industry and carry A+ rated insurers.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Bankrupt Congress 12/20/09

Now, just think about these headlines as I read them to you:
New jobless claims rise unexpectedly.
House approves $290 billion increase in debt limit.
Obama signs $1.1 trillion spending bill.
House approves $155 billion for jobs.
Hillary: $100 billion global warming giveaway.
And then the CBS News headline: The federal government is currently in default. We owe more than we have borrowed to cover it.

Now, usually the first rule in situations like this is, first thing you’ve got to do to right the ship is to stop digging. Stop borrowing, dumbass. These people act as if there’s a mystery to this. There’s some mysterious formula out there that only mystics can see.that bill that Obama signed included a 10 percent across-the-board increase to all federal agencies.
Now, you can choose to be a nonbeliever and say this happens all the time. They’re not doing this on purpose. Why, this is just the way sausage is made.” This is a plan. And it has been executed with near precision. Why aren’t these state governors convening an emergency Article V convention right now? That’s what I want to know. Bobby Jindal, where are you? Why aren’t the state governors getting together and saying, if the federal government is borrowing all this money, where are they going to get it from? Oh, that’s right, they’re going to start taxing. They’re going to start telling states and what have you to start selling things.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an intentional, I think, intentional bankruptcy or impending bankruptcy of the federal government. Remember Obama has run around the country and has boasted and bragged about his desire to remake America. Well, it’s happening. He’s actually doing it. And he’s doing it all under the cover of an
economic crisis that he’s there to solve. He’s not solving it.
Every time he opens his mouth his poll numbers go down.
Every time he says something he is proven wrong.

Now, I just happen to know because I was watching the Senate debate last year. Senator Tom Coburn introduced an amendment on the floor of the Senate, and it shocked the bejeezus belt off of Chrissy Hissy-Fit Dodd. He was talking about the amount of property that the federal government owns that is unoccupied. And what Coburn was saying was that, at the current time – The federal government owns in excess of 80,000 properties. Only less than 10,000 of them are occupied. Meaning there is a glut of some 70,000 properties.

What would it be, if you were getting ready to go bankrupt or couldn’t pay your bills, and you had all kind of properties that you owned, and you were looking for a way to pay your bills, what is one of the things that you might consider doing? Oh, I don’t know, Selling some of the properties, maybe? What would be the second thing you were doing if you were running a company and you were the CEO of it? Would you be giving pay raises out and hiring more people? Or would you, if you were a responsible steward of the federal government, if you were a responsible steward of the people’s purse, would you issue an immediate hiring freeze???
Would you then issue an immediate congressional order, and they can do this, suspending all, any and all federal hiring till further notice? Yes, you would. Would you issue an immediate edict ordering that there will be a review of all current federal government contracts that have not begun work and a permanent freeze until that review can be completed will be put on all those projects? “Why,yes, you would.”
Would you then order the Medicare board of trustees to begin the process of dismantling their operation and returning all their authority to the state governments for the state legislatures to administer and then begin downsizing the federal workforce that must be kept employed to enforce that? “Why yes, I would.” In order to start job creation, would you order your Environmental Protection Agency to cease issuance of all rules and to cease review of all rules currently under review? No new regulations. “Why,yes, I would.” Would you immediately order your department of [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] to cease issuance of all rules and all regulations, and any of those that are under consideration are permanently – the debate over those, comment period, is permanently ended? We’ll revisit this when our economy and our government can pay its bills and right itself. “Why,yes, I would.” Would you immediately, immediately begin the process of laying federal workers off through attrition? “Why, yes, I would.”

You would do all these things, and it wouldn’t fix the problem, but it would go a long way towards not having to borrow more money. I’m not even talking about dismantling all of Leviathan. I’m just talking about stopping the bleeding. The patient is dying, ladies and gentlemen. We are being ordered about by demagogues. They’re doing this with impunity. They have no intention of stopping. There’s still an orgy going on in Mordor on the Potomac. Now, I realize that it’s Christmas, and you want to spend time with your family, and you want to do family things.
Let me tell you, if you want to do something for your family, when your member of Congress or the United States Senate leaves Mordor on the Potomac to return home, you will be paying visits to their offices. You will be demanding that town halls be convened. And you will let them know that, if they dare return to Mordor on the Potomac and spend one dime of borrowed money, and you don’t care who it’s owed to, that you are going to convene
grand juries and prosecute them for criminal mischief, for fraud, abuse, violating their oath of office to the Constitution. I think these people should be treated as domestic enemies!

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Say NO to Gitmo Prisoners in Illinois Petition

Say NO to Gitmo Prisoners in Illinois Petition

Friday, December 4, 2009


Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 12:16 PM


AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the
Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,

Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.


Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.

1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a
British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No.. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress,the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this and go into your cocoon.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Is that a miracle or what? No, It is the result of liberty.

I just stop sometimes, I just marvel, seriously marvel at what liberty has created on these shores. We have things that no civilization in the history of Earth, hell, in the known universe, going all the way back to the cantina bar on Tatooine, or Dantooine. No one has had access to the stuff that Americans take for granted. And all you have to do is go to a birthday party to see it on display. You have every manner of food that you could imagine. Every manner of it. You got chicken, you got fajitas, you got pulled pork, you got briskets, you got hot dogs, you got hamburgers. Not only do you have hotdogs and hamburgers, there are 35,000 different ways to get hotdogs and hamburgers. If you’re kosher, you can get a kosher frank. If you’re not, you can get an Oscar Mayer frank. You want hamburgers, you can make them yourself. You can buy Bubba burgers already pre-frozen. You could go to your local deli. They may be stamping them out, nice little cubed out round portions and what have you. It’s just amazing the things you can get.

Why is that? Is that because the government created a system to deliver hamburgers to birthday parties? Is it? Or is that because people had the liberty to go out there and practice this? They had the liberty to go out and make a better hamburger, to make a better hotdog, to make a better way to deliver party supplies. And it doesn’t just stop with the meats. You have all manner and every conceivable assortment of vegetable, from onions or red onions to Vidalia onions, you name it. You got white onions, all grown all over the place, some in Mississippi, some in California, some in Oklahoma, doesn’t matter where you grow them at. Potatoes, look at the potatoes that we have in this country and in this republic here. You can get Maine potatoes. You can get Idaho potatoes. You can get the little red new potatoes, as they’re known. You can get the mini potatoes. And then look what they process them into. You have the Ore-Ida factory out there cranking out all sorts of different fried potato concoctions. You got hash browns.

I mean, just think about the variety and the plentiful supply. We have – liberty on these shores has provided such an assortment and such an unbelievable supply of things we take for granted, we, most of us, don’t even consider whether or not to take that half-eaten hamburger that Steve down the street didn’t finish and throw it away. Don’t even think about it, do you. Just chunk that joker in the garbage can; right? Don’t even think about whether or not, well, there’s half a dozen chicken wings from Hooters left over from this party. Well, they’ve been sitting out for an hour or so. I think I’m going to pitch them. You don’t even think about that because there’s so much supply.

How does this happen without Obama? How does this happen without Pelosi? How do all these products make it onto our tables? How do all these foodstuffs make it into our pots and our ovens and what have you? Because we have liberty. So next time you’re at one of these parties, next time you’re at a restaurant and you’re looking at a menu that has 70 items on it, and every and all manner of concoction to prepare those items, oh, you got this with salt, without salt. You got cumin on this one. You have all sorts of spices from the orient or wherever they come from to season this one. We have this sauce and that sauce. Just think about how did that get to my table? Is that a miracle or what? No. It is the result of liberty. Yet we are constantly told that our republic sucks. We are constantly told by our President and his cabinet and anyone else that has a microphone and that’s in power, that there’s something wrong with us, and that there’s something wrong with you, and that there’s something wrong with this, and that there’s something wrong with our car companies, and there’s something wrong with our power companies, and there’s something wrong with our cow companies, and there’s something wrong with our aspirin and vitamin manufacturers and what have you. We’re constantly told that only through government could any of these things possibly get better.

Yet they get better all the time. All the time. The supply of these things is not going down. It’s increasing. The number of these things are not going down, they’re increasing. Isn’t it miraculous? Stop and think about that for a moment, just for a second. All the cheeses and variety of cheese you can get in this republic. Milk. You think your forefather ever dreamed, you think your great-grandpa ever dreamed he could have a nervous breakdown in the milk department? I don’t know what to – [silly old man with no teeth voice] “I don’t know what to buy. They got this 2 percent, they got 3 percent, they got 1 percent, they got homogenized, they got skim, I’m losing my mind here, Sonny.” That is the result of liberty. Liberty produces these things, not tyranny. Not command and control. Freedom to make individual choices.

Now, I ask you, if liberty produces all these wonderful assortments of foods and food products that we consume without batting an eye, without even thinking about whether or not there will be any more left tomorrow, why won’t that same liberty provide medical products? Doctors to administer them? Hmm? Why? Why won’t it? Because the laws and the rules of economics are the same when applied to medicine as they are to hotdogs. It is a naked economic transaction, regardless of what it is that is being transacted. This is what the Austrians teach us. The Austrians came along, von Mises and Hayek and the rest of them, and Hazlett and Rothbard and all those guys, Friedman, they came along and they said, hey, we used to know this stuff here. Apparently we’ve forgotten it. But this is the way we used to do it here. And so next time you’re presented with some idiot at a party that’s insisting that, oh, the government ought to do something about this, or the government ought to do something about that, did the government do anything about Nathan’s hotdogs? Huh? Did the government tell Chef Boyardee to make that four-cheese ravioli, or did Chef Boyardee think he could sell it? Hmm?

My pal Mike was watching the Food Network last night. They had a throwdown. Bobby Flay had a throwdown with the other Iron Chef, Chef Morimoto, Chef Cat Cora, and some other guy with a bald head. And they were having a big Thanksgiving turkey cook-off, or Thanksgiving cook-off. He said,"Did you see all the food that they were – all the stuff that they were concocting together here? did the White House order that competition? Did they? Is there a Iron Chef czar out there that I don’t know about? Is there?" My response to mike was, "of course not!"

Well, then why aren’t there all manner of automobiles for me to choose from? Now, think about the things that are hard to get and aren’t as readily available as they once may have been. And can’t be gotten and customized and what have you. What are they? They probably are automobiles, things that are large, and things that kind of lend themselves to the disastrous, despicable designs of designing men – politicians, they’re called. And they seize upon these opportunities to regulate. They seize upon these opportunities to seize power. They seize upon these opportunities to control. And then they will sell you or whoever will purchase it access to the control.

The American Socialist Party goals have been accomplished!

A new convention to amend the Constitution is needed. As Dr. Kevin Gutzman and Mike Church has said, the time has come to take the power our Founders left to us, seize the momentum of sentiment against Leviathan and repair the transgressions visited upon our Republics founding charter: The Constitution.

There are many folks who fear the Con Con because they irrationally believe it will be taken over by Pelosi and Obama and we will live under their Socialist redesign of the Constitution. Oooh shudder the though. There’s one problem with this fear, it has already happened.

Here’s the proof. The American Socialist Party wrote its goals down in the Party Platform of 1928. Every one of these goals has been accomplished including:

Nationalization of our Natural Resources - see the EPA and Interior Department.

A publicly owned power system- See the TVA and more recently the SMART Grid. (who knew the GE Scarecrow was a Socialist!?)

National Ownership of Railroads - See Amtrak

A system of unemployment insurance benefits - Hmmm, 7 million Socialists use that one as I speak

Securing to every worker a rest period of not less than 2 days per week

Increased taxation of high income levels - need I say more

A system of old age pension systems - See Social Insecurity.

A system of health insurance - see Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP

All of these things have been passed by our Congress and been made a de facto part of our Constitution so let me ask the question: Exactly what part of our beloved Constitution is still in effect and stands as a bulwark against “Socialism”? The fact of the matter Ladies and Gentlemen si that we are currently living under Socialsim and yet Republicans still raise millions of dollars to protect their “conservative” constituents from “Socialized Medicine”.

If you want to follow our Founders, defend Liberty and the original Constitution then follow me America to the 2010 Constitutional Convention

Welcome to Obama’s America

When Frank Sinatra famously sang about New York that “If I can make it there I’ll make it anywhere” I don’t think he had Khalid Sheik Mohammed in mind. Our Dear Leader has unleashed his anti-American views against the surviving families of the 9-11 terrorist attacks in a demented decision to move the plotter of that slaughter’s trial to “the scene of the crime”. There’s one huge problem with this: what KSM did was not a crime, it was an act of terrorism.

Imagine waking up everyday and turning the news on only to see one of history’s biggest villains shuttled in and out of a fancy New York Courtroom via limousine. Imagine his battery of defense attorney’s droning on for hours over “the infringement of Mr. Mohammeds Constitutional Rights.”

Imagine the TV talking heads arguing over the DNA evidence of KSM’s crime. Surely there will be a slick defense attorney who will pompously make the claim “if the turban doesn’t fit then you must acquit”.

Imagine children demanding to know of their parents why the man with the funny name is on TV boasting about past terror plots and their “success.”

Imagine the ACLU Lawyers for KSM putting all that juicy, formerly “top secret” evidence out there that lays bare for the whole world to see just how America’s intelligence corps finds the bad guys.

Imagine defenders of a former US President and Vice President made to explain why their bosses are NOT the war criminals on trial here.

Imagine KSM and his band of jolly Jihadis getting off the hook because their Miranda rights were violated. Did the CIA have the proper warrant it needed to search mister KSM’s terror cave?

You probably can’t imagine any of those things happening but let me assure you, you will not need imagination to see any and all of them being played, right in front of your disbelieving eyes.

Welcome to Obama’s America.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

A must read between an independent, a liberal, and a conservative

First, all the participates names have been changed to repect their privacy...
This is a conversation/debate that all citizens of this great republic should be engaged in....
Tha main aspect of this convo is the respect that all parties involved showed to each other!

Christopher: Hey Hussein Obama Administration, Still making excuses for this murderous muslim? Still covering up terrorism? WHY??? he has to cover it up because we were attacked on our own soil less than 1 year into his term, when bush kept us safe for 7 years after the last attack......it goes to show what damage he has done from cow-tying our cia from doing their job.......and they would have to admit it.

Tina: Exactly.

Michael: He was not charged with terrorism because the Army has no such charge and it's under their jurisiction. I had thought the same thing as you initially...One more time, whether you like him or not he is POTUS and deserves respect for that.

Debbe: This is the worst Terrorist attack on U.S soil since 9/11 under Obama's watch!! I don't recall Bush getting ANY respect when he was POTUS? Maybe, he wasn't and won't be charged with terroism but that's what it was and its beoming more and more clear each day. In the military its called treason punishable by firing sqaud under the UCMJ. Obama tied the hands of the CIA and that's on him!!

Greg: Once again, we need to impeach Hussein for failure to follow the constitution in protecting the US. He is just one abject failure after another after another.

Michael: You guys are way too extreme! I suppose you believe Cheney does not deserve to be prosecuted for all his wrong doing correct?

Debbe: Honestly, I'm still not 100% sure Obama was born in the U.S and is not muslim himself? What wrong doings did Cheney commit? I never heard about them. Besides, are we going to prosecute everyone who had held office? Barack and his admin are the peope who has pursued the previous admin for criminal activity AFTER they left office!! Ridiculous!! AND ... Read Morethey called the CIA liars and tried to pursue charges againist the CIA!! It's a high and mighty self righteous attitude and so therefore they too should be pursued on what theor currently doing which is, taking over the private sector, dictating CEO pay, firing private citizens, stealing tax payer money, on and on. How is what we're saying extreme? What this administration has done so far IS extreme!! Just my opinion.

Michael: That birther crap is why he may win re-election in 2012!!! The two newest GOP Governors gave you the blueprint to winning in 2010 & 2012. It's the economy....

If the GOP focuses more on the economy, the DEMS will fall hard beginning in 2010. Independents and moderates like myself do not care about the birther, and muslim drama because what's done is done as he is POTUS. As for Cheney, please don't tell me that you are blind to the fact that he was responsible for the torturing overseas of detainees, and leaking the name of a CIA operative. C'mon the evidence is there but he has very loyal followers such as Libby and Rumsfeld refusing to talk.

All this birther and tea party stuff is nothing but a major show being put on by the right wing of the GOP. Now before you form an opinion, let me say that I am a republican that has voted for the GOP nominee each time including 2000. I did not vote for the GOP in 2008 because I did not feel comfortable with Palin being the VP and I felt that McCain would ruin the economy more than it already is expecially with advisers such as Phil Graham in his corner.... Read More... Read More

Focus on the economy and that will be the ticket to reclaiming the WH in 2012. That's all 10% of the unemployed and true working people are concerned with.

Tina: The one thing you are right about is that it is the economy, and right now it is being picked apart and destroyed by a group of people who loathe capitalism. This is not going to get better until we get back to the founding of this nation. FREEDOM. So, while the POTUS picks apart our ecomony we are being distracted by this mammoth HCR bill and Cap and Tax. Both of which will absolutely create a nation that will need to suckle at the Government teet. I am a conservative libertarian. And I will refuse the daily does assigned to me. I will achieve at any level I see fit. That is what is guaranteed to all of us in the constitution.

In addition the POTUS is refusing to deal with the wars. It would devastate his base if we actually won a war. We can't have that. That would mean America is Great. And believe you me, according to the left, we are NOT great. The President tells us and the world just how awful we are all the time.

Telling us to be quiet is no longer going to cut it. Listening to the left tell us that our candidates need to be more moderate is what has gotten us into this condition. The sleeping giant is awake now. We are making time out of work schedules to speak up. We have every right to speak up and vocalize OUR disdain for the President. i have not decided if I am birther. I actually think I am. But, that still doesn't win our wars, or get us JOBS!... Read More

Torture is defined in your heart. i like it that you are alive, and I like it that I am alive. I am proud of the men and women doing whatever it takes to keep us safe. No one is perfect, but their mission is to face evil and ensure OUR safety. They have a job I would not want. God Bless them. Too bad we can't ask those aborted babies if what they just went through is considered 'torture'.

Michael: It's not that I disagree with everything that is being said from the right, but it's how you say it. Protesting with pictures of POTUS being hung from a tree, or photos of him eating chicken or collard greens, and constantly alleging that he is a member of the Taliban is just plain cruel. Look, you are entitled to state your opinons because that is... Read More a basic right afforded to all of us by our founding fathers. However, it's how they come across to the public expecially guys like me that causes concern.

I happen to agree with the basic principles of the GOP as I do not think that government should be invloved in every aspect of one's life. However, I am black and do not take kind to the radical racial references that are implied daily from the right and you cannot deny that they are being said. If you disagree, just take a look at the tea party footage which can be found on youtube.

I am very disappointed in POTUS and believe that he is in way over his head at the moment, but I respect the fact that he is a black man that became POTUS against all odds. I like to listen to the arguements on both sides as well as engaging in them from time to time, but the Hussein Obama and other rhetoric I believe is way out of bounds as his name is President Barack Hussein Obama. Once that type of talk starts, I tune out as well as most of middle America I believe. We can always agree to disagree but I will not stand by and allow certain things to be said without a rebuttal. I hope you can understand where I am coming from.

Tina: And I don't disagree with you on very much either. What I will say about the racial slurs, is that it is abhorrent. Normal working peeps like me - that isn't where we are coming from. And the Main stream media presents that and forwards that non existent position. Which is really why those networks are sooo failing. I implore you to move away from those outlets if you really want to see us out here. I am still amazed at how we can still have these racial undertones when we elected a black President. It is just one of those things that makes me scratch my head. And to that end, I have never heard anything or anyone accuse the POTUS of being a member of the Taliban. Yet another sickening thing to say. That is crap, and is coming from places where normal people just don't exist. We all had to turn our heads when an effigy of Sarah Palin was hung up in Los Angeles. I am a women, and took severe um bridge. But, I turned my head, and kept going.

About youtube, there is a lot of garabage on youtube. There is some good stuff. But, again I tend to stay away from the far wing of either group. I know Dems, and I know Libs. I don't always understand their hearts, and that is cool, they are free. Some are Loons and some are not. I tend to weed out the people who think they can actually convert me.

Hussien IS his middle name. The left turned President Bush's middle name to 'dubya'. And referred to him in exactly that way. That is the way I see that terminology. Those singing school kids use Hussein in their indoctrination. When can his middle name be said? ...

I don't chose to respect anyone by the color of their skin or their gender. I choose to respect those that earn it. Just getting elected to an office isn't enough. The job has to be done to my satisfaction. And right now no job in the WH or congress is being done to my satisfaction. I don't know what 'against all odds' means. We are all here by the grace of God, and make our lives what we set out to make our lives. I don't buy into the Sotomayor crap about how hard her life was. Whatever. Who's life isn't hard? Who doesn't have to look at themselves in the mirror and demand success. So, I don't care about the odds. I can work for whatever it is I want. Nothing has ever stopped me before. Where I am in my life is where i want to be. So, I don't buy into any of that for anyone. All he did was win an election. He had no political history. So, he could say whatever he wanted to win an election. George Soros funded him and we voted him in.

The original post made no mention of the color of his skin. Just stated the obvious about what a poor job he is doing.

So, I do understand where you are coming from. Where we are coming from has nothing to do with skin color. And I think we would all agree on that. I don't fb with bigots. But, just because someone disagrees with anyone doesn't make them a bigot. I don't remember that going on at all, when movies were made on how to murder President Bush. Back then it was patriotic to disagree..now to disagree you much be a bigots, tea bagger, neocon...extremist...

Debbe:Tina you Rock too!! Michael, I don't disagree with everything ypur saying but, it sounds to me like your NOT a kool-aid drinker and that's what matters! Your open minded and at least willing to listen to both sides sincerly. That's cool!! I never met a lib that ever did that before.

Debbe:Oh, Michael I dp want to add that the ONLY time I ever hear race being brought up is from the left!! Everytime I disagree with a lib I'm called a racist!! It's so old and boring anymore! I wish they would get a new card to play!!

Michael:I agree with you 100% on that Debbie....

Christopher:I did not feel comfortable with Palin being the VP and I felt that McCain would ruin the economy more than it already is expecially with advisers such as Phil Graham in his corner..?????? Really??? Hows obamas crew doing with the economy????Yeah, hes doing a great job! And i dont know if you remember(since you brought it up) bush was demonized for ... Read More6 straight years.....no president was ever damned like he was, ever and you know this to be true.....everyday i saw signs that didnt just suggest that he would be killed, the left asked for his murder on a daily basis, and if you dont believe me mike go to you tube, or google it! what radical right racial references??? I will agree with you about the road map to the white house......all the gop has to do is stick to a conservative platform and adopt the concept of repealing all these social programs, but alas you and I know they dont believe in their own platform and they have a way of sticking their foot in their mouths....and you know why? Because they are part of the leviathon beast we call the federal government, and they dont believe in limited government......

and mike i know you think obama deserves the upmost respect because he IS the president of the U.S., but he has to earn that respect too, his color or the office doesnt grant him a pass every time he screws up! He was hired to represent all of us and quite frankly, he hasn`t lived up to his own hype......and I say HIS OWN HYPE because this is the first time in the history of a presidential campaign that the voters were not allowed to question the canidate, and no one knew anything about him....we couldn`t without someone one the left calling us racists.....and you know this to be true!

@ deb, mikes not a lib.....hes what the media calls a moderate.....and thats not at all a bad thing as long as he stays rational and doesnt get caught up in obamas spell!

Debbe:Christopher, you Rock! Spot on with everything, I couldn't agree more. I hope Michael doesn't get lost in the sauce with Obama like so many others!

Michael:Christopher - Trust me when I say that I am not happy with the way this administration is handling the economy as I along with others was sold a bag of goods. Election 2008 was rough as the economy had almost hit rock bottom and I had just laid off 300 great employees from my company.

Based strictly on campaign talk, I bought into the idea of ... Read Moregovernment intervention to help get the economy back on track. I thought it was time to try something new, but now it is even worse as I am in my office this weekend trying to put severance packages together for another 250 employees that will be laid off in next week. I'm a Vice President of Human Resources and these are not good times.

Anyway, trust me when I say that I see the good but I also the major faults with the current President. He has a ways to go and much to accomplish and repair before I will even consider voting for a dem in 2012. Right now I don't trust anything that comes from 1600 one bit!!!!!! Lastly, I met President Bush and voted for him in 2004. I also worked for his brother Jeb during his first 3 years as Governor down here and still talk to him from time to time. I resigned from the NAACP because I did not agree with the Bush bashing that was being said. 2012 is the GOP's election to lose....

Christopher: Mike, we have chatted enough for you to know I hold no faith with the gop.....I am a conservative first, a family man 2nd, and god willing a patriot 3rd.....i dont care if an canidate is repub, dem, or independent...as long as they do the right thing and by that i mean I want them to cut back on all the spending, i want them to go back to following the constitution and what our founding fathers started,
and i want them to respect and listen to the people that sent them to washington.....I want to see real tax,and health reform, I want to see our polititions fight for this country and stop trying to transform us to france, or china.
This is america, our country, and our country should ALWAYS come first, NO EXCEPTIONS, EVER!!!
I want them to stop lying to us about our natural resources...stop paying the folks that hate us for energy that we could be harvesting for ourselves right here at home!
I want the racial and religous pc crap to stop once and for all, this is supposed to be the land where we are all created equal, lets start acting like it!... Read More
I want the government out of our classrooms, churches, banks, and the rest of the private sector!!!!!
Lets get back to hard work and sacrifice, lets get back to the way things used to be when communities helpped each other, without the government sticking their nose in our daily affairs and telling us what to do...
You said it yourself, your company is hurtting because the government is regulating every aspect of your business and the free market, from housing, to the food we eat......this must stop, one way or another!
sorry, didnt mean to rattle on and on.....but as you can see we are both passionate men when it comes to this great nation!

Michael: That was a good read my friend, a damn good read!!!!

Tina: I agree with Micheal, that was a good read! I too have no desire to know what letter someone is - just go to work for the US. I an sorry to hear Micheal that you are having to do what I would never want to do. God bless you and those on the other side of your desk. Christopher really did a great job with articulating all my political emotion. I ... Read Morelove this country. This place is iconic. We are a free people. As a war veteran I will not sit idly by and watch my countries leaders tell us that we need to be like everyone else. Where will the world go when America is now just like... Burma?

Christopher: mike, my heart goes out to your employees, and especially to you for the most difficult decision you have ahead of you, all you are trying to do is live the real american dream and support your family to the best of your abilities and true hard work and sacrifice!!!! Its a damn shame what you and thousands of other small business owners are forced ... Read Moreto endure because of a few political elitists who definatly think they know more about running your business than you do....

now what would help to save our republic is if everyone was privey to your story......people have to realize what our government is doing to us, and it has been going on for a while, it didn`t just start with obamas` admin or election, but if we are to save our form of government, our country, our freedoms and liberties then it must end with obamas administration!


Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Everything You Wanted To Know About Constitutional Conventions But Were Afraid To Ask...

This is a special treat today folks, a conversation between Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman about how to implement a Constitutional Convention to stop our runaway government.

Dr. Kevin Gutzman: We want to have a convention at which we would discuss revision of the Constitution.

Mike: And is this limited to any particular articles? Is it open-ended? How is it convened? How is it conducted? There are a lot of questions that people have out there.

Kevin: Right. Well, what Article 5 says is the states, if 38 of them call it, the Congress will have to convene a convention. And the short answer is, no, the matters that the convention could take up cannot be limited. However, the proposals the convention makes would not be law. That is, they would be only proposals. So just as in 1787 in Philadelphia there was a convention that proposed what supposedly was a federal constitution, so – and then that had to be sent to the states for their separate ratification. So in case a Constitutional Convention made proposed amendments, those would have to be referred to the states for their ratification.

Now, people commonly say, well, you know, they’re just going to – Pelosi will dominate it, and Das Kapital will become the Constitution of America. I think this is really absurd. It’s the kind of scare tactic that people have taken against the idea of constitutional amendment ever since the beginning of the 19th Century. It’s extremely unlikely to the point of a vanishing amount of likelihood that having called for a convention because you were worried that the federal government was grabbing unlimited power for itself, the state legislatures would then turn around and ratify some horrible, centralizing measure that had been proposed by the convention. So myself, I am sanguine about that. And of course what this worry also ignores is, what people who make this argument ignore is that we are going to have Pelosi’s Constitution anyway. We have it right now. [Audio glitch] will do to us whatever it wants and will legislate [glitch] they like. So the idea that there’s going to be some horrible eventuality that Pelosi and Company will get what they want as the result of a process in which we try to amend the Constitution to limit their power, that assumes that they don’t get what they want anyway. Right now they get exactly what they like.

Mike: True.

Kevin: So I don’t know how it could possibly be that having this kind of a convention could make things worse. And just to give you an indication of the extent to which the current constitutional culture in the United States has given centralizers like Pelosi and Obama, that is, people who want the federal government to have authority over everything you do, every minute of your life, how they have gotten what they want through a “we’ll never amend the Constitution to correct what the Congress is doing” attitude among conservatives, let me read for you a little bit of the appendix to Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.”

Mike: Okay.

Kevin: Milton Friedman was the leading advocate of liberty in American economics in the 20th Century. Now, I myself am not at root a Monitorist. I mean, people who are expert in economics know that he was also the leader of what was called the Monitorist school of economics. And I think he was mistaken at root about that. But the bottom line is Milton Friedman was a very prominent libertarian in the 20th Century, somebody who stood for freedom.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: And he had a bestselling book, coauthored with his wife Rose in I think 1978, called “Free to Choose.” It was a number one bestseller for months and months. And in the appendix to that book, Friedman reprinted the Socialist Party platform of 1928. And the reason why he reprinted the Socialist Party platform of 1928 was to show us that by 1978 we were living with the Socialist Party platform of 1928. That is, every single element of it has been adopted. So plank one in the Socialist Party platform of 1928, “Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly of Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals.” And then in parentheses he says “Boulder Dam, renamed Hoover Dam, and Muscle Shoals are now both federal projects.”

Number two, “A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost.” And in parentheses he says, “We’ve made a regional start on this with the Tennessee Valley Authority.” There’s actually more to it now than there was in 1978.

But anyway, number three, “National ownership in democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication.” Parentheses, “Railroad passenger service is completely nationalized through Amtrak. Some freight service is nationalized through Conrail. The FCC controls communications by telephone, telegraph, radio, and television.” And of course what Friedman didn’t know in 1978 was that now the federal government feels free to wiretap millions, literally millions of Americans, without ever identifying them, without ever getting a warrant from any kind of a judge. It’s even more problematic than it was when Friedman wrote this.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: Number four, Socialist Party platform of 1928, “An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation.” Well, Friedman in parentheses says, “Government expenditures for these purposes are currently in the many billions of dollars.” And of course they’re far greater now than they were when he wrote that. I mean, I could go through the rest of this platform from the Socialist Party of 1928. But my point is, for those of you who think the Constitutional Convention idea is dangerous because we’ll lose the republic that the founding fathers bequeathed us, wake up. We already...

Mike: We lost it.

Kevin: We don’t have the constitutional republic the founding fathers bequeathed us. We are living with 20th-century socialists’ idea of what a central government ought to look like.

Mike: Well, and Dr. Kevin Gutzman with us. It’s our first crack at this. It’s called “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About a Constitutional Convention but Were Afraid to Ask.” I might add a coda to number four, Doc. And that is, that since I live in a flood zone here in Southeast Louisiana, the only place I can buy flood insurance from is from NFIP, National Flood Insurance Program.

Kevin: Right.

Mike: Which has been taken over by the – it’s administered by the federal government. Now, your agent can broker it, but it is backed up by the full faith and credit of Uncle Sucker. Just so you know. So you can count number four in the Socialist Party Platform of 1928 as having been completed, absolutely completely. And just ask anyone in Florida how they get homeowners insurance if they live in Jupiter, Florida or below, and they’re probably going to give you a similar answer.

Kevin: Well, my point, and as I said, I could go on with the...

Mike: Right, I know you could.

Kevin: ...rest of the planks of this. But I omitted the planks about what became Social Security and Medicare and all this kind of stuff. So the bottom line is people commonly object to the idea of a Constitutional Convention by saying, oh, lord, the socialists will get control of the government. Well, you know, have you looked at the Democratic and Republican parties lately? And how do you think they behave? The idea that the federal Constitution is doing what it’s supposed to do, that it’s performing its only function, which is to limit the power of people in federal office, is absurd. You’d have to have been asleep. That you’re going to lose that by having an attempt to rein in the federal government – now, I think that if there were a federal Constitutional Convention, what they should take up should be the way the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause has been interpreted, the way the Commerce Clause has been interpreted, and the notion that the powers of Congress listed in Article I, Section 8 are exhaustive.

So there’s no reason why, if we had a Constitutional Convention, we couldn’t have three amendments saying the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is only procedural. It includes no grants of substantive rights. That the Commerce Clause is only about trade between the states. It has nothing to do with matters that are entirely internal to the states. And of course that’s the way it was intended in the first place, but federal judges and the Congress have completely remade it so that the other day, when Pelosi was asked where do you get authority to tell people who their doctor will be, she laughed because it assumed, you know, the question had underlining it the idea that there was something illegitimate about the way federal officials have been behaving since 1937. Well, of course, as you and I know, there is something illegitimate about the way that federal officials have been behaving since 1937. And the only way to slap some sense into them is to have a Constitutional Convention. That’s it. There’s no other mechanism.

Dr. Kevin Gutzman: When you want to become an attorney, you get a law degree from an accredited law school. And then you take a bar exam. Before you take the bar exam, you take a bar review class, several weeks of cramming to learn everything about being a lawyer that you didn’t learn in law school.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: And when I took the bar review class, getting ready to take the Texas bar exam, I took it from one of the popular national companies that give this kind of a class in states all over the country. When we got to the part of the bar review course in which the instructor was preparing us for the multistate multiple choice section, that is, for the section of the Texas bar exam that was multiple choice and that is given, not only in Texas, but in various other states in the country. She told us, if one of the options you’re given is the Tenth Amendment, you know that that is always wrong. You never choose the option Tenth Amendment on the bar exam because that is always incorrect. In other words, by the time I was taking the bar review class in 1990, everybody knew that Tenth Amendment is never enforced. It is never respected. The principle that the Congress has only the powers that are enumerated in the Constitution is completely absent from, quote/unquote, “constitutional law” these days. So, you know, there’s that.

Mike: This is how we...

Kevin: And then the other possibility, besides calling on the Tenth Amendment to limit the powers of Congress, is nullification. And there are people now who are talking about nullification, which is the idea that the state governments would stand up to the federal government and prevent them from doing something. We’ve seen that tried in American history. You know, the federal government has the weapons, has the army. It’s absurd. There’s no way that nullification is going to work

Mike: So nullification is not going to work. You can’t have...

Kevin: No.

Mike: ...a citizen-led – what Kevin’s question was, could the citizens call the Convention, and you answered no. It has to be called by the legislature.

Kevin: That’s right.

Mike: So then to clarify here – and “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Constitutional Convention but Were Afraid to Ask” with our special guest Dr. Kevin Gutzman here. What is needed is – and I believe there’s only two states left that need to call; right?

Kevin: I don’t know what the current number is.

Mike: There’s 34.

Kevin: I’ve read varying accounts of that.

Mike: Okay. Well, we can get an inventory on that, is to get to 38 states, three quarters of them necessary or needed to call the convention. And then the next question is, before I get back to your phone calls at 1-866-95-PATRIOT, my question, here’s the one that I have. So the state legislatures will then, I would assume, much as Madison and Hamilton were able to convince the various state legislatures and assemblies in 1787 to send delegations, they would then appoint delegations to go meet in a central place, say it’s Kansas City or wherever, and they would hold this convention. Is that how – that’s how you would envision the pragmatic, actual workings of it would take place; correct?

Kevin: Yes. It’s just a carbon copy of the process that yielded the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution in the first place.

Mike: Okay. So we may need to have a failure, then. We may need to go to Mount Vernon and lose. We may have to go meet in Annapolis in a bar and not accomplish anything other than commit that, okay, we’ve got to go back and redouble our efforts because they tried twice. Well, Maryland and Virginia tried to meet. And then Madison and Hamilton tried to conspire to get it together in Annapolis, and of course they were successful. But unlike Madison and Hamilton, though, let’s set the record straight, too. We learned this in “The Fame of Our Fathers” and learned this in Dr. Guzman’s books and in my movie, “The Spirit of ’76.” The advertised purpose for that convention, Dr. Gutzman, was amending the Articles of Confederation; right?
Kevin: Right.

Mike: And we wound up with an entirely new plan of government. Which we’re not seeking here.

Kevin: Again, the bottom line is, well, of course, in a sense we are seeking an entirely new plan of government. It depends how you want to look at it. If you want to say we like the original frame of the federal government, and we’d like to see it actually implemented, or if you want to say we’d like to have a different government from the one we actually live under, we’d like one that looks more like the one the founders gave us. So I guess you could say it’s new, or you could say it isn’t, whichever way you want to look at it. But, yes, it’s true that in the first place, people like Madison and Hamilton wanted to strengthen the central government. And we’ve had three major episodes in American history when the central government was drastically strengthened. One was when they ratified the federal Constitution. One was at the time of the Civil War and immediately after. And then the third one was the so-called Revolution of 1937, which was really the culmination of things that had been going on for 15 years before that.

So we live today under not the Constitution of 1788, but the Constitution of 1937. And we’ve seen where that’s taken us. We have an absolutely unbridgeable gap between the federal government’s revenue and its obligations. And the gap is growing as people in federal office see that every incentive for them leads to more spending, more borrowing, permanent enserfment of our descendents. I think that’s why this is the first time we need a formal effort drastically to reduce the power of the central government.

Mike: I concur. Curt is in Ohio with a great question, next up here on “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Calling a Constitutional Convention but Were Afraid to Ask.” The time has come, my friends. Curt, how are you?

Curt: Good, sir. How are you?

Mike: Fantastic. What’s your question?

Curt: My question, I think we already answered. Originally my question was, once the convention is convened, I’ve heard rumors that the entire document is at risk at that point, where anything could be amended by the convention. Is that correct?
Kevin: No, the convention can’t amend anything. This is a very important point.

Mike: Okay.

Kevin: The convention would be called to make proposals. But if there were going to be any actual amendment adopted, it would have to be adopted through ratification by the states. So it would take 38 states then to amend. That’s why this idea, this scare idea that people are floating out there, that there’d be a coup d’état, and we’d end up all singing the Marseilles, or May 1st would be our new national holiday because we’d all be wearing red all the time, this is just inaccurate. A convention cannot actually change the Constitution. It can make proposals. So if they came out of the convention with a proposal, you know, let’s get rid of the Congress and have a military government, bang, you’re stuck, that’s not what could happen. All it could do would be make recommendations to the states for their ratification. And again, I think that a Constitutional Convention that grew out of a movement to reassert state governments’ Tenth Amendment rights is highly unlikely then to say we want, you know, Nancy Pelosi to be our queen. That’s just not going to happen.

Mike: Right. And I get this question a lot, too. “You don’t know what you’re – this is dangerous.” But as you pointed out, and I think this needs to be part of the recap that we’re going to post online on our website, you can hopefully help us get it linked up on some other popular sites, that – and this is something that I’d never heard before. But that document that you cited that was in Friedman’s, the appendix to Friedman’s book, how much more evidence or how much more destruction, ignorance, and outright – what’s the word when you violate your oath? I mean, I get calls all the time, Kevin, from “Are they committing treason when they violate their oath, and they do this to the Constitution, and they do that?” And I always say, well, no, they’re not really conspiring with the enemy. They’re not making war with the enemy against us here. But yes, they are violating their oath. And apparently there is no penalty, and Bill Clinton can attest to this, for perjury anymore.

Kevin: Well, he paid a $90,000 fine and was disbarred for five years. So I guess that was some kind of penalty, although of course it was not nearly so stiff a penalty as you or I might have paid if we had been found to have done exactly the same thing as he did. Let me read you a little bit more of this Socialist Party platform of 1928 from the back of Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.” Plank nine, “A system of health and accident insurance and old-age pensions, as well as unemployment insurance.” So people who say, wow, we’re going to have socialism if we have a Constitutional Convention, plank nine is what they’re voting on in Congress right now. This is what they think they’re empowered to do by the current federal Constitution. In other words, they completely ignore the limitation on the powers of the central government that were supposed to have been created by the Constitution. And they are writing into law the Socialist Party platform of 1928.

Mike: Amazing.

Kevin: The whole thing is going to be what we live with. So people who say, oh, no, we can’t have a Constitutional Convention because it’ll mean the death of our beloved Constitution, signed by Washington and Franklin and Adams and, I mean, and Hamilton and Madison, you’re wrong. That frame of government is long gone. And what we’re talking about here is the question, is there any way to bring it back? Is there any way actually to have a limited decentralized government in which most decision making is done by elected state legislators? And I’m saying the only mechanism that the Constitution provides is the Constitutional Convention. There’s no other way effectively to limit the powers of Congress.

Want to learn more about Dr Kevin R.C. Gutzman(He received his BA, MPAff, and JD from the University of Texas and my MA and PhD in American History from the University of Virginia) and the real facts of the constitution from a real Constitutional Scholar?

I would suggest you read a couple of his books in the matter:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution...
Who Killed the Constitution?: The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama...
Virginia's American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840...

Its always refreshing to have a debate and actually have facts to back up your arguement....

I have to thank my good friends Mike and Kevin for this keen insight to the constitution

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Those Who Need To Seek Protection Will Never Succeed

Welcome back to the plantation. Also known as the welfare state. Yeah, so let’s start making it easier by paying you to not work. Let’s start making it easier by paying you to not get married. Let’s start making it easier for you by paying you to have children that used to be called bastards and are illegitimate. Let’s start paying you to go to schools that you’re not going to learn anything you’re ever going to use. But we’ll pay you to go while you’re there for the four years. Let’s start doing all these things. And, that’s right. Well, the work ethic and the devotion to making yourself a better individual was thrown out the window in favor of what I just described here. And that’s what really has made this an unthinkable human tragedy. You know, you see these children all across the amber waves of fuel. You see these kids with no dad, no father.
And this is the other thing. “Oh, the President ought to do something about it.” No, the President shouldn’t do a damn thing about it. And the first thing that we ought to say, hey, before we start doing things, is it constitutional? Is this something that ought to be left to the states and to the local communities? And the idea here that we have this omnipotent, all-powerful President who must be consulted on all things that matter, no matter what they may be, is itself a symptom of the disease.
Robert Higgs has chronicled all this government largesse here, this massive monster known as, as I call it, Leviathan here, and how it must be dealt with and what have you here. And he’s asked the question, “Well, Higgs, what are we going to do about it?” And Higgs, says, “I wish I had a solution, but there isn’t a solution. There certainly isn’t one single magic bullet that will fix all this.” And on a daily basis we have these discussions. Now, we have suggestions for things that need to be done. Let me frame it to you like this. Think of it like this, and think of what’s happening today with unemployment 10.2 percent and the estimated number of people without a job standing now at 16 million souls. Let me ask you a question. How is it possible that we can reemploy 16 million people without a fundamental shift in the way we are currently doing business? Hmm? Explain it to me. And don’t tell me, Mr President,“Oh, we’re going to have green energy jobs...We’re going to build new highways.” You really think 16 million people want to go off and build a highway or a windmill? And how long is that going to last, after we find out that windmills don’t work as advertised, are exorbitantly cost prohibitive and don’t yield the results that they’re advertised to yield? What are you going to do then? So explain to me, geniuses out there, how in God’s holy name are we going to reemploy 16 million unemployed souls?

There is only one mechanism that I know of on the face of the earth that is possible. And don’t tell me, “Oh, yeah, we can give them all government jobs, 16 million people, new ones working for the government.” That takes 16 million people out of the productive sector, meaning that about 30 million people need to then work to support those 16 million people because there’s launderers of the money paid to the 16 million that would work for the government. So that’s not an option. So what then is possibly the option to employ those 16 million people? Ladies and gentlemen, we can discuss this ad nauseam. You can float your theories on economics all you want. There is only one mechanism in the history of humankind that could possibly employ – and it’s not a war, either – 16 million people. What is it? Liberty. Disband the apparatus that is suffocating the 16 million unemployed.
Let me ask you that are out there that are among the 16 million unemployed: Would you rather have free and open, honest, hard work competition to try and get a job, make the best product, be the best welder, be the best craftsman, be the best salesman, be the best baker, candlestick maker, would you rather have that, or would you rather stick with this monster that has been created to protect you from racism and to protect you from sexism and to protect you from minoritism and to protect you from illegal aliens who have to have a fair shake, too? Would you rather take your shot with Leviathan, which is producing the results all around you? Or would you rather take your shot with your founders? Would you rather take your shot with the Jacobins, as they’re known? Would you rather take your shot with the Jeffersons? And I don’t mean William, movin’ on up. Choose.
Some of you fools are going to, “No, I want to be protected from racism.” All right, well, then, you’re not going to find a job. Go sit down over there. “Mr. Reader, I want to be protected from sexism.” Well, you’re not going to find a job either. Go sit down over there. “Mr. Reader, I want to be protected from people who discriminate against Muslims.” Yeah, well, go sit down over there. You’re not going to find a job, either. “I want to be protected from not being able to work an eight-hour day because I have other things to do.” Well, then, go sit down over there. You’re not going to find a job, either.
Again, this is all going to end in tears. In tears. The only mechanism that exists on earth that can fix this problem that is growing as I speak is liberty. It is the pursuit, your pursuit, of being the best that you could be and competing with those who may not be as good as you at being that best. It is the unshackling and the deregulation of all these wonderful, God-given natural resources that we are so blessed with on this northern part of the American continent. That’s it. It’s not hard to figure out. If government and if the monopolists and the corporatists are fired, eliminated, gotten out of the way, then and only then – and I’m not talking about installing dictators. I’m not talking about Cuban Castro revolutions or Mao great leap forwards where it’s all planned. I’m talking about the opposite. I’m talking about dismantling that which is holding progress back. That means that that federal judge, or whoever it was that decided that that stupid fish needs to be protected in the San Joaquin Valley, that stupid little delta smelt, that that judge is recalled by the people, his order is taken back to the state legislature, it is overturned, and that water is used to promote human happiness. Screw the stupid fish. If it dies, so what. Eat it. Can the sumbitch and ship it to China. And unless you do that, you and I are going to be sitting here for years talking about this. That’s if you can still afford a laptop, desktop, newspaper, or a radio....
This has all conspired and accrued over the growth of our governments. Your states are suffering. All of your states are suffering. And the reason they’re suffering is because they got too big. They took too many people out of the productive sector and put them into being nonproductive, into micromanaging other people’s affairs and doing things that private people, citizens, individuals and communities ought to be doing. And if you’re not willing to erase that – “No, I want my unemployment extension benefit” – well, then, you’re probably not going to find a job. Go ahead and sit out there and wait for a Fortune 500 to come along and save your life.

Thanks to Mike Church and his fine informative Show,
and thanks to The Economist Robert Higgs

Saturday, October 31, 2009

10 Facts Every American Should Know About Speaker Pelosi's 1,990-Page Gov't Takeover of Health Care

Washington, Oct 29 -

Members of Congress and the American people are just beginning to look at Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) 1,990-page government takeover of health care, but it’s already becoming clear just how costly and unsustainable this proposal is. From higher taxes on middle-class families to job-killing mandates on small businesses to cuts in Medicare benefits for seniors, here are 10 facts every American should know about Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-page government takeover of health care:

1. RAISES TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill imposes a range of tax increases on families with income below $250,000, breaking a promise made by President Obama. Tax increases on middle class families include: an individual mandate tax of up to 2.5 percent of income for taxpayers earning as little as $9,350; repeal of a tax break on medicine purchased with funds from an HSA (health savings account); limits to tax relief through FSAs (flexible spending accounts); taxes on medical devices that will inevitably be passed on to consumers; and a new tax on all insurance policies.

2. MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi’s bill would have a negative impact on seniors’ benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.

3. NO PROTECTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to exempt small businesses from the steep eight percent ‘pay or play’ employer mandate. The facts tell a different story. Using Census data compiled by the Small Business Administration, this so-called ‘exemption’ hammers small employers with only, on average, 17 or more employees to new taxes and mandates. The outfits affected employ 70 percent of all small business employees, or 42.3 million workers. Adding to the assault on small businesses, the bill does not index the small business “exemption” amounts, meaning more and more small businesses will be ensnared by this job-killing employer mandate each year.

4. INCREASES THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Imposing a new $2 billion tax on insurance policies will be passed on to patients in the form of higher premiums. Changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit will, according to estimates by CBO, will raise Medicare Part B premiums by $25 billion and Part D premiums by 20 percent. And imposing an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for the bill’s Medicaid expansion will shift the burden of this expansion on state taxpayers who may experience tax increases to cover the cost.

5. USES GIMMICKS TO HIDE BUDGET-BUSTING COST, PILES UP DEBT ON FUTURE GENERATIONS. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to be deficit neutral, but uses budget gimmickry to hide its massive total cost. Working families across America know they cannot simply decide that a bill they get in the mail doesn’t exist, but that’s exactly what congressional Democrats are doing. In order to meet the President’s ‘target’ spending total of $900 billion, Democrats have simply swept costly provisions under the rug, including the $245 billion ‘doc fix.’

6. IMPOSES JOB-KILLING EMPLOYER MANDATES. Additional taxes on employers and new government mandates that dictate acceptable insurance will place new and crushing burdens on employers. These are burdens that will ultimately fall squarely on the backs of workers in the form of reduced wages, fewer hours or lost employment. CBO agrees that "[e]mployees largely bear the cost of... play-or-pay fees in the form of lower wages." According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation’s largest small business association, an employer mandate of this magnitude will disproportionately impact small businesses, triggering up to 1.6 million lost jobs. Two-thirds of those jobs would be shed by small businesses.

7. TILTS THE PLAYING FIELD IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT-RUN INSURANCE COMPANY. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill promises not to give the government-run plan advantages over private insurers in the market, but the opposite is true. The bill provides billions in start-up funding for the government-run plan, and while it requires the plan to repay the money over time it does not require the plan to pay interest on this “loan.” This interest-free, taxpayer-subsidized loan is potentially worth millions of dollars and tilts the playing field in favor of the government-run plan.

8. THREATENS CASH-STRAPPED STATES WITH UNFUNDED MANDATES. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill swells the number of Americans on the government rolls by expanding Medicaid eligibility. Medicaid is financed through a federal-state partnership, but the bill dumps nearly ten percent of the mandated expansion included in the bill onto the states. States, already struggling with fiscal constraints, would be left on the hook for billions of dollars due to this unfunded mandate.

9. CREATES A NEW MONSTROSITY IN THE TAX CODE. Starting in 2011, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill imposes a 5.4 percent tax on adjusted gross income above $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for married couples. Yet, the dollar amounts for which the tax kicks in are not indexed for inflation. We’ve seen this horror film before: the Alternative Minimum Tax, another Frankenstein’s monster of the tax code, also wasn’t indexed for inflation and now affects millions of middle class families with incomes below the Democrat’s surtax.

10. MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURTAIL JUNK LAWSUITS. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill misses a critical opportunity to rein in junk lawsuits and costly defensive medicine. The bill includes only a voluntary grant program to deal with the medical liability crisis instead of including real reform, which would produce tens of billions of dollars in savings, improve efficiency in our health care system and reduce costs for patients and providers.

Republicans have offered better solutions to lower health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage at a price our nation can afford. Learn more by visiting:

Sunday, October 25, 2009

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat as obama wishes for you to believe!

In not so many words:

Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:


--"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

--"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

--"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.


Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better -- drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

Thanks to CALVIN WOODWARD and Associated Press writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis....

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Michelle Obama is NOT going to SC because backwater hick hayseeds are ready to take their hostility to Barack out on her!

U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn held a roundtable discussion in his Columbia office Friday on a number of topics.

COLUMBIA — U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Friday that a conversation with White House staff left him with the sense that a hostile environment in South Carolina is keeping the first lady from visiting.

The high-ranking South Carolina Democrat said he has received more than 100 invitations for Michelle Obama. But this summer when he brought one of those requests to her staff on behalf of his alma mater, South Carolina State University, Clyburn said her security was an issue.

The conversation came after former Richland County GOP activist Rusty DePass suggested on Facebook in June that an escaped zoo gorilla was not harmful because it was probably one of Mrs. Obama's ancestors. DePass' comment was coupled with a remark in July from U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican. DeMint said that beating the president's health care plan would be a 'Waterloo' moment for Obama.

Congressman Joe Wilson's 'You lie!' outburst during Obama's joint address on health care reform last month didn't help either, Clyburn said.

'A lot of it has to do with the fact that the climate in South Carolina just is not good, and that's a shame,' Clyburn said at a roundtable discussion at his Columbia office.

'I do believe it is keeping her away from this state,' he said.

The congressman said the first lady's family connections in South Carolina and her fond childhood memories from Georgetown County left many excited at the possibility that the Obamas would vacation on the coast here. Her security must be guaranteed before that could happen, Clyburn said.

DePass said Clyburn's comments were off base.

'The idea that people in South Carolina are hostile to the Obamas is poppycock,' he said. 'That's utterly ridiculous.'

DePass apologized before the South Carolina Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for his Facebook comment, and reiterated that apology

Friday. He also said that his history with the Republican Party included reaching out to minority voters and trying to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse dome.

Wilson's office also said Clyburn was wrong.

'Congressman Wilson respectfully disagrees with Congressman Clyburn's assumption,' Wilson spokesman Ryan Murphy said in a statement. 'He believes the people of South Carolina would welcome the president and the first lady should they decide to visit our great state.'

Neither the first lady's press office nor the Secret Service provided comment for this story. DeMint's office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pat Caddell of Hanahan, an expert on public opinion polls and a Democratic strategist, said South Carolina surely has racists among its residents, but racism isn't the prevailing sentiment. 'The Democratic Party will blow itself up if it keeps assigning things as racist,' Caddell said.

So, lets see if I understand this correctly.....because we the people don`t agree with Obamas` policies the people of S.C. are supid racist rednecks, but michelles` own words of people of the south being uneducated should not bear any consequences???? How political is that???

Thanks to Yvonne Wenger

Health Care Snowe Job

The Senate Finance Committee has issued a set of "talking points" about why the so-called America's Health Future Act is good for you. Missing is any straight talk about how the bill drives up health care spending, rations care and will force people to wait longer for less time with fewer doctors. Call it the Senate Finance Committee's "Snowe Job."

Eight Things to Know about the America's Healthy Future Act (amended for honesty and accuracy):

1. Individuals and employers who are satisfied with their current health insurance coverage can keep it and would not be required to change health plans. (For five years. And then individuals and employers -- note, not employees -- would be forced to buy health plans through exchanges that cost up to three times as much as their previous coverage with benefits they may not want or use. Poor and working class people will have no choice but Medicaid, which will double in size even as physician pay is cut. Good luck trying to keep your own doctor in either case unless you pay cash.)

2. No American can be denied health insurance or charged more because of a pre-existing health condition. (But since Americans who are and stay healthy will subsidize those of us who get sick and enroll only when they are seriously ill, the costs of coverage will increase or care will be rationed. Probably both. And Americans with pre-existing conditions will be denied coverage of drugs or tests and be forced to wait to see specialists as health plans, under the threat of a public option trigger, will cut access to care that the Obama administration regards as unnecessary.)

3. Health insurance companies will not be able to discriminate on the basis of gender or health status -- so insurance companies can't charge more for women or Americans who are sick. (See above. This is pay for performance in reverse.)

4. Health insurance companies will no longer receive tax deductions if they give their executives excessive salaries and compensation. (And this improves health care access and quality how?)

5. Members of Congress will be required to buy their health insurance through the same exchanges that people in their own states will use, instead of having a separate Congressional health plan. (Yes, but Members of Congress will have their insurance deeply subsidized.)

6. Health insurance companies will no longer be able to limit how much coverage you can use over your lifetime or how many benefits you can use each year. (Sounds good. But remember the government will be making those decisions from here on in. What benefits you use and how much will be decided by a Quality Czar who will issue reimbursement and coverage decisions for health exchanges based on what bureaucrats believe is cost effective. That's rationing.)

7. The bill specifically says there will be no Medicare benefit cuts for individuals. In fact, it strengthens Medicare's finances so the program can continue to provide benefits for years to come. (Nice try. The bill specifically cuts Medicare Advantage, the fastest growing program for the most chronically ill seniors. Score a big one for AARP which, in exchange for shilling for Obamacare, will reap billions as seniors dumped from Advantage have to buy supplemental coverage for what the shuttered program used to pay for. It specifically reduces what doctors will get under Medicare. It specifically seeks to reduce how much doctors do based not on how sick people are -- see the similar contradiction in point 6 -- but on the lowest amount of care given per person regardless of burden of disease. And it micromanages the decision of whether to pay for new technologies to assure that fewer people get innovations more slowly. Maybe it's not a cut, but it is denial of care.

8. Low-and middle-income seniors will get 50 percent of their drug costs paid for when they reach the so-called doughnut hole in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, where no coverage is provided today. (And what drugs they get will be determined by a government panel that will increasingly delay access to new drugs based on price alone and without regard to individual differences.)

As health care costs and premiums go up, as they will, government bureaucrats will pull the public option "trigger." Price controls and bigger government run health plans -- the public option -- will follow.

Thanks to Robert M. Goldberg

Chris Matthews Fantasizes About Someone Shooting Limbaugh in the Head

Perfect look into the Liberal philosophy; If somebody doesn’t agree with your beliefs, they should be shot.
Look for more of this attitude from fellow liberals, and, even scarier, from the White House


We told about the quarterback sneak pulled by the private health industry who finally realized that President Obama was lying like a big dog. As it turns out, more and more economically-based criticism of Obamacare is coming to light. For starters, the tacit ‘approval’ some thought they saw courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, isn’t that at all. Not if you’re really looking, at least.
While the CBO has said they expect the collect a fair bit of money via the various taxes associated with the plan. But what if they aren’t there? The Congressional Budget Office projections (which are, in this case, the Joint Committee on Taxation's projections, as the CBO doesn't estimate tax revenues) actually suggest that the bulk of the tax's revenues will come from the response to the tax, not the payment of the tax. As the New York Times reports, the JCT believes that "about $142 billion of the 10-year total of $201 billion to be raised by the [excise tax] would come from increased income and payroll taxes." In other words, the vast majority of the revenues would come because employers would "structure their benefits to get around this tax." Workers would receive more of their compensation in wages and less in healthcare benefits, and because wages are taxable and health benefits aren't, tax revenues would go up. The trouble is that the CBO didn't adequately account for the response to the implicit marginal tax created by the sliding scale of subsidies. In other words, the CBO doesn’t fully incorporate the effects of these higher marginal tax rates in their cost estimates.
If taxpayers respond to these new incentives by, say, working less, GDP and tax revenue from income and payroll taxes will go down.
Want the bonus plan? Ask yourself if you’d feel the pinch of a 20 percentage point tax increase. I know I would.

To sen richard durbin

I see that your are not listening to us, we do not want you to continue on your present course to pass and sign this dog of a healthcare policy....healthcare reform is a joke, have you polititions even read the proposals??? I think not, or you just dont care about what we say!
You sir were elected to office to represent us sir, not the other way around....dont put your name on any of these power grabbing bills, cap and trade...healthcare, or any other bill that violates our freedom and liberty!!
I have watched what you have been involving yourself in sir and I can tell you with 100% confidence that you do not have our wishes in mind....STOP signing your liberal, power grabbing bills and START doing our bidding...
Everything you and your colleagues are doing is a disgrace, what in the constitution gives you the authority to carry out what you are doing???? You polititions shouldn`t continue to be sent to washington, you all should be in jail sir, what you people are doing is nothing short of theft!!!! How dare you sirs.......
Shame on you and your colleagues!!!!!
This summer you treated the U.S. citizens has a joke, come election time we will return the favor, so mark my words!!!
I pray for my country, its citizens, and our troops.
If you continue on your present course of pursueing your liberal agenda, and the distruction of this great country then start packing your bags, because we are going to start looking for real representation and you WILL be fired sir!

Friday, October 9, 2009

Does Obama Violate the Hatch Act with Acceptance of Nobel?

The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, District of Columbia government and some state and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that significantly amended the Hatch Act as it applies to federal and D.C. employees (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326). (These amendments did not change the provisions that apply to state and local employees. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508.) Under the amendments most federal and D.C. employees are now permitted to take an active part in political management and political campaigns. A small group of federal employees are subject to greater restrictions and continue to be prohibited from engaging in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns.

Is the Nobel Foundation political?

Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act

An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days’ suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Obama’s Nobel response:

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I’d been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I’ve said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won’t all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it’s recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award — and the call to action that comes with it — does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we’ve begun together. I’m grateful that you’ve stood with me thus far, and I’m honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Sounds like there were political strings attached. Strings that Obama accepted.

Chicago March on the Media

The Chicago Tea Party Says…
Can You Hear Us Now?
We are silent NO more!

March on the Media
October 16th
4 p.m. – 6 p.m.
ABC Studios
180 N. State Street
(We will also visit CBS News Studios, 22 West Washington Blvd., one block away, during their broadcasts, too!

Silent NO More Tea Party
October 17th
11 a.m. – 1 p.m.
Millennium Park
Michigan Avenue and Washington Blvd.
Guest speaker: Kevin Jackson of the Black Sphere
We have also invited Janeane Garofolo, who has resurrected her dying career by calling American patriots involved in tea parties, racists, to debate Kevin Jackson… Let’s see if she accepts!

Saturday, September 5, 2009

US harshly rebukes Israel on settlement plans

AP - Sat, 5 Sep 2009 01:04:39 -0400 (EDT)

Alarmed by Israeli plans to build new housing units in settlements and dimming prospects for American peace efforts, the Obama administration on Friday put out a rare and harsh public rebuke of its main Mideast ally.

The White House said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's settlement plans were "inconsistent" with commitments the Jewish state has made previously and harmful to U.S. attempts to lay the groundwork for a resumption in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

"United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate."

Netanyahu's aides, speaking on condition of anonymity Friday because the plans have not been formally announced, said any Israeli settlement freeze would not halt building the new units and or block completion of some 2,500 others currently under construction. They also said the freeze would not include east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians hope to make their future capital.

The unusually blunt White House criticism reflected the administration's growing frustration with Netanyahu, whose decision would approve hundreds of new housing units in West Bank settlements before considering even a temporary freeze in construction, as President Barack Obama has requested.

The White House typically refrains from commenting on such moves until they are formally announced. But in this case, U.S. officials said they acted because Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell had already been briefed on the Israeli plans earlier in the week.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Mitchell and the Israelis had been having "a very open dialogue" in "very intense discussions." He would not elaborate.

But one U.S. official familiar with Mitchell's Wednesday meeting in New York with Netanyahu envoy Yitzhak Molcho and Israeli Defense Ministry chief of staff Michael Herzog said the Israelis "told Mitchell they were going to do it and he told them they could expect a sharp response."

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive diplomatic exchange, said the meeting had "not gone well."

The official added that the White House statement was released before a formal Israeli announcement of Netanyahu's plans because "we wanted to send a strong signal early on."

Publicly, the State Department had described Mitchell's discussion with the Israeli delegation -- which came after his talks with Netanyahu a week earlier in London -- as a "good meeting."

The department said Mitchell would travel again to the Middle East next week to follow up. That trip is still on, officials said Friday.

"The process will continue," said one. The official also noted that the statement was not entirely negative and expressed appreciation for "Israel's stated intent to place limits on settlement activity."

"We are working with all parties -- Israelis, Palestinians, and Arab states -- on the steps they must take to achieve that objective," said Gibbs.

Netanyahu's refusal to bend on the settlement issue despite repeated U.S. appeals threatens to damage Obama's credibility in the Arab world. The administration is counting on Arab support for a resumption in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations but will not likely get it unless Netanyahu makes concessions on settlements.

The Palestinians have said they will not sit down for talks unless there is a settlement freeze and Arab leaders have made similar demands.

This is amazing to me that obama has no problems scolding our allies but can`t use that same tone to the nations that would do us harm!!! Obama should grow a set and put Iran, Korea, Russia in their place and stop kissing up to their leaders!!! It is amazing just how much damage one man and his self appointed administration has done to this once great nation. With every passing day he finds new ways to weaken our standing in the world, whats even more amazing is the millions of dazed americans that just can`t see the harm he is doing.

The Patriot Act is Not Conservative

If Americans needed another reminder of why the Democratic Party is absolutely worthless, they got it during last week’s Patriot Act extension debate when Senate Majority leader Harry Reid again behaved exactly like the Bush-era Republicans he once vigorously opposed. In 2005, Reid bragged to fellow Democrats, “We killed the Patriot Act.” Today, Reid says that anyone who opposes the Patriot Act might be responsible for the killing of Americans. Dick Cheney now hears an echo and Americans deserve congressional hearings—as to whether Harry Reid is a sociopath, mere liar, or both.

Universal Healthcare is SLAVERY

Supporters of Universal Healthcare want to impose an individual mandate on all working Americans. By doing this, they are sanctioning slavery on the American People. On 09/09/09, President Obama addressed the Congress and the nation, stating that individuals would be required to purchase healthcare. Anyone who does not will be fined up to $1,900, thrown in prison, and fined an additional $25,000. This is a perfect example of government tyranny, and is more properly termed, "fascism." In any program designed to help others, there is always an option to withdraw or not participate. A person who doesn’t want to buy auto insurance can opt not to drive a car. A person who doesn’t want house insurance can rent instead of buying a house. In the case of healthcare, a tax is placed on the right to LIFE itself. We should remember that even the slavemasters of old were interested in the healthiness of their slaves. A person who cannot opt out is not free—he or she is nothing but a slave. Socialist programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the Draft all result in slavery or involuntary servitude. Now is the time to uphold the 13th Amendment by defeating Unconstitutional Healthcare.

Student Advantage

Student Advantage® is the nation’s most widely-accepted student discount card for students and parents. No matter where your visitors are located, they will be able to save with Student Advantage because we’ve partnered with thousands of regional, national, and online merchants to give customers up to 50% savings on pizza and textbooks to online stores and everything in between!

PhantomALERT GPS & Radar Detectors

With over $1 Billion in fines, drivers want hi-tech products that work. PhantomALERT's Revolutionary GPS Database & Name Brand GPS & Radar Detectors Are The Answer. The worlds largest driver generated and verified database of speed traps, red light cameras, speed cameras, school zones, DUI checkpoints, railroad crossings, dangerous intersections, speed bumps and more...