Freedom for America

Another election cycle of deadbeats to chose from....

2012-01-22T12:11:00.000-06:00

Here we go again folks, another election cycle where all we get is deadbeats to chose from...
from a lib like romney, to a gov insider like newt whos def not a conservative, to a war monger like santorum, to paul who believes in going back to governing by the constitution, but has a crazy notion of foriegn affairs......
the simple fact is that we are screwed and obama probably will win re-election because we(conservatives) were not paying attention to what was going on in washington for years and the dems/libs slowly but surely took over our government...
No one man can fix the problems that face this great nation, and no one running for president(besides ron paul) is even talking about cutting back our over bloated government, they are only talking about managing the fed gov better.....AND THIS IS NOT A VIABLE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS THAT WE ARE NOW FACING!
Lets face the facts, we are broke and we have to stop and cancel all entitlement programs, not in 5 or 10 years, BUT NOW, TODAY, before its too late, but to be honest who is willing to give up their cushy gov benefits and freebies? Thats the real question!
Think about this when you go to the polls to vote for our next Socialist President

American Assassinations No Big Deal our Hero Lincoln Did the Same thing right? OMG...

2011-10-08T11:22:00.000-05:00

I’m going to play a little exchange of the intro of Bret Baier asking the question, and then Krauthammer’s shocking response.

[Clip] Woman: And the Constitution says you cannot deny a person due process. You cannot deny them life, liberty, property, without offering them due process.

Goldberg: The Constitution says Congress can declare war, and everyone agreed that that was a declaration of war.

Woman: But we have seen the Supreme Court rule over and over that, even if he was an enemy combatant, he still has constitutional rights. He’s an American.

Goldberg: I guarantee, I will bet you the Congress, the Court does not have a problem with this.

Charles Krauthammer: We had the Civil War in which our side mowed down American citizens, Confederate soldiers who were recognized – never recognized as the members of another country, in battle after battle. In Pickett’s Charge, we didn’t send lawyers out to interview Confederate soldiers and ask them if they were Americans, read them Miranda Rights, which of course that didn’t exist until a hundred years later. We shot them.

Woman: But they were wearing uniforms.

Charles Krauthammer: That doesn’t – but they were American citizens.

Woman: Right.

Goldberg: Confederate spies in the North were shot on sight.

Woman: No, but they...

Charles Krauthammer: The point is that American citizenry protects you. It doesn’t apply in insurrection. Now, normally people will say only insurrection on American soil, though why should your presence in Yemen protect you? Here was a guy who was fomenting insurrection, trying to get Americans to turn against the United States and to attack America in the homeland. [End clip]

Now I ask you, do you agree with this assessment?

Did you hear Goldberg jump in there? “Well, Southern spies, Confederate spies were ordered shot on capture.” Oh, just bathe in the blood of the Confederacy, Jonah Goldberg, you hack. I mean, ladies and gentlemen, this is just sick. And Krauthammer, “Well, we mowed down entire armies of Confederate soldiers.” I beg to differ with you, sir. “They never were recognized as citizens....” Recognized by who, that tyrant tinhorn dictator, Abraham Lincoln? You have got to be kidding me. The reason there was an alleged “war” that was started by Mr. Lincoln was because the South separated. Those, you know, this really just pisses me off. The Southern soldiers swore an oath to protect and defend the Confederate Constitution, or the Constitution of their state in the absence of the Confederate Constitution being ratified. I mean, this is beyond-the-pale macabre, here.

So the longing for the Neocon wing of the Republican Party is, look, if you guys don’t go along with us, we’ll be perfectly justified in shooting all of you Tea Party hacks that try and secede again. Oh, yeah, we’ll take you out. Even if you declare yourself citizens of Texas, Obama will be justified, or President Romney will be justified in sending the Army out to kill you. Anything else you’d like to do to me, Charles? Any other deprivation of life and property you’d like to visit upon me while you’re bathing in the war blood of people that have decided they do not want to be governed by you and your idolatry to Abraham Lincoln any longer?

I mean, folks, really, this is the end sum game here, and this is where there is a divide that ought to be talked about, ought to be debated, and ought to be exploited. If the citizens of this country decide – and when I say “country,” I mean those living in a state. If they decide that they have had enough of the federal Leviathan, that they’ve had enough of their fiat currency, that they’ve had enough of their sons and daughters being called into never-ending wars, that they have had enough of the tyrannical EPA, that they’ve had enough of the devaluation of their properties, that they’ve had enough of federal Georges coming into their states and their localities and telling them they can’t pray in public, that they’ve had enough of all the three-and-a-half batrillion kadrillion kajillion things that this federal monster of Mordor on the Potomac River does, and they choose a different form of government, different from what is currently in force here, that is their natural, God-given, human right to do so. But to invoke Lincoln mowing down indiscriminate – well, I shouldn’t say “indiscriminately.” There was a battle, and the South did shoot back, so scratch that. But to invoke Pickett just mowing down Confederate citizens as the justification for this?

You see now that the conservatives in the Republican arm or the DeceptiCon wing of the Republican Party has no problem with the size and the gargantuan nature of the state, ladies and gentlemen. They have no problem with the state exercising and using brutal, lethal force against you or anyone else.

Now dont get me wrong," I am not comparing Awlaki to the Confederates, but the statement is clear. We have taught people what happens if they don’t agree with our government.”

To me this is the whole point!

Rand Paul on Empire and Non-Interventionism

2011-09-01T07:01:00.000-05:00

Mike speaks with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky about his father's campaign for President, a return to a humble foreign policy, and the economic reality we as a nation currently face.

Mike: Now to the Dudemaker Hotline, my friend and many of yours, the great senator from the great state of Kentucky and son of Ron Paul, Rand Paul with us. Rand, it’s been a while. How are you, my friend?

Senator Rand Paul: Good, good to be with you.

Mike: Yeah, it’s good to hear from you. So does it bother you to still hear, though, the ideas which are ancient and timeless that your dad espouses, does it bother you to hear the pejorative terms that are still associated with it? I don’t hear it directed at you as much as it did when you first ran for office. But towards your dad, they still have – “they” being the industrial news complex, seem to have no problem still hurling these just unfounded insults at it. How do you, as a son, how do you take that?

Rand: Well, a lot of it still means that, you know, people start out with their preset notions, particularly on foreign policy, that everything that is not, you know, all out interminable war is called “isolationism.” So anything less than that really is given that pejorative term. And really what I tell people is, is that there are two polar extremes. One is that we’re everywhere all the time, and one is that we’re nowhere any of the time. And right now I think we’re towards the extreme of being everywhere all the time. So backing away from that is not isolationism. That is much less intervention.

But it’s also, I think people are coming around to that viewpoint, even others on the Republican field, because they realize we’re running out of money. They realize we don’t have enough money to be everywhere all the time. And I think they also are starting to see that the Constitution really should be obeyed. It’s easier for them to see when there’s a Democrat in the White House; but they are seeing it through the Libya action, even though in practical purposes it looks like it’ll be successful, it wasn’t approached from a constitutional fashion, and there are severely bad precedents with going to war that way.

Mike: Is it tough to take this stand in the United States Senate still? Or are you finding that there are now more people, more senators that are more aligned with and are at least open to the discussion about, okay, Senator Paul, yeah, let’s talk about this interventionism. Is it getting better, or is it status quo?

Rand: I think it’s much better, actually. There are 47 Republicans in the U.S. Senate. And I’d say there’s a good solid 10 to 12 who are at least circumspect about endless intervention and about going to war with no declaration of war and whether the President should have this power versus Congress. So there really is a debate occurring. We, during the last session, brought up the President’s words from 2007 when he campaigned and said that no president should unilaterally go to war without congressional authority. We had a vote on that.

Now, the Democrats, I think, were embarrassed, and none of them voted to support the President’s own words. But we had 10 Republicans who did, and it was a symbolic vote. But, you know, 10 out of 47 shows that there’s at least some divide. It’s not as monolithic as it used to be. And I think that bothers some of the extreme on the side of, you know, the perpetual war faction is bothered by it. But really there is a healthy debate now in the Republican caucus. You saw on the House side that they actually, you know, voted against sanctioning the Libya venture. So, you know, really I think there is a serious discussion, even within Republican circles now.

Mike: Well, and that’s good, and that’s started by your father. I mean, your father has been out there blazing this path now. It’s refreshing at least to hear that it’s being discussed. Let’s move on to a subject I know near and dear to your heart, economics here. The President is slated to give this address here after Labor Day and to tell us how our magisterial federal overlords are going to help us overcome all of our economic problems. I know you to be a student of the Austrian school of economics. That may not apply in the United States Senate. But if given the chance, aren’t there things that can be undone, that would immediately unleash capital and job creation in the United States?

Rand: Absolutely. I think tomorrow or yesterday you could lower the corporate income tax and bring a lot of capital home from foreign countries, and that’d be a huge infusion into our economy. Right now, you know, our corporate income tax is actually twice what Canada’s is. And I never thought I’d be complimenting Canadian public policy, but they actually have a much lower income tax than we do. So that’s the first thing you can do, and that would help quite a bit.

The second thing you can do is quit doing what you are doing, and that’s adding new regulations every day. The President now is going to back off and say, oh, he’s going to reduce $10 billion worth of regulations. Well, just this year he added $60 billion. That’s not counting ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. So, you know, really, I tell people I think this is the most anti-business President we’ve had in my lifetime.

Mike: Yeah, and it’s not only it’s anti-business, it’s anti-small business. Take it from someone who’s a small businessman, before you were in the Senate, you were a privately contracted ophthalmologist. You were a small business. This stuff matters here. When you get letters in the mail like the one I received the other day informing me that, because of the 2008 Economic Recovery Act, if I don’t fork over certain documents to my bank, the IRS is going to come in and assess me a 28 percent tax on all of my sales. What can you do as a member of the United States Senate to stop some of this stuff?

Rand: Well, here’s the scary thing. The courts haven’t been on our side on this either. But for several decades now the courts have ruled that your banking records have no right to privacy. And I say if my banking records have no right to privacy, I don’t have privacy because everything I do is through credit cards or banks. If you can track my credit card, you can tell when I go to the doctor, what kind of medicine I take, who I associate with, whether I drink alcohol, whether I gamble. I mean, really, I think your banking records are a large part of your life, and we need to protect them. But we need to change some court decisions. We need to legislate and say your banking records are private.

You know, these Suspicious Activity Reports that they do under the Patriot Act, there have been eight million of them sifted through in the last 10 years. If you talk to bankers, the bankers don’t like being policemen. They don’t like doing it. It adds cost to their business. But you can’t get anybody in Washington to try to reform that process. In fact, we were discussing the Patriot Act on the floor, and I brought up SARs, and a couple of members of the Intelligence Committee were standing there, and they were like, huh? What is an SAR? They didn’t even know what they were, and we’re doing eight million of them over the last 10 years.

Mike: That is just – that is unprecedented. Now, I remember back in June I got a letter from your office, an email letter, and they had included in that email letter a letter that you had written to the head of the FBI. And you had asked him certain things about what you’re talking about here, and under what clause in the Constitution was he finding the authority to conduct these warrantless wiretaps and these other investigations. Did you get an answer to that query? I’m just curious.

Rand: I don’t think there is an answer that’s acceptable coming from them. They just simply said they have the authority under the Patriot Act. Whether or not the Patriot Act agrees with the Constitution, they’re sort of quiet on that subject. One of the things I did get from the meeting is that I think they are trying to do a better job of screening those folks they’re bringing in from Iraq. But my point of view is, is that I’m not sure why we need to bring in, you know, 18,000 people from Iraq every year when their country’s been liberated, has a democratic government now. And I think they need to be staying home and fixing up their country rather than, you know, coming to our country and living on welfare.

Now people I have to ask you, hows that for a clear and to the point response to a very serious problem?
My thanks to Mr Rand and Mr Church for thei time and wisdom in this matter....

GOP offers Continued Lip Service to Constitutional Fidelity

2011-07-29T13:27:00.000-05:00

Speaker of the House, John Boehner aptly demonstrates the theory that he and the GOP’s reascension to the majority is nothing but a “mere shuffling of the deck chairs.” Whether on matters of the nation’s fiscal solvency or unilateral military actions undertaken by President Obama, fidelity to the Constitution continues to remain nothing more than lip service to an electorate exhausted from decades of political-theater.

So we have that. This story here about John Boehner here, this is just – and if you needed any evidence that the new Deck Chair Party is just that, and that there really isn’t much, there’s not too much difference between your basic DeceptiCon fake phony fraud conservative Republican and your basic Democrats, your entry-level Democrat, well, this ought to assuage you of that notion.

Here: “Freshman House Republicans are already putting House Speaker John Boehner in a bind over the budget, with a contingent of Tea Party-backed fiscal conservatives refusing to vote for any more continuing resolutions. Now a group of libertarian-leaning Republicans are balking at Obama’s missile strikes in Libya.” Why isn’t Boehner balking at the missile strikes in Libya? He is the Speaker of the damn House of Representin’. The Constitution is clear on this. If Obama wants to bomb the snot out of a Middle Eastern country and send them back to the Stone Ages, he has to get a Declaration of War from Congress. Unless he has actionable intelligence that none of us know about, that somehow Muammar Gaddafi was planning a WMD attack against the United States, well, then, the Constitution is clear on this.

I mean, even dimwits like Dennis Kucinich know this. Now, how sad is this? Seriously, folks, how sad is this? You have a rogue president who has done everything humanly possible to destroy capital formation in this country, to destroy capital incentives in this country, to jerry-rig and to continue the process, the corrupt process of transferring wealth from the little that we have, that would be we in the middle classes, of transferring our wealth, through the tax system, through the Federal Reserve, through corporatism, from us to his buddies.

This is what – you’ve always got to follow the money here, folks. It’s never really about power. It’s always about money. With a guy like Obama, it’s about money. He’s got a bunch of masters he has to pay back. This isn’t hard to figure out here. You follow the money. And the money trail ultimately leads right to Jeffrey Immelt of GE’s door, ultimately leads right to Warren Buffett’s door and all these other clowns that you see going in and outside of the White House. The big labor unions and what have you, they’re all being paid. I mean, hey, it’s great work if you can find it. The federal government is expanding at a rate unprecedented in modern history. Not even Franklin DelanObama Roosevelt expanded the federal government at the rate that Obama has. Obama seems impervious, seems oblivious to all of the people out here that have grave concerns about our financial situation and our financial malaise. He continues to just thumb his nose at any sort of congressional role in any of this and continues to thumb his nose and just to ignore, and sometimes with impunity, this thing called a Constitution.

Matter of fact, I got a note last night from Professor Kevin Gutzman – I had sent him the question, hey, what do you think about this Obama declaring war thing. And Gutzman writes back, “Well, the Constitution obviously is dead. It doesn’t have any authority to stop these madmen from doing anything. Hmm, somebody ought to write a book about this,” Kevin writes back to me. And he’s joking because he wrote a book called “Who Killed the Constitution?”

So you have Obama acting with impunity at every possible stage here. And you have a change in parties in the Congress, in the House of Representin’. And for the life of me I don’t understand why this is so hard to figure out. I mean, look, all you DeceptiCons out there, you warmongering Republicans, you can have your war. At least try and get the current president to let’s back it off a notch, okay. I know we’re the world’s policemen. I know we have to take care of everyone. There are behinds that need wiping out there. There are French little tooty-baby hands to hold. There are little tea-and-crumpet British hands to hold. “That’s right, mate, can you come help us over here [sobbing] because we’ve got to take care of this Kaddafi fellow.” Set the precedent, Mr. Boehner. Do what’s right. Demand that this president stop. Threaten to defund him. According to the administration’s own propaganda ministers there’s no troops in harm’s way. Am I right about that? We don’t have any boots on the ground, according to Obama; right?

Although I have read reports of a fighter jet going down with mechanical issues already....and that’s just great. Wonderful. Yeah. I wonder how much that jet cost? Hmm. Let’s see, we could go to the used jet lot over there in the United Arab Emirates and kick the tires and see if we can get a replacement. What kind of – hey, Abdul, what kind of deal can you make us on selling us back one of our own fighter jets? But we’re not supposed to have any boots on the ground, so you can’t use this lame-ass excuse, oh, we’re not going to defund our troops. You’re not going to defund any troops in harm’s way because we’re not supposed to have troops in harm’s way.

So where’s Michele Bachmann and the Constitution, hmm? Where are all these freshman Tea Partiers that were taking this document that I hold here in my hand and flailing it about back in January? “Oh, it’s all about being constitutional conservatives.” It is? Well, you have a president that is in need of impeachment here, that has obviously done a 180 around the Constitution. And this is not just according to radical nut jobs like me. This is according to another radical nut job in his own party, Dennis Kucinich. Here, listen to this. Here’s Bill Hemmer asking the pertinent questions of Kucinich on America’s Newsroom yesterday morning, Fox News.

[Clip] David Hemmer: This is what the House Speaker John Boehner said just yesterday: “Before any further military commitments are made, the administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.” My next guest calls the assault “grave” and “lacks constitutional authority.” Dennis Kucinich is the Democratic congressman from Ohio, and welcome back here to America’s Newsroom. What’s the problem going after Kaddafi?

Dennis Kucinich: Well, here it is. And I’m going to read this, and then I’ll tell you who said it. “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Now, that was Barack Obama who said that on December 20, 2007. [Mike: Oh, really.] We’ve got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution. And President Obama didn’t do that.

David Hemmer: Well, even if Congress came back and voted on it, would it pass?

Dennis Kucinich: And, you know, it’s after the fact now. I mean, there is a serious matter here that relates to the president going ahead, ordering a strike against Libya, and not involving the Congress. And your guests have talked about the cost. We’re probably into this for a half a billion dollars already. And then you think about there’s no imminent threat, there’s no endgame, are they still after regime change. We could be strengthening Islamic extremists who could be setting up camp in Eastern Libya. There are people who want to divide that nation. This is a nightmare. [End clip]

Yeah, it is a nightmare. And then the next question up is Bill Hemmer’s going, yeah, but if we don’t act, we’re going to have blood on our hands. This has been the media’s line. The members of the fringe media, the members of the Parrot Press Corps have all been out there with the exact same handwringing, oh, woe is me line. Well, if the U.S. doesn’t do something, we’re going to have blood on our hands. Why isn’t anyone else going to have blood on their hands? Why aren’t the Australians going to have blood on their hands, hmm? Why aren’t the Samoans going to have blood on their hands? Why isn’t the blood on the hands of the new democracy fighters in Egypt? And all of the wonderful democracy movements all across the Middle East? Are we going to have blood on our hands if we don’t stop the bloodshed and the violence that’s going on in Yemen? We going to have blood on our hands if we don’t stop the bloodshed and violence that’s going on in Bahrain? It’s all over the place over there.

Hey, we’re going to do this, let’s do it right. Again, start the draft up. It’s unconstitutional, but go ahead. Start the draft up. We’re going to need an army of about 10 million. We’re going to have to send them over there. Every aircraft carrier we have, every tank, every piece of munition.
What about defending the homeland you say?” Screw the homeland. Screw the United States. We don’t need to defend anything here.

We’ve got to go over there and do all these things. And of course this is all free, too. It doesn’t cost anything; right? We may already be a billion dollars into this, and it’s only been four days. Now, wait a minute. The Republicans, the DeceptiCons, say they’re saving us $2 billion a week. We’re spending half of it in Libya. So the savings of now, now the savings are down to a mere billion.

By not defending "The Marriage Act", obama has opened up a can of worms....

2011-07-02T16:32:00.000-05:00

The people who founded America and wrote and ratified its Constitution had great foresight, but they did not imagine that it would ever be necessary to define marriage in the Constitution. But shortly after World War II, the United States Supreme Court twisted the First Amendment beyond recognition by misrepresenting it as requiring governmental neutrality between religion and irreligion and prohibiting governmental support of religion generally. Behavior that had been deemed to be criminal — abortion and sodomy — eventually were deemed to be constitutionally protected by activist judges.

The Clinton years involved a tragic downward spiral on the morality front. Polling on the question of whether homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle in 1992, when Clinton was elected President, and now, shows that acceptance has increased substantially. In part because President Clinton supported ONLY a federal law to protect marriage, not a constitutional amendment.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate dictionary defines marriage as "the mutual relation of husband and wife" and "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

Of course, homosexual, lesbian or same-sex unions are not marriages Because marriage requires one man and one woman. But, Humpty Dumpty told Alice, in Wonderland: "A word means precisely what I want it to mean, neither more nor less." So many homosexuals and lesbians are demanding that marriage be redefined to include their unions. They cleverly claim to be arbitrarily excluded. But it is they who are being arbitrary. They have found some success with some activist judges, but not with most voters.

President Bush, human and therefore imperfect, remains much better than his predecessor or the alternatives offered by the Democrats in 2000 and 2004. Especially on fundamental moral issues.

Set forth below in full are President Bush's recent remarks reiterating his support for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage instead of to permit its mockery.

"Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

"The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

"In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

"On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

"The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

"Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

"For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

"America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

"In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency."

The key point: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

The problem, of course, is secular extremism run amok.

Reverend J. Grant Swank, Jr. summarized the situation confronting the United States Senate sensibly, strongly and succinctly:

"All morality is at stake — now and for the future.

"God has given to us the definition of marriage. God states in His divine revelation that a man shall leave his parents to be joined unto his wife, the two becoming one flesh.

"God also states that practicing homosexuality is an abomination.

"For the United States to counter God is to ask for the wrath of the divine to come our nation. God abides by His own holy nature; He will and must act according to who He is. Therefore, divine judgment in condemnation will come upon those who purposefully disobey God. Judgment of commendation will come upon those who purposefully obey God.

"All moral individuals in America must contact their Congressmembers about this issue — now. The time is short. Ask them to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Unsurprisingly, a substantial majority of Senate Republicans are co-sponsored the proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage and is opposed by an even bigger majority of Senate Democrats, led by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the state with an activist judiciary that whimsically decided to recognize "gay marriage" as a right instead of an oxymoronic wrong. This is the same Senator Kennedy who supports abortion as a constitutional right, yet professes to be a Roman Catholic instead of admitting to being a heretic who has excommunicated himself by his perverse political choices.

The message for all good people: support candidates who support marriage instead of mock it.

A constitutional amendment will stop homosexual marriage from becoming the law of the land, reaffirm the fundamental values on which America was founded, and protect America's youth and posterity.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be for it.

The attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was expressed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws — the basis of legal jurisprudence in America. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject

"What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . .

I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; 'peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum' (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: 'ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei' (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments)."

George Washington, America's Father and first President (as well as President of the Constitution Convention), forbad and punished homosexual acts in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of America's revolutionary forces. See his general orders for March 14, 1778:

"At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose."

No wonder the Founders never dreamed a definition of marriage needed to be included in the Constitution!

Jefferson and the other Founders distinguished between liberty and license and surely did not conceive of the pursuit of happiness as an authorization for "gay marriage."

Look at Jefferson's writings on sodomy.

Such as Jefferson's letter to Edmund Pendleton, written on August 26, 1776.

"The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes...was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies, etc., a certain time proportioned to the offence... Laws thus proportionate and mild should never be dispensed with. Let mercy be the character of the lawgiver, but let the judge be a mere machine. The mercies of the law will be dispensed equally and impartially to every description of men; those of the judge or of the executive power will be the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious designing man." — Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Pendleton, 1776. Papers 1:505 (Emphasis added.)

Three years later, Jefferson drafted a bill concerning Virginia's criminal law providing that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."

The bill read: "Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least." (Virginia Bill number 64; authored by Jefferson; 18 June 1779)(Emphasis added.)

When the Constitution was ratified, a majority of the states (New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey) provided the death penalty for those who committed sodomy. All states prohibited it.

What IS irrational is finding that the Constitution prohibits criminalizing behavior viewed as criminal by the people who drafted and ratified the Constitution.

Many thanks to Michael Gaynor

You’re hearing the proponents of never-ending war

2011-06-25T11:14:00.000-05:00

You’re hearing the proponents of never-ending war, like McCain and Graham and these 37 frauds that claim to be conservatives that signed this letter that I read to you that they sent to House Republican leaders, said don’t you dare withdraw funding for our important mission, our American values-based mission in Libya. You’d better not do it. Here, “Conservatives Warn House Republicans.” These people are not conservatives. And if they are, well, then, you can count me out. That means that I’m not a conservative because they’re not trying to conserve anything.

But anyways, here, think about this. Here’s the point. You’re hearing these people saying, why, the public opinion polls are turning against the war now. Vast swaths of the American electorate are turning against the war. The public is diametrically opposed to the bombing of Libya. The public is diametrically opposed to bombing Yemen back into the Stone Ages, from conducting any more affairs or operations in Somalia or any place else, for that matter. Syria, you name it. And the public now is by a majority diametrically opposed to the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

Now, what does that mean? Well, if you listen to Lindsey Graham, and you listen to John McCain, and you listen to the rest of the DeceptiCons, that doesn’t mean anything. That means that the republic is a bunch of misinformed louts. “Why, these are people that don’t know what the hell – we know what’s good for you. Hah, screw ‘em, screw ‘em. You don’t know what’s good for you. I know what’s good for you. Screw ‘em. Screw you. We’re going to stay over there forever. If we say we’re gonna – we’re smarter than you. We’re politicians. We’re senators. We’re congressmen.” Oh, yeah? Think about this. And I have Lindsey Grahamnesty on this very subject. Here, play the digital media file here.

[Clip] Lindsey Graham: What the President does tonight, if he takes the political track of trying to basically play to the polls, then I think he will put our nation at risk at a time when we’re beginning to show success.

Rolling my eyes: “We’re beginning to show success.” Success as measured by whom? If he starts paying attention to the polls, if he starts doing this for political reasons, well, ladies and gentlemen, there is a reason why the power to declare war and the power of the purse which has to fund the war is vested in the House of Representin’, because the House of Representin’ was at the time the people’s house. This is where you sent your representative to go decide the great questions of the day, as it applied to the then-nascent union. Declaring war would have been one of those great questions. And if you chose wrongly, or if you chose war when the people wanted peace, well, then, you’d get unelected. And they’d send new people there that would upend what you had done and would bring an end to these wars. That’s why we weren’t engaged in any of these excursions. We weren’t engaged in any of these things until Teddy Roosevelt forced us into them in the Spanish-American War. That’s a different show for a different day.

But folks, the point is, is that the reason why the framers of the Constitution left this power in the hands of the representatives is because they wanted to leave it in the hands of the American sheeple. They wanted to provide a mechanism that would prevent presidents, tyrants, and rogue nut job senators like McCain and Graham from ramming war down our throats. They wanted to provide an out. They wanted to provide a check against it. So these people that are saying, why, you can’t read the polls on this, why, you can’t pay attention to the people, you’re missing the entire point, and you’re missing the entire point of why the Constitution and why our federal system was set up the way it was.

Remember, the Constitution was sold on the basis that it would discharge a very few, very limited set of things, very limited set of powers was it to discharge. And security, providing for the common defense, as the Preamble calls it, was one of them. But still, as Joe Pesci says in that famous clip that we have from “With Honors,” the people don’t trust the President, so they vest this power in the House. Why? Specifically so the House of Representin’ does have to take a poll. They do have to respond to their constituents. Have you ever wondered why there is a difference between the electoral terms? Have you ever wondered why there’s a difference between the term of a United States Senator and the term of a member of the House of Representin’? Has that ever posed a question to you?

You know what the explanation is; right?

No, okay. Well, this is talked about in the Federal Convention. The explanation is, is that the members of Congress need to be returned back from whence they came to go answer for what they have done, for what the federal government has done. So that if they got off track, they could be unelected. They could be kicked out of office, and someone new could be sent there to go correct the problem. The reason the Senate was chosen the way it was is because they were supposed to be the steady hand, the august body. And remember, ladies and gentlemen, under this system, the senators must be chosen by the state legislatures, remember that? Seventeenth Amendment changed all that, unfortunately. And now the senators are just long-term members of the House of Representin’. That’s all they are.

But the Senate was set up to be the august body that would provide clarity. It would be of the – the Senate was supposed to be comprised and composed of the wisest men of the era, those that had studied, those that were statesmen, those that were not kneejerk, and they didn’t have to be kneejerk. And the reason that they wanted the Senate to be like this is because they wanted the Senate to be a further check. They wanted United States senators in most instances to say no. To say no. This is why, if you study the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the greatest debate that was held on an amendment, you’ll find out that almost all of the important stuff that was ever said about the Fourteenth Amendment was said in the Senate.

And so my point is, and it’s a long way to get around to it, but I love talking about history, the point is, is that when the people are saying no more war, you people in the House of Representin’ better pay attention because we will elect people that are going to go there and are going to end this war. Whether you do it right now or whether we have to elect someone in 2012 to end this madness, we will do it.

Restoring Republicanism as the Proper Form of American Governance

2011-06-12T13:46:00.000-05:00

go to ImaginativeConservative.org

There you will find Brad Birzer’s review of Mike Churches new movie "The Spirit of 76", but it’s also a lot about the country. It’s a lot about the people. And as Birzer points out, the term “republic” comes from the Greek “res publica.” And that was Greek for that which is good. This is why the Greeks organized republics, because they thought they were good. We think that they’re good. We don’t have a republic anymore. And Birzer was recounting, and I found this amazing, being the history buff that I am. that as early as 1805, there were Mike Churches in 1805. Her name was Mercy Otis Warren. Yeah, I know. Go ahead and laugh.
Mercy Otis Warren was an early historian of the early country, of the early republic. And 1805, a mere 30 years, or 29 years after the American Revolution commenced in earnest, she was already seeing the beginning signs of the decay of the republic, the decay of republicanism. And she resolved, and Birzer quotes her here, to go ahead and write down what it was that the struggle for independence meant, what it was that drove and inspired the men that instigated it, that fought for it, that executed it, that stood by it, that pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to it and what have you. She did all these things. And she wrote them down, and it’s a history of the American Revolution, I believe is what – I think you can get it at Google Books. It’s probably in print, too. Mercy Otis Warren.

And what Birzer was recounting is that we have tried every remedy – and I just thought this was just so poignant and so relevant to today’s discussion. The people in this country have tried every remedy. We have bought every snake oil remedy there is out there. We bought porkulus. We bought stimulus. We bought tax cuts. We bought new presidents. We bought new congresses. We bought new policies. We created agencies. Why, we managed the air, we managed the land, we managed the sea, we managed everything. We regulated banks. We regulated stocks. We did this. We traded with the world. We entered world leagues. Hell, we fought the entire world. We fought terrorism. We did all these things, and we’re still continuing to do all these things. We managed our crops. We paid people to not grow crops. We ruined free trade in our own hemisphere. We tried that. We’ve tried everything. We’ve subsidized industries.
We’ve tried everything except – and this is Brad Birzer’s brilliant, salient point here. We have tried everything to fix our current malaise except republicanism. That gift, that glowing, burning, beautiful gift that those men called the Founders left us. We tried everything except that. That’s the only thing that is left on the damn table unused. That’s criminal. And there are some of us that see that as our escape hatch, as our way out of this. And there are some of us that recognize that it is not the best laid plans of men that lead to success, that lead to prosperity, that lead to happiness.

He also points out that, back in the Founders’ day, happiness was not to be found in an iTunes download. Happiness was not to be found in just abject economic prosperity. Happiness was not to be found at the end of a rainbow filled with gold coins. Happiness was being free. Happiness was having the liberty to govern yourselves. Happiness was having the liberty to move about the countryside without having to show ze papers. Happiness was knowing and was resting comfortable that you had finally established a government that was going to protect and safeguard your liberties, protect the value of your earnings through hard money, gold and silver coins. Happiness was being able to go to your town hall, your church, and debate amongst your friends and your peers and determine the answers to the great questions of that day. Not have them settled for you by nine bandits in black robes. That’s what they thought happiness was. None of this crap that we think it is.

So we’ve tried everything, Brad points out, except what the Founders left us. “Your probably asking why should we do what the fuddy-duddy idiot slave owners in the 17th, 18th centuries did, you idiot?” Well, dropping the slave-owning part, I would say that they were far more successful than Obama has been. I would say they are far more successful than any president in the modern era has been. Yes, that includes Ronald Reagan. I would say that a return to at least those ideals and at least those principles has to yield better results than Obama’s council of economic advisors, which is now poised to leave all of us high and frickin’ dry.

Why, there was going to be a new era, a new green energy economy we’re all going to prosper under so mightily. And the men and the women that designed this nightmare and engaged in it and forced us through the compulsion of government to participate in it, now that it hasn’t worked, now that it’s an unmitigated, inarguable disaster visited upon the good people of these states, now, what are they doing? They’re running for cover back in their universities. They’re running for cover. They get to go back and cash in. Do you get to cash in? What are we left with?
Thanks, Austan Goolsbee. Thanks, Christina Romer. Thanks, Lars Summers. Thanks, Peter Orszborg, Orszag. They’re all gone. They’re all making millions and millions of dollars – gee, I wonder how that happened – back in the “private sector.” But it’s really not the private sector any longer. They did just fine. What they did to us didn’t hurt them one iota. As a matter of fact, they benefited it from it mightily. Boy, talk about serving your country. Hah. How about serving yourself?

Just What You Needed: Higher Taxes

2011-05-28T10:18:00.000-05:00

So, do you people out there really believe that its the republicans and the conservatives that want to kill grandma and take her medicare away and make her eat cat food???
Then read this, and keep in mind that barack obama is president and that his mandates are dictating financial policies...

While you hear a lot about the federal income tax, you don't hear much about the Social Security tax. That's odd because for many folks especially the self-employed Social Security tax can be the bigger hit. Here are some little-known truths about how the Social Security tax works and how much it can amount to.

As an employee, your wages are hit with the 12.4% Social Security tax up to the annual wage ceiling. Half the Social Security tax bill (equal to 6.2%) is withheld from your paychecks. The other half is paid by your employer. Unless you understand how the tax works and closely examine your pay stubs, you may be blissfully unaware of how much the Social Security tax actually costs.

The Social Security tax wage ceiling for both 2010 and 2011 is $106,800. If you made that much or more last year, the Social Security tax hit on your 2010 wages was a whopping $13,243 (12.4% x $106,800). Half came out of your paycheck. Your employer paid the other half.

For 2011, the tax hit is less, thanks to a one-year 2 percentage-point reduction in the Social Security tax withholding rate on wages -- from the normal 6.2% to 4.2% (your employer's 6.2% rate is unchanged). For 2012 and beyond, however, Social Security tax withholding on your wages will jump back to the standard 6.2% rate.

While many employees may not realize the magnitude of the Social Security tax, self-employed folks know it all too well. That's because the self-employed must pay the entire 12.4% tax rate out of their own pockets, based on the amount of their net self-employment income. This is one big reason why companies often prefer to treat workers as self-employed independent contractors rather than employees. Companies don't owe any Social Security tax on amounts paid to independent contractors.

For both 2010 and 2011, the Social Security tax self-employment income ceiling is $106,800 (same as the wage ceiling for employees). So if your 2010 self-employment income was $106,800 or more, you paid the Social Security tax maximum of $13,243 last year (12.4% x $106,800 = $13,243).

In 2011, the hit will be less thanks to a one-year 2 percentage-point reduction in the Social Security tax rate on self-employment income -- from the normal 12.4% to 10.4%. For 2012 and beyond, however, the Social Security tax on self-employment income is scheduled to return to the standard 12.4% rate.

To give you an idea of how the Social Security tax can add up over your working life, consider my personal situation. In 35 years behind the grindstone (about half as an employee and the other half self-employed), I've paid $219,000 in Social Security tax. My employers paid another $41,000. That amounts to $260,000 in total. During my time as a self-employed guy, I've had some years where my Social Tax bill exceeded my combined federal and state income tax bills.

Believe me, if I could get the $260,000 back, stop paying the tax, and forego receiving any benefits, I would do it in a heartbeat. In fact, if I could just stop paying the tax in exchange for walking away from any future benefits, I would do that too. Why? Because I have big doubts I will actually receive the promised level of benefits when the time comes.

And thanks to the government's official contention that there has been little to no inflation over the past few years, the Social Security tax ceiling has been stuck at $106,800 since 2009. However, the latest Social Security Administration projection says it will start rising again in 2012 and beyond. The projected ceilings for the next nine years are as follows.

If these numbers pan out, the maximum Social Security tax hit in 2020 would be $19,009 (12.4% x $153,300). That's assuming Congress doesn't increase the tax rate, which could easily happen. There's also a chance the ceiling will be increased beyond what you see here or even entirely removed in an attempt to put the system on a sounder financial footing. If there's no ceiling, you would owe Social Security tax on wages and self-employment income on every dollar you earn.

Another misunderstanding about Social Security: Some people think the government has set up an account with their name on it to hold the money to pay for their future Social Security benefits. After all, that must be where all the Social Security taxes on people's wages and self-employment income go, right? Wrong. There are no individual accounts. In fact, when the Social Security system runs a surplus (which it has in most years until now), the federal government sucks out the excess cash and issues the system an IOU. But the only way those IOUs will ever be paid is through future taxes. Meanwhile, the system is now projected to run out of money (including those nebulous IOUs) in 2036 unless taxes are raised or benefits are cut.

Notice that no one is even speaking about this in the main stream media...lets worry about giving billions to the rest of the world, or lets give billions in subsidies to illegals then to do whats right and take care of our own...

by Bill Bischoff
Friday, May 27, 2011

Is the Sun Setting on America?

2011-05-16T13:51:00.001-05:00

Everything is not about economics. I know we’re taught to believe that everything has something to do with economics. Things don’t matter unless they have something to do with economics. Everything must pass through the economic lens. We view everything through the economic lens. We’re taught to view everything through the economic lens. We’re reared, we’re bred to view things through the economic lens. But not all things are economic. And Russell Kirk, one of the few conservatives in the last century that understood this – I think Ronald Reagan at some level understood this, too. And Kirk wrote this:

“Men read and write only because they are convinced that certain great subjects are worth reading and writing about. Four great themes, it seems to me, have been the inspiration of most important imaginative literature from the dawn of Greek civilization down to our age. The first of these is religion: the description of the relation between divine nature and human nature, as in Hesiod and Dante and Milton. The second is heroism: the nobility of strong and earnest men, as in Homer or Virgil or Mallory. The third is love: the devotion beyond mere appetite, as in classical legend or medieval romance. The fourth is the intricacy of character and class, ranging all the way from Chaucer to Conrad.

“Now, a society which has lost its religious convictions and its society denies itself the first theme. A society which denies the right to greatness and to distinctions among men deprives itself of the second theme.” We’re two for two so far, folks. “A society which takes love for no more than the carnal appetite cannot attach real significance even to the novel of adultery.” Three for three now. And finally, “A society which looks upon men as mere production and consumption units of interchangeable value cannot understand the subtle shadings of personality and rank of a different sort of age.” That’s four for four. “The springs of the imagination thus are dried up. For a time, satire can exist by pointing out the decay of faith and heroism and love and variety; but when even the memory of these themes fade, then satire, too, comes to an end. Then boredom triumphs in life and art.”

Spot on. That is just spot on. Could not be more spot on. And the interesting thing here is, what do you do about it? I mean, the interesting question is what do you do about it? How are you going to fix that? You have teachers that don’t even know who Dante is. Who in the hell reads Dante? Here, here’s a good question for the average reader out there. And I don’t mean to vilify; I don’t mean to impugn. Simply demonstrating – and maybe I’m selling you guys short because you guys are smart......

Finish the title of the work: “Dante’s blank.” And how many stages were there? Can you answer that question, well can you???

We got “Inferno.” But I’m not sure of the stages.....Right???

Hmm. Hmm. I’m not even sure that I’ve read some of it. The point is we don’t read these classics anymore. We’re immune. Why, we read John Grisham and Stephen King now. They're our heroes. And they all deal in adulterated rubbish. It’s all rubbish. We’re obsessed with the decay of great men, like Johnny Cash. We don’t want to hear about how good Johnny Cash was. We want to hear about him popping pills. We don’t want to hear about how great any artist was or any man was. We want to know the dirty underbelly. We want to know who he was screwing on the side. We want to know about his adulterous, illicit affairs. We’re not allowed to have heroes anymore, is the point. A hero is an adulterer who admits it. That’s a hero.

Maybe this is why many people turn and see men like Navy Seals as modern-day heroes.

Like Ilana Mercer was saying the other day, if you’re a big, manly kind of man, and you have all those virtues that once made men great, but there’s no market for those things anymore, you know, we ostracize manly men in society.

There’s not a man on television that knows how to screw in a light bulb these days. We have to have women do it. You watch a television show, the biggest, most badass cops on that Chicago police show, what is the name of that, the one with...

Yeah, yeah, “Chicago Code.” Yeah, Jennifer Beals is the hero.

Do you guys love that show??? Of course you guys do...

Well, sure, you got a chick hero. Watch “CSI,” the women are heroes. They're running the damn show. We’re not allowed to have male heroes. We’ve so feminized our society, Gal Qaeda has brainwashed everyone. Everyone’s equal. We don’t need women in the – women have expanded beyond doing this and that and the other. And women don’t – man, you’ve just taken one of the most beautiful things in human existence, which is the female form, and the feminine spirit, the mothering, maternal instinct, you’ve just taken it, you’ve just pooped on it. You want women to go out there and kill people? Really? Oh, God. Seriously? Where’s the goodness? Where’s the goodness. Where is the good nurturing, the motherly part? Where does that come in? “We don’t need that. We have government programs, you idiot.”

Do you not see the point? In this incessant suicidal drive to make everyone numerically equal, everyone equal in all things, you destroy the beauty that made them different. People don’t – you know what, there are not enough men and women on TV and radio and in print that say things like I just said and I was inspired to say by reading Birzer’s essay, posted at the Imaginative Conservative website. Not enough. Doesn’t happen enough.

You know one of the things that really pisses me off, ladies and gentlemen? And ladies, don’t take this wrong. It pisses me off, it angers me for what I think are all the right reasons. When I hear politicians and talking heads, dunderheads, droning on about our brave men and women in uniform. Pardon me, call me old-fashioned, I don’t care, I don’t want brave women in uniform. I don’t think that there are – I happen to believe that there are certain things I don’t want for my daughters, and picking up a rifle and having them go fight a war is one of them. Being enlisted and wearing a uniform is one other. Now, some of you are, “Chris, Chris, they have every....” Well, look, there is a role. But it’s not being the brave man or woman. It’s being the brave woman because men don`t count anymore.....

Obama Finally Visits U.S.-Mexico Border

2011-05-14T18:06:00.000-05:00

The president is leading the progressive charge in forcing environmental conscientiousness upon the masses. He has made it his presidential mission to implement "green energy" and "clean jobs" into the American economy, market signals be damned. Obama believes that the accomplishment of such a wildly noble, unquestioningly beneficial goal must be solely the duty of the federal government, but if he were to examine past governmental efforts to intervene in environmental affairs, he might notice that those experiments did far more harm than good. President Obama laid out his plan for (amnesty) comprehensive immigration reform today in El Paso, Texas, saying (illegal immigrants make good democrat voters) immigrants are the way to expand the middle class, make America more competitive on a global level and said immigration reform is an economic imperative, which it is considering illegal immigration costs Arizona and California over $12 billion per year.

The President did what was expected by lumping all immigrants together and failed to distinguish the difference between the two, in fact, Obama went out of his way to make sure Americans believed their was no difference as he referenced immigrants from different countries coming to America and seeing Lady Liberty.

It was a reminder of a simple idea, as old as America itself.
E pluribus, unum. Out of many, one.
We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants - a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America's precepts. That's why millions of people, ancestors to most of us, braved hardship and great risk to come here - so they could be free to work and worship and live their lives in peace. The Asian immigrants who made their way to California's Angel Island. The Germans and Scandinavians who settled across the Midwest. The waves of the Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, and Jewish immigrants who leaned against the railing to catch that first glimpse of the Statue of Liberty.

President Obama said the fence was now "basically complete." This declaration is completely false. The fence along the southern border in total equals 670 miles. The entire southern border is 2000 miles long, which is nowhere near, "basically complete." On top of a meager border fence, the February 2011, Government Accountability Office report shows "1120 southwest border miles have not yet achieved operational control." Also, according to Sheriffs working and living on the U.S.-Mexico border, Obama's assertion that his administration has done it's part to enforce the border is laughable.

Well, over the past two years we have answered those concerns. Under Secretary Napolitano's leadership, we have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible. They wanted more agents on the border. Well, we now have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history. The Border Patrol has 20,000 agents more than twice as many as there were in 2004, a build up that began under President Bush and that we have continued.

They wanted a fence. Well, that fence is now basically complete.

So, we have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement.

Obama took credit for confiscating 64 percent more weapons than ever before. Well, that's what happens when the federal government sends thousands of guns into Mexico in the first place through Operation Fast and Furious under the Obama Justice Department and ATF, of course it becomes easier to confiscate more guns when you put more into an area to begin with.

Obama also called again for the passing of the DREAM Act which failed in the Senate during the previous lame duck session. As a refresher, the DREAM Act if passed would allow children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship if they go to college or join the military. Or as Obama put it, "Stop punishing children for their parents' mistakes."

Obama asked both sides to avoid playing politics with the issue in order to get to the next election, which was ironic considering the odds of completing immigration reform in the short time remaining during his first term are slim, making his speech today look solely like a political move.

That's one reason it's been so difficult to reform our broken immigration system. When an issue is this complex and raises such strong feelings, it's easier for politicians to defer the problem until after the next election. And there's always a next election. So we've seen a lot blame and politics and ugly rhetoric. We've seen good faith efforts - from leaders of both parties - fall prey to the usual Washington games.

On another note, Obama asked the audience if he needed to build a moat on the border to make republicans happy. There is already a moat on the border Mr. President, it's called the Rio Grande. This was the first visit by Obama to the U.S.-Mexico border despite being invited numerous times by local officials in border states to do so.

Unemployment is Up. Worse News: Economists Unaffected

2011-05-08T11:25:00.000-05:00

There is an old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day, well that phrase does NOT seem to apply to our mighty, central, economic planner overlords in Washington DC. We know this because they are always, shocked or surprised by the “unexpected rise” in first time unemployment benefit claims like they are today; as 474,000 souls trudged off to the unemployment line last week in defiance of Obama and company’s best laid plans.

So, I keep wondering when the economic and social engineers in Mordor on the Potomac are going to create a better economist? With all of their magical powers it would seem to me that Congress, the Commerce Department and the White House should be able to conjure up stable, predictable, job growth every week, alas, our Wizards of Work seem to be able to do only one thing consistently: spend Other People’s Money.

I am also kept wondering when will the beauty of simple economics as a fix dawn on the American shoeple? Here is a simple, 4 step plan to grow the economy:

1.Stop printing more money and start recalling what you have printed
2.Stop hiring federal workers and start firing most of those you have hired
3.Stop running health care systems and start repealing health care acts (all of them)
4.End all our wars, invasions and occupations and bring the army home to honorable discharges.
The only problem with my plan is it WILL create massive unemployment…. for economists.

A special shout out to my friend Mike Church...

No More Statism

2011-04-16T11:46:00.000-05:00

Not surprisingly, liberals are calling for tax hikes on the rich as their way to pay for the ever-burgeoning costs of the welfare-warfare state.

Conservatives pretend to oppose tax hikes. Their preferred method of funding the welfare-warfare state is through the Federal Reserve, whose job is to provide the money and credit needed to fund excess federal spending without the need to raise income taxes.

That's what passes for philosophical debate between liberals and conservatives. The fight isn't over the legitimacy of the welfare-warfare state way of life. They both agree on that. The fight is over how to fund it (and, of course, which side gets to run it).

The controversy perfectly reflects how different we libertarians are from statists. We libertarians don't argue over whether the welfare-warfare state should be funded by income taxation or inflation. Our position is: Immediately repeal all welfare-state programs (beginning with the crown jewels of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), repeal all interventionist and regulatory programs (beginning with the drug war), and dismantle the U.S. government's military empire, close the bases, and discharge the troops into the private sector.

Oh, and abolish the IRS and the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes, and the Federal Reserve.

In other words, leave people free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, leave people free to do whatever they want with their own money, leave people free to make whatever choices they want in life so long as their conduct is peaceful, and depend on a well-armed, self-trained citizen soldiery that would be ready to voluntarily come to the defense of our country in the extremely unlikely event of an invasion.

With major exceptions like slavery and tariffs and many minor exceptions, the libertarian position was the position of America’s Founding Fathers. They abhorred the statist philosophy that has now held our nation in its grip for many decades.

With the exception of President Lincoln’s unconstitutional imposition of an income tax to fund his war against the seceding states, the United States had no income taxation or IRS from the nation’s founding in 1787 to the early part of the 20th century. Americans were free to keep everything they earned.

When the federal government didn’t tax income, lots of poor people became wealthy. Even more entered the ranks of the middle class.

For most of that entire time, there was no central bank, paper money, or legal-tender laws. (Again, Lincoln’s tenure was a big exception.) Americans used gold and silver coins as their official money, which is what the Constitution required. When government was unable to debase the currency, the result was the greatest buildup of productive capital that people had ever seen.

The massive buildup of capital, in turn, made workers more productive. More productivity meant higher revenues. Higher revenues brought higher wages for the workers.

For the first time in history, masses of poor people were breaking free of the chains of poverty, which is precisely why thousands of penniless immigrants were fleeing the European and Asian lands of statism to come to a land of no welfare-warfare state. (Did I mention that America had no immigration controls during most of that period as well?)

Our American ancestors also detested militarism, standing armies, conscription, and empires. After all, they had rebelled against an empire, together with the ever-burgeoning taxes, debt, and inflation needed to fund it. Many of them had immigrated to America to escape conscription and perpetual war.

Charity was entirely voluntary for more than 100 years. By and large, Americans were a religious people. The thought of using the power of Caesar to interfere with the exercise of God’s great gift of free will was anathema to our ancestors. People had the moral right to decide what to do with their own money, they firmly believed. That’s what freedom of choice is all about. They would never have tolerated mandatory government-enforced “charity” in the form of such things as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, grants, and subsidies.

Today, the federal government is mired in ever-increasing spending, debt, taxes, and inflation. How can that surprise anyone? Americans have abandoned the founding principles of their nation in favor of the statism from which our American ancestors rebelled or fled.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies, grants, income taxation, IRS, the drug war, the DEA, the Federal Reserve, a thousand foreign military bases, the CIA, the NSA, the TSA, occupations of foreign countries, undeclared wars of aggression, standby conscription, kidnapping, torture, Gitmo, secret prison camps, invasions of privacy, unreasonable searches and seizures, torture, and assassination.

It’s all part and parcel of the statism that now afflicts our land. That’s the root of America’s economic and social woes. There is only one way to restore freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony to our land, and it lies not in figuring out how to fund the welfare-warfare state way of life. It lies in rejecting the welfare-warfare state way of life in favor of the libertarian principles that guided the founding of our nation — no income tax, no IRS, no Federal Reserve, no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or other welfare, no drug war, no militarism, no empire.

In other words, the key to our nation’s future well-being lies with no more statism.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Tom Woods: The Phony Arguments for Presidential War Powers

2011-03-25T22:51:00.002-05:00

By: Thomas E. Woods Jr.

(WIRE REPORT) - A U.S. president has attacked another country, so it’s time for the scam artists to pull out their fake constitutional arguments in support of our dear leader. Not all of them are doing so, to be sure – in fact, it’s been rather a hoot to hear supporters of the Iraq war suddenly caterwauling about the Constitution’s restraints on the power of the president to initiate hostilities abroad. But I’m told that radio host Mark Levin criticized Ron Paul on his program the other day on the precise grounds that the congressman didn’t know what he was talking about when it came to war powers and the Constitution.

That means it’s time to lay out all the common claims, both constitutional and historical, advanced on behalf of presidential war powers, and refute them one by one.

“The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress.”

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution – which refers to the president as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” – has been interpreted this way.

But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack).

The Framers assigned to Congress what David Gray Adler has called “senior status in a partnership with the president for the purpose of conducting foreign policy.” Congress possesses the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” “to raise and support Armies,” to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” to “provide for the common Defense,” and even “to declare War.” Congress shares with the president the power to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors. As for the president himself, he is assigned only two powers relating to foreign affairs: he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and he has the power to receive ambassadors.

At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates expressly disclaimed any intention to model the American executive exactly after the British monarchy. James Wilson, for example, remarked that the powers of the British king did not constitute “a proper guide in defining the executive powers. Some of these prerogatives were of a Legislative nature. Among others that of war & peace.” Edmund Randolph likewise contended that the delegates had “no motive to be governed by the British Government as our prototype.”

To repose such foreign-policy authority in the legislative rather than the executive branch of government was a deliberate and dramatic break with the British model of government with which they were most familiar, as well as with that of other nations, where the executive branch (in effect, the monarch) possessed all such rights, including the exclusive right to declare war. The Framers of the Constitution believed that history testified to the executive’s penchant for war. As James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.” Madison even proposed excluding the president from the negotiation of peace treaties, on the grounds that he might obstruct a settlement out of a desire to derive “power and importance from a state of war.”

At the Constitutional Convention, Pierce Butler “was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the nation will support it.” Butler’s motion did not receive so much as a second.

James Wilson assured the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our interest can draw us into war.”

In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the president’s authority “would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.”

According to John Bassett Moore, the great authority on international law who (among other credentials) occupied the first professorship of international law at Columbia University, “There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, as long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace.”

In conformity with this understanding, George Washington’s operations on his own authority against the Indians were confined to defensive measures, conscious as he was that the approval of Congress would be necessary for anything further. “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,” he said, “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”

“John Adams made war on France without consulting Congress.”

Supporters of a broad executive war power have sometimes appealed to the Quasi War with France, in the closing years of the eighteenth century, as an example of unilateral warmaking on the part of the president. Francis Wormuth, an authority on war powers and the Constitution, describes that contention as “altogether false.” John Adams “took absolutely no independent action. Congress passed a series of acts that amounted, so the Supreme Court said, to a declaration of imperfect war; and Adams complied with these statutes.” (Wormuth’s reference to the Supreme Court recalls a decision rendered in the wake of the Quasi War, in which the Court ruled that Congress could either declare war or approve hostilities by means of statutes that authorized an undeclared war. The Quasi War was an example of the latter case.)

An incident that occurred during the Quasi War throws further light on the true extent of presidential war powers. Congress authorized the president to seize vessels sailing to French ports. But President Adams, acting on his own authority and without the sanction of Congress, instructed American ships to capture vessels sailing either to or from French ports. Captain George Little, acting under the authority of Adams’ order, seized a Danish ship sailing from a French port. When Little was sued for damages, the case made its way to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Captain Little could indeed be sued for damages in the case. “In short,” writes war powers expert Louis Fisher in summary, “congressional policy announced in a statute necessarily prevails over inconsistent presidential orders and military actions. Presidential orders, even those issued as Commander in Chief, are subject to restrictions imposed by Congress.”

“Jefferson acted unilaterally against the Barbary pirates.”

Another incident frequently cited on behalf of a general presidential power to deploy American forces and commence hostilities involves Jefferson’s policy toward the Barbary states, which demanded protection money from governments whose ships sailed the Mediterranean. Immediately prior to Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.” It was to this instruction and authority that Jefferson appealed when he ordered American ships to the Mediterranean. In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to “protect our commerce & chastise their insolence – by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.”

In late 1801, the pasha of Tripoli did declare war on the U.S. Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense”; Congress alone could authorize “measures of offense also.” Thus Jefferson told Congress: “I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”

Jefferson consistently deferred to Congress in his dealings with the Barbary pirates. “Recent studies by the Justice Department and statements made during congressional debate,” Louis Fisher writes, “imply that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress. In fact, in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.’”

Consider also Jefferson’s statement to Congress in late 1805 regarding a boundary dispute with Spain over Louisiana and Florida. According to Jefferson, Spain appeared to have an “intention to advance on our possessions until they shall be repressed by an opposing force. Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force…. But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or to deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue, and will pursue with sincere zeal that which they shall approve.”

“Presidents have sent men into battle hundreds of times without getting congressional authorization.”

This argument, like so much propaganda, originated with the U.S. government itself. At the time of the Korean War, a number of congressmen contended that “history will show that on more than 100 occasions in the life of this Republic the President as Commander in Chief has ordered the fleet or the troops to do certain things which involved the risk of war” without the consent of Congress. In 1966, in defense of the Vietnam War, the State Department adopted a similar line: “Since the Constitution was adopted there have been at least 125 instances in which the President has ordered the armed forces to take action or maintain positions abroad without obtaining prior congressional authorization, starting with the ‘undeclared war’ with France (1798-1800).”

We have already seen that the war with France in no way lends support to those who favor broad presidential war powers. As for the rest, the great presidential scholar Edward S. Corwin pointed out that this lengthy list of alleged precedents consisted mainly of “fights with pirates, landings of small naval contingents on barbarous or semi-barbarous coasts, the dispatch of small bodies of troops to chase bandits or cattle rustlers across the Mexican border, and the like.”

To support their position, therefore, the neoconservatives and their left-liberal clones are counting chases of cattle rustlers as examples of presidential warmaking, and as precedents for sending millions of Americans into war with foreign governments on the other side of the globe.

“The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president the power to commit troops anywhere he likes for 90 days.”

Which is why it’s manifestly unconstitutional. I’ve written on this elsewhere.

“If the United Nations authorizes military action, the president does not need to consult Congress.”

The UN Charter itself notes that the Security Council’s commitment of member nations’ troops must be authorized by these nations’ “respective constitutional processes.” The Congressional Research Service’s Louis Fisher explains further: “Assured by Truman that he understood and respected the war prerogatives of Congress, the Senate ratified the UN Charter. Article 43 provided that all UN members shall make available to the Security Council, in accordance with special agreements, armed forces and other assistance. Each nation would ratify those agreements ‘in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ It then became the obligation of Congress to pass legislation to define the constitutional processes of the United States. Section 6 of the UN Participation Act of 1945 states with singular clarity that the special agreements ‘shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution.’ The procedure was specific and clear. Both branches knew what the Constitution required. The President would first have to obtain the approval of Congress.”

The UN Participation Act’s provisions regarding military action and the president have often been misread, thanks to a qualification in Article 6. But that qualification simply means that once the president has obtained congressional approval for a special agreement with the UN Security Council to make American forces available to the UN, he does not need congressional approval a second time to implement that agreement.

Fisher elaborates on the UN Participation Act of 1945 here. (See especially pp. 1249-1250.)

The remaining claims, somewhat more technical in nature, have been put forth most memorably by John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush. These are paraphrases of Yoo’s positions. They are replied to in much more detail in Who Killed the Constitution? by the present author and Kevin Gutzman.

“In the eighteenth century, a ‘declaration of war’ was a merely rhetorical and communicative act – a ‘courtesy to the enemy’ – and did not involve the initiation or authorization of hostilities. Thus in granting Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution had merely given it the power to communicate to an enemy people (as well as to neutrals and to the country’s own citizens that a state of war existed; the president, on the other hand, retained the power actually to bring the United States into war by commencing military action.”

This is partly correct. In the eighteenth century a “declaration of war” could indeed have this lesser meaning. But a review of eighteenth-century usage reveals that to “declare war” could also mean actually to begin a war.

Consider also that as the Constitution was being debated, Federalists sought to reassure skeptical anti-Federalists that the president’s powers were not so expansive after all. For one thing, the Federalists said, the president lacked the power to declare war. In order for their argument to carry any weight, “declare war” must have been taken to mean the power to initiate hostilities – for no anti-Federalist would have been appeased by “Sure, the president can take the country to war on his own initiative, but the power to draft declaratory statements will rest with Congress!”

If Yoo’s argument were correct, we should expect to see presidents in the years immediately following ratification of the Constitution taking bold military action without concerning themselves much about the will of Congress, which according to Yoo had only the power to issue declaratory statements. But as we have seen in the examples of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, the opposite was in fact the case; these early presidents were careful to defer to Congress.

“Congress may have some power over major wars, but lesser uses of force are reserved to the president alone.”

The evidence from the early republic contradicts this claim. Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase summed up the reigning doctrine in 1800: “Congress is empowered to declare a general war, or congress may wage a limited war; limited in place, in objects and in time.” The 1804 case of Little v. Barreme involved a ship commander who, during the Quasi War with France in the late 1790s, had seized a ship that he thought was illegally trading with France. The commander was following a directive from President John Adams in seizing this ship, which had been coming from France. But Congress had authorized President Adams only to seize ships going to France; in short, the president’s directive ventured beyond what congress had called for in this limited war. In a unanimous decision, the Court declared that the commander was liable for damages even though he had acted in accordance with a presidential directive. No such presidential directive could override the authority of congress, said the Court.

“The Vesting Clause grants the president a wide array of unspecified powers pertaining to foreign affairs.”

You won’t hear this argument in many casual discussions of presidential war powers, but since Yoo cited it in a draft memorandum he wrote for the Department of Defense in early 2002, it’s worth a brief reply. (Again, a lengthier reply can be found in Who Killed the Constitution?)

The Vesting Clause can be found in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” According to this view, the Vesting Clause bestows on the president a host of unspecified powers in addition to the specific ones listed in the rest of Article II. The Framers of the Constitution, they say, thereby showed that they wanted the president to exercise all powers that would have been recognized in the eighteenth century as being fundamentally executive in nature, even if those powers are not actually mentioned in the Constitution. Congress, on the other hand, is assigned no such open-ended authority but is instead limited by the Constitution to all “legislative Powers herein granted,” a reference to the specific list of powers that then follows. The conclusion: the president may rightly exercise all powers relating to foreign affairs (since such powers are by their nature executive) except those specifically assigned to Congress.

Unfortunately for Yoo, he will not find any support for his views on executive power and the Vesting Clause in the state constitutions drawn up after 1776, in the Federalist, or in the state ratification debates. Nowhere in the state constitutions do we see any indication of an intent to vest the executive with an array of unspecified powers beyond those that were expressly mentioned. In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton argued that the American president would be much weaker than the British king, and cited the specific list of powers the Constitution grants the president. That argument would have been absurd and dishonest if the Vesting Clause had given the president an additional reservoir of powers beyond those Hamilton catalogued. Curtis Bradley and Martin Flaherty, writing in the Michigan Law Review, conclude that “in the thousands of pages recording these debates the argument that the Vesting Clause grants the president a general foreign affairs power simply does not appear.”

In short, there is no constitutional support for the presidential war powers claimed by mainstream left and right. That’s why they usually wind up claiming that the congressional power to declare war is “obsolete.” They can’t deny its existence, so they deny the document in which it is contained. And that means they lose the argument.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books. A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University.

Bill On Texas Secession Presented To TX Legislature

2011-03-13T12:30:00.000-05:00

AUSTIN -- The Texas Nationalist Movement will host a rally at the state capitol Saturday urging lawmakers to put the matter of Texas independence before the state's voters in a non-binding plebiscite.

The resolution, drawn up as a concurrent resolution of the Legislature, spells out actions by the federal government which have intruded on the sovereignty of the State of Texas and calls for the plebiscite to be included on the ballot of the next scheduled election for state constitutional amendments. That date is Nov. 8 of this year.

The rally is scheduled from 1-4 p.m. Saturday on the south steps of the State Capitol in Austin. The legislative sponsor of the rally is State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler).

"The elected representatives of the people of Texas need to know what the voters think," TNM president Daniel Miller said. "That is the purpose of this resolution, simply to give our legislators a sense of what the people of Texas think about the actions they are taking in defense of state sovereignty."

Article 1 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution reads:

"Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the pres...ervation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States."

Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution reads:

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Miller said that state officials and lawmakers have done well in attempting to defend the state's sovereignty from federal intrusion, and that this plebescite could help further the goal of reining in federal over-reach.

"The elections last November showed that a lot of people, not only in Texas but across the United States, believe that our federal government is out of control," Miller said. "Even though the power in Congress changed hands, however, Washington continues to try and bully Texas and other states with rules and regulations never voted on by any elected representatives of the people and in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment, which guarantees state sovereignty."

"Simply allowing the people of Texas to vote on this issue in a non-binding way would send a very loud, very clear message to Washington that Texas won't be pushed any farther."

The resolution spells out that the vote would be "non-binding and for advisory purposes only," and that results would be reported not only to state officials, but also to members of Congress and the President.

"We in the Texas Nationalist Movement believe that independence is necessary for the economic and cultural survival of the people of Texas," Miller said. "Even so, there is nothing more any of us would like to see than the United States government steer away from its current path of self-implosion and return to the original intent and purpose of government as defined by the U.S. Constitution."

Visit the Texas Nationalist official website:

http://www.texasnationalist.com/index.php/news/featured/1240-line-in-the-sand-rally

Personally, I cheer Texas on and can only hope that a majority of the states will follow their lead!

Rand Paul's "REINS ACT" is the only thing I've seen that can stop Obama's Regulations, Sign the petition NOW

2011-02-27T16:22:00.000-06:00

http://www.chooseliberty.org/reins.aspx?pid=nd2

After the shellacking they took in the 2010 elections, the statists are now scheming to use presidential "Executive Orders" and draconian federal regulations to impose their radical agenda.

That's why you and I must fight for passage of Senator Rand Paul's S. 299, the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (REINS), which would stop the imposition of sweeping new regulations on American citizens without congressional approval.

Support the REINS Act Petition to:
U.S. Senators

Whereas: For decades, presidents of BOTH parties and their federal agencies have abused their power to "rule by decree" - bypassing Congress and shredding the U.S. Constitution; and

Whereas: During his two years in office, President Obama's administration alone has issued well over TWO HUNDRED new regulations and Executive Orders, all with price tags well over $100 million EACH; and

Whereas: After the results of the 2010 elections, the statists are looking even more to their pet bureaucracies to shove their agenda down the throats of the American people; and

Whereas: The REINS Act would prohibit presidents and out of control government agencies from imposing sweeping new regulations on American citizens without a congressional vote;

Therefore: I urge you to cosponsor and seek roll call votes on Senator Rand Paul's REINS Act (S. 299).

http://www.chooseliberty.org/reins.aspx?pid=nd2

Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims
no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who
may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty.

Â© 2011 Campaign For Liberty | 5211 Port Royal Road, Suite 310, Springfield, VA 22151 | (703) 865-7162 (V) | (703) 865-7549 (F)

http://www.chooseliberty.org/reins.aspx?pid=nd2

Response to obams` (unpresidential) state of the union address....

2011-01-26T15:34:00.000-06:00

I will present to you an accurate, honest accounting on the actual condition of our affairs, not what I would like for you to believe they are.

First let’s go over some vocabulary we’ll be using tonight that you may not be familiar with starting with The Constitution. The Constitution Is what’s contained in this pocket sized book. Inside it you will find a plan of government, our government. It means what the men who wrote and ratified it said that it meant to them not what you would like it to mean today. If you are unhappy that this document places restrictions on what you would like our federal government to do for you or to another citizen then please read Article V of this Constitution, there you will find instructions on how to amend the document so that it rises to your expectations.

Our Second vocabulary word is Entitlement: If I have earned a sum of money and I deposit it in a safe in my home, I am ENTITLED to retrieve it and spend it as I choose. In contrast, my next door neighbor or a citizen in the next state is NOT entitled to what is contained in my safe to spend as they choose. If my neighbors aren’t entitled to my safe’s contents then why is my Congressman or my Governor or my mayor? They believe they are because they have ignored the Constitution I spoke of earlier and have created government programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP to name a few. Those that enroll in these programs are told they are entitled to what is contained in my safe to fund them, they are wrong and tonight I shall call on you to end this practice and to star calling these programs by what they actually are executing: Legal Plunder. You may also call this theft at the point of the IRS gun.

This brings us to Vocabulary words 4 and 5: Property and Plunder. Property is what is owned outright by a citizen in a free society. Governments are instituted by free men to protect their private property from those who would plunder it. Plunder is the theft of another man’s property with the intention of making it your property. Plunder will always be the preferred method of acquiring property by lazy, designing men and women. Our Constitution and the state governments created and organized by their Constitutions were designed by men who wanted to protect their private property from plunder. Today, at every level of government this formula is now exactly backwards. Governments are organized to execute the plunder safely for the ruling class that doesn’t have the courage to perform the task themselves. The great French philosopher Frederic Bastiat wrote that “men will always choose plunder over profit so long as it is safe and not dangerous to their health” well tonight I call on you to serve notice to the plunderers: plunder just became a very dangerous occupation.

Our governments have created many classes of plunderers and they aren’t all of the direct public assistance variety. They are outnumbered by those plunderers in big business who have decided that buying favor with politicians by funding their campaigns and employing their family and friends in return for subsidies and regulations that punish their competitors is preferable to earning profits the old fashioned way. Plunder also comes in the form of those now infamous bailouts which most of you think have ended…they haven’t. Plunderers can also be found working at expert centers across the country where the rules that government makes are studied to measure their impact and then recommend new rules be made that will require new institutions to study them. And then there are institutions studying institutions and you fellow citizen are paying for every paper they write, pixel they push and paper clip they buy. Plunderers have also set up camp and enlisted tens of thousands of our former military, trained at our expense and now working to keep unneeded and unnecessary weaponry cranking out 24/7. It’s nice work if you can find it and it needs to end because we are broke. In the words of Bill Clinton “It is time to make government plunder unsafe, illegal and rare.”

Tonight, we must commit to begin anew the restoration of virtue and humility in our public affairs. In doing so we will return to our republican roots and I mean to say our “little r-republican roots” and that is our final vocabulary word. Republicanism. Republicanism is the political system that our Founders organized under and can best be defined by citing an obscure statistic. In 1945, young men who returned home from World War II could have formed families and then enlisted to participate in the governing of their local schools. This young man would have had over 115,000 positions to choose from. In a mere 60 years a young woman returning from an undeclared war in Pakistan may choose to start a family and participate in governing her local school only to find it isn’t local any longer and there are less than 13,000 positions available. Republicanism has given way to what our Founders feared more mightily than any Army clad in Red coats or any Tax Act passed by parliament: Consolidation.

Here is what this consolidation of government, which was the design of last centuries “progressives”, who occupied office in both major political parties, has produced: A Federal Leviathan that consumes 24% of every dollar earned in this country. This does not include the unfunded - future liabilities- that are owed as part of the entitlements discussed earlier. In contrast, this same federal government, limited by the restraints the Constitution and fidelity to republicanism placed on it, spent on average no less than 3% of GDP. During this time, our economic liberty, lack of organized plunder and protection of private property produced improvements in the quality of life and life expectancy so unprecedented, new words had to be created to describe them as new devices and compounds were created to continue the improvements. What has truly been lost though cannot be measured in dollars and cents but can be measured in part by the faces of beautiful children who will never know what a father is. At the dawn of the Progressive’s Great Society a shocking amount of black children were born out of wedlock. That shocking number then was 38% after Tens of Trillions in direct wealth transfers and the destruction of inner city families brought on by Progressive initiatives that number is now 70% and I challenge the good people of these United States to coin a term that adequately describes this uniquely American tragedy.

As if this tragedy weren’t enough to ring every fire house bell in the land consider that the rate of illegitimate children born to white, unwed mothers is now approaching the rate the Great Society purported to arrest in 1964, 40% or more. Will we be more successful at stopping this slide into broken or never formed families which we know are recipes for pervasive poverty? Will we recognize that it is the transfer of the responsibility of citizenship from citizens to their government that is the principal culprit in this? Decisions that should be made closest to the people who must live under the burden of their implementation whether that is monetary or undermining of civil liberties have been stolen, “outsourced” if you will to governments and their helpful agencies who rely on their helpful non-partisan institutions. This is government by expert and as we have already heard once tonight this is the exact opposite of what our forefathers fought a revolution for. Is this the best that we can do for our posterity? Let us pray that we can and must do better.

I started this talk tonight by promising to give you an honest accounting of the state of the union, well here it is. Entire generations of Americans have been educated to believe the contorted theories of madmen can be made to work, if we just give them enough time, surrender enough liberty and forego enough prosperity. We have accepted our ruling elites dictates that a constantly devalued paper currency is preferable to a stable one based on a stored supply of a commodity. This is how $11.79 earned by the young hero returning from World War 2 has the purchasing power of exactly $1.00 today what will happen when that number approaches .75 cents then .50?
Our state of the union must also take stock of our future economic capacity. This capacity can only be fueled by one thing: savings. Historically Americans have saved about 8.5% of their income today that number is 3%. These savings represent future capital to be invested in an economic “recovery” and looking at this number that recovery if it happens at all will be weak.

Our state of the union must take into account that more than 16 % of citizens are now relying on direct assistance from the government in the form of food stamps. Over 17% report being unemployed or under employed. Household debt ratios which had begun to decline have now begun to rise again as the average per card -credit card balance now exceeds $5,000. Now armed with these few statistics it is easy to see how a political class chosen from the same group of citizens is so susceptible to corruption and so ignorant of common sense virtues. In short, fellow citizen of these united states it is “We the People” who need to take that long, reflective look in the mirror while demanding our leaders do the same and even that isn’t enough. The tens of millions of customers this Leviathan has created for it’s own perpetuation cannot just simply revert back to a way of life with which they are unfamiliar and when the ability to borrow our way into the next iPhone expires what will they do then? I can’t answer that question but I can tell you this, it is not too late to begin to prepare the way for this inevitability.

Start by getting to know your mayor and the church leaders in your area. Your State Representatives and Senators should be on a first name basis with you too. Drag out a copy of your state constitution and read it, become familiar with it and treat it like the law of the land that it is. Begin to ask questions of these people, ask for their opinions of republicanism and where their first loyalties in government may lie. If they answer “to obey my oath to the Constitution” remind them that that requires not only following the lawful acts of Congress but also opposing with manly vigor those that are not within that bodies power. As one of the great Virginia republicans of the 1790’s, guided by Jefferson and Madison’s resolutions in Ky & VA said “If Congress can oppose state laws it deemed destructive of it’s existence then certainly sovereign states under the Constitution can do the same to preserve themselves.”

You may wonder where the rest of tonight’s State of the Union statistics are and I say to you that if I were to present you a litany of numbers and statistics on the financial and debt crisis these United States is facing it would obscure the message presented here but here’s the short version. We are broke and we are broke to the point that every spending decision we allow any elected leader to make today will have a direct, destructive influence on our posterity. This includes “spending” on national defense & “intelligence” which amounts to 48% of the entire planet’s military and intelligence spending. A great people lead by example not by use of force. George Washington went to his grave praying that his “farewell address” would have lasting impact and inform future generations that a free people only form friendships with other states and “tangling alliances with none”. This requires us to bring our troops home now, end our occupations of 139 countries around the world and eat some humble pie. I hear they are baking lots of it at Congressman Ron Paul’s house these days, why not pay him a visit and hear what he has to say.

Finally let me leave you with a positive thought that though this response was hastily cobbled together and contains a litany of problems to be addressed there remains one great thing going for us that others in our station in life didn’t have and that is a healthy love for liberty and deep abiding respect for the work of our forefathers. Those men fought a revolution meaning they were rolling the clock backwards 1 revolution to life as free people living under their English Constitution and colonies laws. That I believe is a good plan for what Thomas Paine called the “winter soldier” to set his or her sights on. and borrowing a phrase from John F Kennedy, here is something I hope you can incorporate in what Washington called “this great work”.

“Ask not what a government program can do for you, but what you can do to end a government program.” Thank you for watching and listening and my God bless these United States of America.

-Mike Church/Chris Serna , 25 January, 2011

Essentially what the Government has planned is to continue to suck money out of your pockets at an alarming rate by the monster that is Leviathan

2011-01-19T09:29:00.000-06:00

Question: How many of you out there have a 5 year spending plan? How about a 5 month spending plan? Yeah, that's what we thought - it's tough to plan to spend things with money you haven't earned yet. Hell, there's accountants out there who don't even have a 5 minute spending plan.
So, since we've knocked the whole '5 year spending plan' out of the park as a viable option it would be ludicrous for anyone to stay on that thought plane right? Absolutely wrong, perhaps you've never met the United States Federal Government and their sparkling 9 year plan taking us to 2020, if everything still exists.

Essentially what the Government has planned is to continue to suck money out of your pockets at an alarming rate by the monster that is Leviathan. These leaves us at status quo - or as we here at Freedom for America like to refer to this situation as a change of deck chairs on the S.S. Leviathan Titanic. It is an infection folks, those who fall for it feel like these agencies and programs aren't so bad, maybe there are benefits somewhere in this hallucination I'm experiencing. Looks like we may be headed to the same destiny as California - going to the highest bidder!

If you missed it(events that lead us to this point)then this will interest you:
Remember when you were younger, high school maybe even college, and you had that big end of the year history test, that dreaded term-paper, or some semester long project that requires 4 months of research and 2 months of prep? Remember how you dove in head first, busted out the books and highlighters, went on a sleeping hiatus, gave all your distractions to charity, and hired a barista for your dorm-room? If you're anything like us you probably don't remember that because you, like the rest of the average student body, put it off until the last minute and then went on a craze-ridden, one-person hailstorm, wrath of cram session all-nighter that produced the sometimes surprising exceptional piece of work, given the circumstances, but usually produced mediocre work at best.

The Democrats have taken it amongst themselves to present us their horribly procrastinated, obviously rushed and poorly thrown together government wide spending bill on Tuesday. The bill is longer than the unabridged version of Alexadre Dumas' 'The Count of Monte Cristo', occupying more than 1,900 pages and intends to cost our already bleeding economy a measly $1.1 trillion. Also folks, when the bill was released there an immediate investigation soon followed by the FDA regarding all the access pork located inside the bill. Hopefully we will soon know what pork is safe for consumption and what pork should be considered waste

Here’s the short list of what was on McCain’s list yesterday, that McCain was reading from, Senator John McCain of Arizona, from the floor of the United States Senate. $277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin. I didn’t even know they grew potatoes in Wisconsin. What happened to you cheese heads? I’ve never seen a potato head.

They could be a potato head. Hey, let’s put a moustache on that guy. Not that little skinny one, the big one. $246,000 for bovine tuberculosis research in Michigan and Minnesota. I have a question. Bovine tuberculosis, is that overly large Midwestern gals, or is that bovine of the moo variety? I’m kidding. $522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey. $500,000 for oyster safety in Florida. Every one of these, ladies and gentlemen, is unconstitutional. It is unnecessary. It is part of the addiction. It is part of the payoff. This is what your member of Congress does. All of them, save for maybe a handful, five, six, all of them do this. This is how the game is played. You go and you represent those who have paid for your campaign. And we can sit here and talk about Tea Parties from now until the end of the next millennium. And you’ll still have this to deal with until structural systemic changes are made. I’ll get into that. Don’t worry, we’re going to cover that today.

$349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina. Yes, we must manage the pig poo. $413,000 for peanut research in Alabama. Can’t leave Mr. Planters out, now, can we. By the way, have you seen the commercial? He’s got a Christmas party to throw. We’re throwing the damn Planters Peanuts Christmas party. I wish the nutcracker would crack his head. $247,000 for virus-free wine grapes in Washington. $208,000 for beaver management in North Carolina. No laughing. No laughing, you two. Don’t laugh. No jokes. $94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana. I didn’t even know we had blackbirds here in Louisiana. Did you know that?

$165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont. What do you need to research the maple syrup for? You find a maple tree, you drill a hole in the damn thing, and you hang a bucket from it. How hard is this? What are you researching? Synthetic maple syrup? Oh, my goodness.

I would really rather not know the details. This is a partial list of the 6,488 porkulus succubus giveaway projects that are in the omnibus spending bill that the United States Senate is set to pass. This after the “historic election” of 2010. This after allegedly the voters spoke in 2010.
Well, if the voters spoke, and this becomes law, and Obama signs this, and the Congress tries to undo it, and Obama vetoes it, or it can’t get through the United States Senate, it will be business as usual, ladies and gentlemen. Nothing will have materially changed. We’ll be farther and farther in debt. It is just – it’s so damned depressing, it really is. I do not enjoy reading this, even though – that’s why I’m making fun of it, just to try to make the time go by without wanting to weep. $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada. $100,000 for the Edgar Allan Poe Cottage Visitor Center in New York. You people want an Edgar Allan Poe Cottage Visitor Center in New York, pay for it yourself. Have a collection. Have the local people put their money up to preserve Poe and to preserve his cottage. Good grief.

$300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii. Polynesian Voyaging Society. I assume that that has something to do with the history of the Polynesians crossing the Pacific Ocean in these reeds, in these little boats made out of reeds. Any of you people remember that nutty Danish guy, what was his name, Thor Heyerdahl, I think. You remember that, back in the ‘70s? This guy came, well, I think we think the Polynesians, we think that the Polynesians crossed the ocean on reed crafts way back in the day, 8,000 years ago. And to prove it, he built a craft out of reeds and sailed, I think – I think he did an Atlantic route, though. I think he sailed from Norway or somewhere up there north of Great Britain to Newfoundland. I don’t remember. But I do remember his name is Thor Heyerdahl. Well, he’s going to get $300,000 to build a brand new reed raft.

$400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas. What’s wrong with Kansas? You people are wrong with Kansas. Additionally, according to Senator McCain, the bill earmarks $727,000 to compensate ranchers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan whenever endangered wolves eat their cattle. We must now pay for wolf abatement. As my colleagues know, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s grey wolf program is under intense scrutiny for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars every year to recover endangered wolves that are now overpopulating the West and Midwest. So we create the problem by protecting the stupid wolf, and then the wolf goes around and starts eating our food, and now all of a sudden we have to pay to get rid of the wolf. Oh, my gosh.
According to McCain, “This is the ninth omnibus appropriations bill we have considered in this body since 2000. That is shameful, and we should be embarrassed by the fact that we care so little about the people’s business that we continuously put off fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities until the very last minute.” And then McCain goes on to say that he could see that the results of the election were not heard, are not clear, and that the majority party hasn’t got it. Duh. Let me ask you people a question. What made anyone think that the majority party was going to “get it”? Even after they got it, that they were going to get it. Why would anyone even think that? These people are sick.

As I pointed out, this is an actual – you know, we want to spend some earmark money, why don’t we spend a couple of million dollars to study the congressional, the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, Southwestern, Northwestern congressional spendthrift? Homo spendthriftus. How about that? Let’s find out what makes these people tick. Why do you have this disease? What is wrong with your brain? Is there a cure? “Chris, the cure is the ballot box.” Oh, yeah, look how well that’s working out for us.

Now keeping this in mind, back to my point....

How many of you have five-year spending plans? How many of you have a five-month spending plan? You can’t plan to spend things and spend money that has not occurred yet. Yet our federal masters inside Mordor on the Potomac – which, by the way, is being used on very popular blogs out there, and we’re glad to see it. You’re free to use it. You should give credit where you got it from, but you’re free to use it. They’re planning on – they can project out all the way to 2020 what they’re going to spend. How is, number one, how is that possible? And, number two, is that even advisable? Would you even advise someone to try to do that?

I suppose you could manage maybe one or two things that you know you’re going to have to pay. For example, you may know that you’re in the eighth year of a 30-year mortgage, and you’ve got 22 years left to pay. And provided you don’t have an adjustable rate mortgage, or an ARM, you may be able to say, okay, I can project out for the next 18 years that I’m going to have – or 22 years, this is what my note is going to be. I’m going to have to pay this. The only variable there would be homeowners insurance and property taxes. That would be the only thing that would change there if you don’t have an ARM. It’s locked in. I suppose you could plan spending out like that.

But the rest of it, do you know how much you’re going to spend on groceries even next month? You don’t know that. The price of eggs could go through the roof, and they are going to go through the roof. The price of bacon could go through the roof, and it is going to go through the roof. The price of an ear of corn could go through the roof. And it is going to go through the roof. So you don’t know how much you’re going to spend. But don’t worry, Congress has got this under control. We can project this stuff out through 2015.

This is just, you know, it fries my mind to even try and think about this stuff. And the fact that there are so many people out there that have invested their entire lives and their entire professional careers in trying to explain this, and in working to do this, is just mind-boggling to me. What do these people produce other than inaccurate predictions? We used to see these people in little covered wagons with brightly painted canvases on them at sideshows in little Old West towns. They’re out there selling snake oils, looking into crystal balls, rolling rune dice out on a carpet and what have you. But today, no, they work for the federal government, and they make millions. Ridiculous this is. Absolutely, patently ridiculous.

Again, this is so simple as if to be redundant!!!

I know what most of you are thinking out there.....

“Why, you, there you went again. The Republicans come out with a plan, they’re trying to deal with this problem, and you’re depressing people. You’re telling them not to go along with it. You’re just a hater who doesn`t want the republicans succeed....”

I’m telling them the truth as I see it from this chair. H.R. 5 is the bill, folks, which the House approved earlier this month. It already instructs the Budget Committee to publish budget allocations from 2011 to 2015. The resolution to be considered on Wednesday instructs the Budget Committee only to publish 2011 allocations. What does that mean to you? I don’t know what that means to you. AG, can you explain that to the listeners? Because I can’t. I don’t know what...

I don’t know what this means to anyone on earth unless you’re some wonky budget-crunching guy, like the Orszborg, Peter Orszag. This means nothing to the average tax – but I’ll tell you what it does mean to you. What it means is that what is being sucked out of your back pocket or your purse on a daily basis by that menacing monster, Mordor on the Potomac, Leviathan, what is being sucked out of the back of your – out of your back pocket is going to continue to be sucked out of your back pocket. That’s what it means. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, status quo. Nothing has changed. “But we’re going to have some new projections.” Screw you and your projections. Either get to the business of doing this or shut up and get out of the way because we’re going to send somebody there who will.

You know, who am I kidding? It doesn’t matter who we send there. We already know that the brand new members of the Tea Party have been infected by Leviathanitis....Once you have partaken of the water, you have become infected. You fall under the spell of, well, maybe these agencies and these programs aren’t so bad. Yes, yes, yes, I see the benefit of all of them now. This hallucination here of we’re going to cut – here, I’m going to read it to you. The full text of the new resolution reads as follows, ladies and gentlemen.

“Resolved, That, pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of H.R. 5, the Chair of the Committee on the Budget shall include in the Congressional Record an allocation contemplated by section 302(a) for the Committee on Appropriations for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 that assumes a transition to non-security spending at fiscal year 2008 levels.” What does that mean? Let me try and translate that for you. There’s a can sitting on the floor of the House of Representin’, and it’s called Leviathan’s federal budget disaster, looming federal budget disaster. 218 of us are going to take turns walking up to that joker and kicking it as far as we can. By the time we’re done, we’ll probably have the thing kicked into the Potomac River. How far is the Potomac from the Mordor Capitol Dome? Could 435 guys taking turns kicking this thing, if they had, let’s say, Olindo Mare’s leg, could they get that thing to the Potomac River.....

The point I`m trying to make here is that nothing is going to change and if we think the past elections are going to help, you are just fooling yourself!!

Christian Rout in the Culture War

2010-12-27T15:05:00.000-06:00

Posted on December 20th, 2010 by Patrick J. Buchanan

A Democratic Congress, discharged by the voters on Nov. 2, has as one of its last official acts, imposed its San Francisco values on the armed forces of the United States.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is to be repealed. Open homosexuals are to be welcomed with open arms in all branches of the armed services.

Let us hope this works out better for the Marine Corps than it did for the Catholic Church.

Remarkable. The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military.

Why are we undertaking this social experiment with the finest military on earth? Does justice demand it? Was there a national clamor for it?

No. It is being imposed from above by people, few of whom have ever served or seen combat, but all of whom are aware of the power of the homosexual rights lobby. This is a political payoff, at the expense of our military, to a militant minority inside the Democratic Party that is demanding this as the price of that special interest’s financial and political support.

Among the soldiers most opposed to bringing open homosexuals into the ranks are combat veterans, who warn that this will create grave problems of unit cohesion and morale.

One Marine commandant after another asked Congress to consider the issue from a single standpoint:

Will the admission of gay men into barracks at Pendleton and Parris Island enhance the fighting effectiveness of the Corps?
Common sense suggests that the opposite is the almost certain result.

Can anyone believe that mixing small-town and rural 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Christian kids, aspiring Marines, in with men sexually attracted to them is not going to cause hellish problems?

The Marines have been sacrificed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to the homosexual lobby, with the collusion of no fewer than eight Republican senators.

This is a victory in the culture war for the new morality of the social revolution of the 1960s and a defeat for traditional Judeo-Christian values. For only in secularist ideology is it an article of faith that all sexual relations are morally equal and that to declare homosexual acts immoral is bigotry.

But while this new morality may be orthodoxy among our elites in the academy, media, culture and the arts, Middle America has never signed on and still regards homosexuality as an aberrant lifestyle, both socially and spiritually ruinous.

To these folks, homosexuality is associated with a high incidence of disease, HIV/AIDS, early death, cultural decadence and civilizational decline. And no sensitivity training at Camp Lejeune is going to change that.

Behind these traditionalist beliefs lie the primary sources of moral authority for traditionalist America: the Old and New Testaments, Christian doctrine, natural law. Thomas Jefferson believed homosexuality should be treated with the same severity as rape.

And 31 consecutive defeats for same-sex marriage in state referenda testifies that Middle America sees the new morality as the artificial invention of pseudo-intellectuals to put a high gloss on a low lifestyle.

Not until recent decades have many in America or the West argued that homosexuality is natural and normal. As late as 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Today, anyone who agrees with that original APA assessment is himself or herself said to be afflicted with a mental disorder: homophobia.

The world has turned upside down. What was criminal vice in the 1950s — homosexuality and abortion — is not only constitutionally protected, but a mark of social progress.

Yet, just as busing for racial balance led to violence, white flight and the ruin of urban schools, this social experiment is not going to be without consequences. And it is the military that will endure those consequences.

Yet, again, if we believe our armed forces to be the best in the world, why are we doing this, against the advice of countless senior officers and NCOs? What is the motivation other than the payoff of a campaign debt?

What happens now to Evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic chaplains who preach that homosexuality is a sinful and shameful practice? Will they be severed from the service as homophobes?

That cannot be far behind when the Family Research Council, a respected organization of religious and social conservatives that has fought the homosexual agenda from same-sex marriage to gay adoptions, has now been declared by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a “hate group.”

The advance of what was once a radical agenda has accelerated.

In 2004, John Kerry may have lost Ohio and the presidency because same-sex marriage was on the ballot in almost a dozen states, bringing out committed social conservatives to the polls. Six years later, the gay rights agenda is imposed by Congress and Obama on the 82nd and 101st.

Let the reader decide if the direction America is headed in is toward those “sunny uplands,” or straight downhill.

The Preamble Secures Liberty, Doesn't Provide It

2010-12-22T19:12:00.000-06:00

Prior to Woodrow Wilson the aggregate average of Federal Government spending as a percent of GDP was less than 3% - shocking. That would have totaled about 550 billion dollars these days, the Defense Department spends that. So the question remains: How did they survive back then, we should have been invaded and steamrolled by China, Japan, France, Italy, Australia, and the list continues? We can only arrive at one conclusion after taking the Founders Red Pill™ - we don't need this Government.

We need Government to do just a few things and to do those few things well, all the rest of our Liberties should lie in the hands of our Statesmen. The Preamble clearly says 'to secure the blessings of Liberty

to ourselves and our posterity, not to PROVIDE. This is the struggle of man in this Country, and for a very short time we did a fantastic job of securing our Liberties with the help of the Amendment process to address certain things when they change. Then the geniuses inspired by the french and the Germans in the early 20's got a hold of the Government and sent us downhill at a pace that requires more safety precautions than NASCAR. But folks, keep the faith in knowing that this battle is not over. We didn't get to this pathetic State of Leviathan over the weekend by listening to a couple of Commies out there, it was a slow process that is near it's precipice. A new leaf is soon to turn on December 31st, is this the year we begin to take the opposition?

I pay my taxes and you live off me

2010-12-18T10:54:00.000-06:00

I just received my property tax bill and the value of my property went up by 12,000????????
We did nothing, did not improve did not add, did not do anything but live here??? I work my a$$ of and you sit on yours, I pay my taxes and you live off me, I buy food for my family you put your hand out for food stamps, I pay my property taxes and you live in subsidized housing for $25.00 a month, I raised my children to earn their own way and you keep having them so the welfare system can give you a bigger check, I pay my electric bill and pay an extra tax on it so you can have free power. I get drug tested to work and you should have to for welfare. I pay health insurance and then pay what the insurance won't, you go in and use your free medical to get drugs for sale, you get kicked off welfare for fraud so you claim to hear voices to get Social Security.....where will it end...it wont as long as the government keeps giving hand outs to the dead beats and supporting the baby factory housing. Times are tough and I am sick of paying for you! It should be required that in order to get welfare you either work for pay or work doing community service...nobody rides for free!!!!!!!!!!

Is Texas making it's Alamo stand against Obama and Boehner's Federale's? It sure seems like it is happening that way

2010-11-25T13:01:00.000-06:00

Texas has the opportunity to take matters into its own hands.

Opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with its embedded health insurance mandates, has stirred a widespread revival of interest in the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty issues.

The passage of the health care act opened the eyes of many previously apathetic citizens, making them aware of the rapidly expanding scope and influence of the federal government and its intrusiveness into their everyday lives. They intuitively understand that requiring them to purchase health insurance falls far beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Suddenly awake and alarmed by the fact that the federal government has grown so far out of control, and frustrated by what they see as the lack of responsiveness by politicians in D.C., many Americans find themselves looking for answers.

And they are turning to their states.

Fourteen states have sued, seeking to block implementation of the unconstitutional health care act. Twelve states, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed in federal court in Pensacola.

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit states.

But some states are asserting their own authority to block unconstitutional acts, recognizing that federal courts don’t stand as the sole arbiter of constitutionality.

On Nov. 16, Texas Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill in the Texas House of Representatives that would nullify federal health care legislation in the the Lone Star State. HB-297 asserts:

The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.
The federal Act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.

The bill takes things a step further, making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000 and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.

While some might call this legislation radical, it rests squarely within the scope of state power as understood by the framers of the Constitution. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 that states not only have a right, but a duty to step in when the federal government oversteps its authority.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin said that Berman’s bill does not represent an extreme viewpoint and insists each state should determine the best path for its own citizens.

“There is nothing more extreme than having a federal government that refuses to abide by the laws that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution,” he said. “The important point here is that it’s up to the people of each state to determine what the best response may be. One state, as Wyoming did with its Firearms Freedom Act, may decide that penalties on federal agents is the rightful response. Another, such as California with medical marijuana, may choose to create an environment conducive to non-compliance by masses of people. Either way – or somewhere in between – that’s the beauty of the American system. We can have widely varying actions, responses and viewpoints in different states while all living together in peace. One-size-fits-all solutions are actually the problem, and state-by-state decision-making is the natural response.”

Berman said that his bill faces an uphill battle as long as the current Texas House leadership remains in place. The legislation will likely end up bottled up in committee.

“The best chance for passage is to get rid of the current Speaker,” Berman said.

That speaker is Rep. Joe Straus (R – San Antonio)

Straus did not respond to an email request for comment.

Despite the fact that the bill faces long odds for passage, Boldin said introducing this type of legislation remains important,

“Whether or not there’s any guarantee of getting something passed is no reason to not do what’s right,” he said. “Champions look at insurmountable odds and take them on with passion, and that’s what We the People need to do in defense of our liberty.”

And its about baby steps. Boldin said he views the dismantling of an overreaching, bloated federal government a long-term project.

“Dealing with a constitutional monstrosity like Obamacare is going to take time. In the mid-90s, people around the country were saying that it was absurd for California to go it alone and try to pass a medical marijuana law. But they did, and today, we see 15 states openly defying the federal government on this issue,” he said. “The blueprint is straightforward – when enough people say no to the federal government and enough states do so as well, there’s not much that the feds can do to enforce their unconstitutional ‘laws’ on us.”

Madison agreed, Writing in Federalist 46, he laid out the blueprint for constraining overreaching federal power.

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Texas has taken the first step. Now the people of Texas need to rise up and insist on passage of the bill. Ultimately, the people’s voice will carry the day.

The question remains, will they speak?

special thanks to:
Michael Maharrey

Bill Maher: Real Time With Real Lib

2010-11-14T14:04:00.001-06:00

We've got digital media files from 'Real Time With Bill Maher", and although we're not exactly sure why he has his own show we do know that he is a citizen of Libtardia, and on the topic of science, a very uneducated citizen at that. Fortunately for us we have Mike Church, an educated citizen in all things Constitution and Patriotic; something Bill Maher apparently knows nil of. According to the philosophy of the Libtard, if you're a scientist that doesn't work for the government you must not be trusted for you are corrupt. We say: Bill, nobody is denying climate change, of course there is. The planet moves through space and is affected by cosmic forces we have no control over like the Sun and other planets. According to the third grade science project all of America had to take part in, we learned the solar system revolves around the Sun not the Earth, but then again we're using a combination of intelligence, evidence and common sense, something we clearly cannot expect from everyone.

Mr. Maher, we'd like to ask of you to grow a set of nads, then call for what is that you're asking people to follow you to, which is the end of days. Give up your private property, fancy cars, fancy house, retirement funds and so on then maybe we'll discuss issues more pertinent than the solar system.

Climate Change Is Simple

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike: So you’re not convinced out there, obviously. So Dylligan Ratigan and Ted Rall didn’t convince you. Lawrence O’Donnell, out of the closet now, socialist, and Glenn Greenwald, who’s arguing that somehow Nancy Pelosi is not radical enough, and neither is Barack Hussein Obama – mm, mm, mm. So we need some real revolutionistas, real revoluciones. Listen to Bill Maher here from his monologue on Saturday night. Wasn’t O’Reilly on with Maher on Saturday night?

Mike: I’m pretty sure O’Reilly was in there because I heard him play a digital media file last night from his appearance with Maher, and he really got Maher [chuckling], when Maher said, “Well, Bill, I don’t know why I keep inviting you back on this show,” and O’Reilly said, “Because you want to get better ratings?” [Laughing] Funny stuff. Listen to this delusion here. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know, I don’t know how this got started. But somehow it has become another rite of passage for the revoluciones out there that, if you’re a scientist, and you do not work for the government, then everything you say is not to be trusted, and you cannot possibly have any brain cells to rub together. You have to be in the pay of someone else. You must be crooked, then. You must be corrupt. So only government can provide science now. This is what Maher’s argument on climate change is going to be.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Maher. Why don’t you invite an actual climate scientist on that program of yours, like Dr. Roy Spencer. Why don’t you invite my friend, David Archibald from Australia. He’s quite a funny guy, and he’ll blow you out of the water. Why don’t you invite Marc Morano on your little show there, on “Real Time,” and have an actual discussion about the science behind climate change. Nobody denies, Bill, that there isn’t climate change out there. Of course there’s climate change. The planet moves through space. It is affected by cosmic forces that we have no control over whatsoever, including our sun, and including the movement of other planets, you nitwit. You’re the anti-scientist, you alchemist freak. You think all these giant celestial bodies moving about in space don’t have an impact on this planet? What are you, nuts? Oh, yeah, yeah. What are you, Copernicus now? Everything revolves around Earth?

Don’t be so arrogant and so shallow and stupid, Mr. Maher. You’re the imbecile, and you’re the one that’s not looking at science. I would think that a reasoned people, and people that use reason to think, would probably be safer in concluding that, because we don’t know what’s out there, and because we don’t know all of the effects of the bazillions of planets and stars and galaxies that we continue to discover with all our vaunted technology, we can’t possibly know what effect they have on us. We can’t possible know what their movements have on us. We can’t possibly know what the turning up or down of their thermostats have on us. The stars do fluctuate, do they not? What, do we live in a vacuum here? We’re insulated because we’re Americans and because we have a sign that says, oh, I took a temperature, man, it’s hotter than it was yesterday. So? That’s effect, that’s not cause. There are two parts of hypotheses, sir, cause and effect. You’re telling me the effect, you’re not telling me the cause. Play your digital media file because Dr. Spencer heard this. What happened was that an actual climate scientist had heard this, and has responded it to it already. Roll the digital media file.

[Clip] Bill Maher: But the message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media would just stop giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side, forgetting that Obama tried that and found out there are no moderates on the other side.

Mike: Eh heh, eh heh. You mean the moderates that grew the debt twice?

[Clip] Bill Maher: When Jon announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama is a socialist, and people on the left who believe 911 was an inside job. But I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 911 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama is a socialist? All of them. McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them. It’s now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves and gay men just haven’t met the right woman.

Mike: Eh heh, eh heh, eh heh, so funny. Ha ha ha ha, I’m laughing.

[Clip] Bill Maher: As another example of both sides using overheated rhetoric, Jon cited the right equating Obama with Hitler and the left calling Bush a war criminal. Except thinking Obama is like Hitler is utterly unfounded, but thinking Bush is a war criminal, that’s the opinion of General Anthony Taguba, who headed the army’s investigation into Abu Ghraib.

Mike: Pause this. Pause this madman for just a second here. HBO is irresponsible. I should cancel my HBO subscription when I get home tonight. Number two, who accuses Obama of being like Hitler? Who? I’ll say it right now to your face, Bill. He’s not like Hitler because he doesn’t have the ‘nads that Hitler had to actually come in and use the military, thank the Lord he doesn’t have the ‘nads, to get his way. He doesn’t have the ‘nads to actually be a national socialist like Hitler was, like you want him to be, Bill, and to come in and take the remaining wealth that remains with the American public and expropriate it and use it the way you think he ought to use it. Right?

You don’t have the ‘nads to ask him to be like Hitler, Bill. That’s the big thing that’s missing. You’re the sissy, sir. Why don’t you get off your little throne there in Hollywood, and why don’t you send a letter to the President, and why don’t you tell him that you and all your little buddies out there in Tinseltown, in Hollywoodland, will absolutely support him if he calls up the 101st Airborne and starts sending them out into the hinterlands and into the neighborhoods to do exactly what Hitler did, serve notice to the people that your private property is not yours anymore because we have a national problem to fix and because we need some manufacturing jobs, so we’re just going to start confiscating all the steel that’s left in your tractors out there. Why don’t we try that? Oh, wait, Mike, that was Stalin that did that. Oh, gosh, wrong henchman. Why don’t you grow a set, Bill? You and your buddy Dylan Ratigan.
And why don’t you actually call for what it is that you’re asking people to follow you to, which is Hades, which is the end of days? Hmm? Hmm? Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions, sir? How about giving your private property up first? How about giving up your big fancy car? How about giving up your big fancy house? How about giving up any retirement funds that you have? What makes you exempt from the confiscation of wealth, Mr. Maher? Hmm? I love these limousine liberals, like George Carlin called them once, who think the only problem with this country is that we don’t have enough bicycle paths. Why don’t you lead the way? Why don’t you get with your buddies, with your buddies on the left there, so desperately want to see all of these things go away?

Because at the end of the day it’s those pesky little individuals that get in your way, Mr. Maher. It’s those pesky individuals that refuse to be knuckled-under and steamrolled by their government and refuse to surrender what little wealth they have left and what little liberty they have left that stand in your way. Well, we’re not going to get out of your way, Mr. Maher. Let me inform you of something, sir. Bring it on. You and all your little crook friends. You’re the one that’s on the wrong side of history, and you’re the one, despite your little rhetoric and your little comedy bits and all your little sycophants out there going “Yay, Bill, yay, you’re funny, yeah.” O’Reilly may want to sit down and hang out with you and think it’s funny for ratings because, oh, he’s such a fair guy. Well, I’m fair, too. Grow a set, Bill. Grow a set, Mr. Maher.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Now, I ask you hows that for telling it like it is and not pulling any punches??

Healthcare Plan vs. Iraq War: They're Both Unconstitutional

2010-11-14T12:31:00.000-06:00

Let's say you happened to stumble across a 'magic coat rack', and when you hung your coat on the rack a whimsical genie appeared and told you that you'd be receiving 1.8 Million dollars a week for the foreseeable future. After your initial shock wears off and you realize the monetary Goliath that you have on your hands... we propose the question: what would you spend it on? and could you spend it all per week? If you said 'no' to the latter then consider yourself more fiscally responsible than the Federal Government. If you said you'd spend the money on military, in particularly in Afghanistan, then you most likely ARE the Federal Government.

Lets dwell on this further, shall we????
I offer you an interview between Mike Chrch and a caller named Katie:

Mike's got Katie of North Carolina on the line and she can't seem to apprehend why Liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq (trillion dollars and counting) when the cost of healthcare will likely trump Iraq. Mike feels two ways about this: Firstly, Bush had no fidelity of the Constitution in declaring war in Iraq, he instead used a usurpation of the people's power claiming an "act of military authorization". Fifty United States go to war as a Union against a foreign enemy. Secondly, you can't have prosperity unless you're at peace. We're at war.

Mike: All right. To the phones we go on a Free Phone Thursday. First up here today, Katie in North Carolina. Katie, how are you? You’re on the Mike Church Show, Sirius XM Patriot channel. What’s going on?

Katie: Hey, Mike. I love your show. Thanks for having me.

Mike: You’re welcome.

Katie: What I wanted to comment on is how liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq, yet this fiscal orgy that we’ve had over the past two and a half years could cost much more than the war in Iraq. And if you look at the predictions for the cost of healthcare and the road we’re going down, it makes the war in Iraq look like peanuts.

Mike: Yeah, the amount of money that has been spent, well, the war in Iraq was not peanuts. It was almost a trillion dollars.

Katie: Yeah, so...

Mike: Well, that taxicab meter is still running. This is why some of this stuff, Katie, is delusional because you’ve got some of these people out there, you’ve got some of these fake phony fraud conservatives out there, all humoring and having President Bush on their radio shows and their TV shows and, you know, talking about all the things that Bush accomplished as President. One of those things is, why, he kept us safe. Why, he did this, and he did all that, and what have you there. Well, he also got us into that Iraq war.

He also claims fidelity to the Constitution, and that’s why he wouldn’t come in and take over Louisiana, which he shouldn’t have, after Hurricane Katrina. But he had no fidelity to the Constitution when it came to declaring wars. He allowed, he signed, he participated in a usurpation of the people’s power. And he participated in that when there was act of military authorization. That is not a declaration of war. Fifty United States go to war as a nation against an enemy that is foreign. That is not what happened. And that’s why that thing turned into the quagmire that it did. And President Bush is – he materially participated in it. Hell, he asked for it. So...

Katie: He did. But they always go back to that statement; and, you know, whether the war, you know, was right or wrong, that’s a whole different conversation. But the fact that that is one of their standing arguments I think is just silly. And then, you know, being from North Carolina...

Mike: Well, but look at it from their point of view, and look at it from, okay, so let’s look at what the spending of a trillion dollars in Iraq engendered then. Okay. You guys are going to get your little military hardware, you DeceptiCons, you neocon freaks. You’re going to get to go bomb Saddam back into the Stone Ages and show the wonders of the U.S. military might, even though we don’t need it, even though there are no weapons of mass destruction. In exchange for that, though, you’re going to expand the domestic spending by the same amount, over a trillion dollars, which is pretty much what happened here. The only difference is that there is a slim possibility that Iraq spending may stop someday. There is no possibility that the domestic spending ever will.
Katie: Yeah, and it was still less expensive than Medicare.

Mike: Which was?

Katie: The war in Iraq. I really – I’m sorry, I’m breaking up. But on a yearly cost analysis, you know, again, the war has been expensive, pretty much unnecessary. But comparatively speaking, if you look at the numbers, it was still less expensive than Medicare.

Mike: Okay. But Katie, Katie, Katie. And you say you’re breaking up, so I’m going to let you go. See, folks, this is the problem here.

This is why conservatives can’t get anything done, and this is why I say the nation is filled with fake, phony, fraud conservatives. I don’t mean to say that Katie’s a fraud, but denial is not a river in Egypt. Don’t tell me that the Iraq war cost a trillion dollars, and we can debate whether or not it should have been fought. It shouldn’t. But that really doesn’t matter. Medicare cost a trillion, too. What do you mean it doesn’t matter? What do you – are we insane? This is nuts.

We have a war going on in Afghanistan right now. Nobody knows, folks, who knows why – “Oh, Mike, we’re there to get the Taliban.” No, we’re not. We are there to continue the military industrial complex spending and, while we’re at it, to in an inhumane, immoral in my estimation, fashion sacrifice the lives of too many young Americans. We’re spending $1.8 billion a week there. The estimates vary. It is absolutely unconscionable what is going on there. Where are the citizens of Libtardia demanding that Obama pull those troops out? Where are they? Where’s Cindy Sheehan laying down in front of the White House, screaming and whooping and hollering about the injustice of war? These people are peaceniks of convenience. They’re only peaceniks when it benefits them politically.

Look, you can’t have prosperity as long as you’re at war, so you should always want peace. This idea here that, “Well, well, Mike, we’ve got this war against terror.” I’m going to go over this again just really quick. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it. But let me see if you’ve bought into this hook, line, and sinker. This is not to say that there aren’t jihadis out there. There always have been jihadis out there. But maybe we should stop mucking around in their business. Maybe we should stop guaranteeing the Saudi prince a safe passage of his oil through the Straits of Hormuz? Maybe we should stop dealing in the oil business in the Middle East and free up American oil and American gas and American energy. Because we have it here.

Don’t buy this lie, this urban legend that we don’t have resources. We have more resources than any other nation on Earth. We are the Saudi Arabia of Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in Colorado than they have in Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in the Bakken Oil Reserve than they have in Saudi Arabia. There’s more oil off the coast of Alaska and in Alaska, we don’t even know how much oil is there. Don’t give me that crap, we have to have foreign oil. We have to have it because we’ve been told we have to have it. It is a convenience. Again, our federal government has mandated that we have to buy foreign oil. We don’t have to. Why? Because then you have the excuse that, well, we had to remain engaged in the Middle East because they’re our friends, and they have our oil. We don’t need their oil. And we don’t need to be involved in their affairs anymore.

But none of this seems to matter. It matters to some of us. But you go through the exercise here. So you have the protection of the Saudi prince’s oil and all the other assets and what have you. You have the commitment of the United States Navy, the commitment of the Armed Forces and what have you. You have billions of dollars a week going right out the door, engaged in an effort that actually increases the cost of energy for the American public that’s funding and paying for all this. Not only are you getting it through direct taxes, you’re getting it through increased prices for energy at the gas pump, on your light bills, your energy bills, and then everything that’s manufactured here because it all takes energy. I mean, this may be a great secret to some, but it’s not a secret to us here in Louisiana and in Texas that the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas are sitting right out there in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s where they are. We don’t need a drop, don’t need a gram, don’t need a cubic foot of anyone’s energy. Drops, oils; grams, coal; cubic feet, natural gas. Don’t need it. I thought we were so technologically advanced. Why aren’t we building more nuclear power plants, hmm? Because the government says they’re not safe. Because the government says, oh, we’ve got to cave in to these scientists and these environmental tree huggers.

Folks, these are problems of our own making, can all be solved. And we have one entity that stands between solution and between continuing the misery and the deceit, and that is the federal Leviathan. So again I ask the question, why don’t we petition for a divorce? Why do we continue this exercise that we can fix this? Why don’t we just divorce it? That’s why that word “secession” needs to be on everybody’s tongue. That’s why that word “independence” needs to be on everybody’s tongue.

A hugh thanks to my good friend Mike for his imput...

Michelle Obama Diden't Want To Live In Fear: She Should Talk To Chrysler's Hedge Fund Managers

2010-11-06T20:47:00.000-05:00

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we are being gamed. We’re being lied to. We’re being played here. This massive takeover of the financial system, this massive effort here by the brown-shirted Obama jack-booted White House thugs to run around and to demonize and to personally endanger the lives of American citizens .

And I’m not talking about the ones that are fighting in Afghanistan, a war that’s not supposed to be going on, but is. I’m talking about the executives at AIG. I’m talking about the executives at the hedge funds that were called to the mat by name by the President of the United States for personal retribution. You ought to see some of the headlines here today, ladies and gentlemen. “Chris, that could never happen in America.” Oh, really. Really? Not only could it, it is.

The Business Insider reports, last night this was posted, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Well, that’s one way to make sure that the economy is vibrant. “Hey Chris, that’s one of the ways that you fix an economy is you beat the people up that have the money, and then they give it to us.” Have you see the commercials for DirecTV where the cable board of directors is sitting around, the one specifically where they’re sitting around, and the guy gets the bright idea that’s running the cable company, hey, people have this thing called disposable income. I know what we’ll do, we’ll raise prices. Yeah. And we’ll get them to dispose it to us. We’ll get them to dispose of the income to us.

I tell you, that’s got to sound a lot like an Obama economic advisor meeting to me. You have the most amazingly amazing economic team in the history of amazingly amazing economic teams. We are going to fix the economy. Now, I seem to recall, ladies and gentlemen, I seem to recall that this President was elected on the promise that he was going to fix the economy. I am not a leftie, he proclaimed. I believe in big business. I believe in free markets. I believe in this and I believe in that. We’re going to give a tax credit to 800 bazillion people across the world. Everybody’s going to get a tax cut. Why, you wait and see. When I get done with the markets, everything’s going to be right as rain. He’s going to fix this; he’s going to fix that.

And what has he done? He has systematically worked tirelessly night and day to try and eradicate the exchange of private capital and to try to bring it under the direction, guidance, and control of the White House. This is unprecedented in the history of the republic. It’s almost unprecedented in the history of the world. Matter of fact, if the Castro brothers hadn’t done it, if Hugo Chavez hadn’t done it, if Mussolini hadn’t done it, if Hitler hadn’t done it, if Mao hadn’t done it, if Brezhnev and Stalin and Lenin hadn’t done it, why, no one else in the world would ever have tried this. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to turn out. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to work. This is shocking.

Heres that commercial I was thinking about, see if this rings a bell...

[Clip] “TV is doing very well in customer satisfaction. What do we do?”

“I learned this in business school. We can’t improve our service. But we can improve the price. We can make it higher.”

“You know what? That’s not a bad idea.”

“We’ll get the people with disposable income, and they can dispose of it to us.”

“And they don’t watch TV. They're workaholics.”

“They wouldn’t know HD if it sat in their lap and called them ‘Mama.’”

All right, that’s [laughing] what it sounds like inside the White House. That’s what Larry Summers and Joe, not only is he the Vice President, but he’s also a member of the Hair Plugs for Men Biden. And you got Tiny Tim Geithner. And they’re all sitting around the table, [mimicking Obama] “All right, how are we going to screw the economy up?” And you hear that. We’ll get the guys with disposable income. We’ll get them to dispose of it to us.

This is no joking matter, though, here, folks. Entire generations are being threatened with this. This train is off the tracks, and I seem to not be able to make people understand this. I’m speaking of the people that you have barbecues and crawfish boils and cocktail parties and weddings and stuff, and you go bowling and hang out and play darts with and what have you. They're just goofing around here. I think what it is, it is what is – it’s what’s known as living in denial. Happens all the time. People don’t want to admit that there’s bad, there’s bad things about, that there’s problems. It’s much easier while you can to just ignore them. And unfortunately that’s what’s going on out there, a lot of people ignoring them. They want to believe in this young, handsome President, that he could fix these things. Well, let me tell you, the jury should be in by now. Not whether he – but this is the worst part of it, the worst part of the deception. Not only is he not going to fix it, he’s not trying to fix it. He is trying by definition of his actions to break it, to exacerbate it and make it worse.

So back to Mr. Asness. “I run an approximately $20 billion money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President’s comments. Of course these are my own views, and not those of my company,” he writes. “Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this.” Now, can you imagine this? Man is sitting there in his office, a capitalist. And he’s scared to death that if he puts pen to paper, that the brain-dead, Obamabot zombie, Acorn-sponsored, jack-booted, brown-shirted with the little “o” insignia on their sleeve thugs are going to come after him? Show up at his house? Show up at his place of business? Demonize his investments? Single him out for retribution? This is how freedom works??

Anyways, back to Mr. Asness. “It’s really a bad idea to speak out,” he concludes. “Angering the President is a mistake, and my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally ‘sacrifice’ their money without their permission.” Now, I told you two days ago that this was the crux of the argument here. These hedge fund guys weren’t holding out for a bailout or whatever the hell Obama said they were. They were holding out to protect their private investors, you and I, should our money be in their mutual funds or their hedge funds. They were trying to protect private property. Now, the Chrysler UAW guys don’t have any private property. They have taxpayer-subsidized property. And the President says, famously, “I stand with them.” Oh, really. So it sounds to me like Mr. Asness is living in fear. Now, let’s hear what Dear Leader First Lady Obama said way back in the campaign about living in fear.

[Clip] Michelle Obama: I am tired of living in a country where every decision that we’ve made over the last 10 years wasn’t for something, but it was because people told us we had to fear something. We had to fear people who looked different from us, fear people who believed in things that were different from us. Fear of one another right here in our own backyards. I am so tired of fear. And I don’t want my girls to live in a country and a world based on fear.

I will personally take a fund up and chip in for the one-way airfare for Michelle Obama and the girls to go live in a country where there is no fear, where there’s nothing but national healthcare and Utopia. It’s called Cuba. What? I didn’t say anything radical. She said she didn’t want to live in fear. I’m trying to help her out here. Now, back to Mr. Asness, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Because we can’t have fear, remember? This was the reason for electing Dear Leader, the Obamabot brain-dead zombies said. The hopie-dopie-changie crowd said, “Chris, he is post-partisan. He is post-racial. This guy is not going to bring fear. He’s going to bring sunshine.”

Oh, I feel better already, dont you all??

The conservative path back to the Constitution

2010-10-31T19:26:00.000-05:00

Much has been made about the “Tea Party” movement and other American’s calls to “return to the Constitution” and get “our government back” from the politicians and special interests that have stolen it. There are many thoughtful plans being promoted that should the Republican Party regain control of the House of Representatives, they should pursue. These plans offer various degrees of remodeling the federal system but do nothing to alter its inexorable course toward either an Oligarchy or acting national democratic legislature.

I offer as a counterpoint this brief list of actions that would merely begin the process of “returning to the Constitution”. The list could easily number in the hundreds of pages and resemble one of the current Congress's legislative acts in both size and scope and even that wouldn’t completely “return us to the Constitution.”

With an open mind and with an even more hopeful heart I offer this brief set of actions that would only begin the “return” process and challenge my fellow citizens to consider the magnitude of what must be done to “secure the [former] blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.

Disclaimer - I make no claim to the precise naming of all agencies, Acts and or laws cited herein.

1. Freeze all federal hiring, this includes funding requests from the executive branch to hire.
2. Repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and all it’s contingent COLA “mandates” no matter the agency or program they are applicable to.
3. Freeze under threat of rescinding funding any and all new regulations currently under review or consideration
4. Have an up or down vote on a Declaration of War with Iraq and with Afghanistan. if either fails then troop withdrawals must begin immediately.
5. Pass the Private Property Restoration Act which among other things shall forbid any federal magistrate from hearing any cases to restrict use of private property.
6. Repeal the AMT permanently by statute.
7. Repeal the capital gains tax.
8. Refuse to fund the Education Department and the Department of Energy, any programs, grants projects or construction begun under these agencies must cease. The EPA’s charter must be rewritten to make it clear that it only has jurisdiction over federal and or territorial waters and land.
9. Repeal ObamaCare and all contingent legislation. Congress must then use legitimate Commerce Clause powers to “make commerce regular” and remove from the tax code all subsidies, all claims of tax credit, any and all restrictions federal law imposes on the sale or use of major medical health insurance. This must include federal recognition of PPO, HMO or other plans created to satisfy Congress.
10. Repeal the FICA and sunset the program by Jan 1, 2030. Establish a cutoff date for continued payment eligibility such as born on or before December 31, 1959.
11. Repeal the Patriot Act of 2001, 2005 and sunset the Department of Homeland Security on or before December 31, 2012.
12. Repeal all mandates, taxes and law pertaining to the SCHIP program.
13. Announce the return of U.S. Gold and Silver bullion coins as legal tender and order the treasury to begin the purchase of bullion with the intent of eliminating paper currency in favor of gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin backed notes.
14. Pass the Debt Consolidation and Repayment Act. This Act will require the sale of all lands currently “owned” by the U.S. government which do not house “needful buildings, docks, arsenals, forts and magazines”. This is not limited to “Parks” and “National forests”. All proceeds are to be solely applicable to the repayment of the U.S. Governments outstanding debts both domestic and foreign.
15. End the federal tax designations enacted and known as 501 (c), (g), 503, 527 e.g. “non-profits”.
16. Repeal the “Income tax witholding act” and enact an immediate and deduction free, flat income tax law, payable once per year by each citizen.
17. Repeal all corporate and business interest, income and profit taxation.
18. Heed the call of 38 states that shall call an convention to amend the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

So, are you ready to give up all your government safety nets and entitlements??? Only then will we be truely free to live our lives as we see fit. We can either do this by choice of we can do this when we are totally bankrupted and insolvent, its your choice people.

Can we really shrink the size of government?

2010-10-30T11:25:00.000-05:00

One of the core beliefs of the Tea Party movement is that the government is too big, too powerful, and costs too much money. Of course, this is also a core conservative belief that over the years has not necessarily been championed by the Republican Party. But now, with Republicans poised to make massive gains in Tuesday's elections and Tea Party activists motivated to exert their influence past Election Day, could this be the time when we can actually shrink the size of government?

Let's face it... government is just too big, and the bigger it gets, the less freedom we have as individuals, because more of our money is going to feed the beast. But do we have the stomach to do what is necessary to shrink it? According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll about "one-quarter of Americans say they receive some form of cash benefits from the government, and most are not willing to sacrifice any of that money to help cut the size of the federal budget." Wow... talk about starting behind the eight ball! The poll reports that of those receiving cash benefits, 63% "are not willing to consider any benefit reductions."

The problem is that the left wing philosophy will take us down an unsustainable path. Just look at France. They are having riots because the people are demanding their "free lunch," and the government is realizing there is not enough money to pay for it.

The other problem is that once politicians get to Washington, they forget that is the people's money. They see a pot of cash, and they feel that it's their job to spend it. WRONG. We elect Republicans so that power can be returned to the people. We want a smaller government!

There is nothing that frustrates me more than seeing a Republican legislator go on television and talk about how Republicans took action and "slowed the rate of growth" of government. Are you kidding me? I'm not looking at a first derivative. I don't care about the rate of growth. Slow rate, fast rate, medium rate... it all means that government is growing. It means more money is going into it this year than last year. I want smaller government. Period.

In order for government to shrink, tough choices must be made. Because of the entitlement mentality that has existed for the last 70 years, much of the federal budget is tied up in pay-outs to Americans, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Now Obama wants to add health care to the mix as well? Cuts will need to be made, but more importantly, a new mindset must begin to take hold. The people of France are rioting in the streets, because they have long become accustomed to the government taking care of them. This, however, is America, and we take care of our own. We need to get that mindset back or we will never have the will to shrink government.

With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, we have the opportunity to put a halt to Obama's big-spending plans. Republicans are already making plans to push spending cuts in the next session.

(Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.

The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.)

If Republicans can make further gains in 2012, we can be in a position to actually reverse the process. But it will take the American people and our elected representatives having the fortitude to do what is right, otherwise this country will crumble under the weight of increasing debt.

Can we do it? Decades of data indicate no. But this is America, and if any country can do it, America can. I just hope it's not too late!

Our Constitution Means What It Says, and is not open to interpretation!

2010-10-26T19:37:00.000-05:00

Written Constitutions mean exactly what the writers and ratifiers say they mean and nothing else in the form of this essay from MI Supreme Court Judge Thomas McIntyre Cooley.

Cooley's books on the subject is also posted here for purchase at amazon.com and for instant reading here at Google books.

A cardinal rule in dealing with written instruments is that they shall receive a unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction is to be uniform. A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a difference rule in the case seem desirable.

A principle share of the benefit expected from written constitutions would be lost if the rules they established were to be so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion. It is with special reference to the varying moods of public opinion, and with a view to putting the fundamentals of government beyond their control, that these instruments are framed; and there can be no such steady and imperceptible change in their rules as inheres in the principles of the common law. Those beneficent maxims of the common law which guard person and property have grown and expanded until they mean vastly more to us than they did to our ancestors, and are more minute, particular, and pervading in their protections; and we may confidently look forward in the future to still further modifications in the direction of improvement.

Public sentiment and action effect such changes, and the courts recognize them; but a court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty; and if its course would become a precedent, these instruments would be of little avail. The violence of public passion is quite as likely to be in the direction of oppression as in any other; and the necessity of bills of rights in our fundamental laws lies mainly in the danger that the legislature will be influenced by temporary excitements and passions among the people to adopt oppressive enactments.

What a court is to do, therefore, is to declare the law as written, leaving it to the people themselves to make such changes as new circumstances may require. The meaning of the constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it."

I have added a discussion between Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman shortly after obamas` 1st nomination of a female,latin supreme court judge.....

Mike: Dr. Kevin Gutzman on the line here. But he watched the hearings. So we’ll get the Doc’s take on this. How are you today, Kev?

Dr. Kevin Gutzman: I am very well, Mike. How are you?

Mike: I am fantastic. Did I miss anything? You watched the hearings, I suppose. I was on vacation. I didn’t. What did I miss?

Kevin: Well, what I was reminded of in thinking about her comments about the superior merits of the wise Latina judge, was an experience I had in law school at the University of Texas Law School 20 years ago now. We had class protests by Hispanic and black students and people who were sympathetic with them in which they demanded that there should be particular chairs in law, that is, professorships, set aside for black and Hispanic academics.

Mike: Okay.

Kevin: And the idea was that only a black or a Hispanic academic would have the knowledge of the world that a black or Hispanic academic would have, and that there could not be a first-class legal faculty without the particular insights, I suppose, of wise black and Latina or Latino academics. So not only was it not an offhand comment that Sotomayor was pilloried for, but it was also not anything peculiar to her. This is a very widely believed notion in legal academia, and that means also among lawyers that basically when it comes to judging, there are special insights of blacks and Hispanics that white men just don’t have. And so we need to have some kind of, at least what was being proposed at UT Law School, which is one of the top five public law schools in the country, what was being proposed was a quota system in hiring professors. And of course what we see now is essentially a quota system in appointing people to federal judgeships, and apparently to the Supreme Court.

Mike: It is nothing short of – I can’t even say it’s amazing anymore because it’s not amazing. It happens all the time. I mean, it is the daily grind of the “bidness,” would you say the energetic business of government? Isn’t that what the framers – isn’t that what the federalists that were framers called – said that we needed, Dr. Gutzman, we needed an energetic government? Could they have imagined that we would have one that was not only energetic but had been injected with about 5,000 gallons of Winstrol V steroids?

Kevin: Well, they certainly said there should be energy in the executive. I’m not sure that they ever imagined the wide-ranging law-making prerogative exercised by federal judges these days. But, yeah, that was an idea that was held by a lot of nationalists in the 1780s. I have to say that I thought that the proposal my classmates were making at UT Law School 20 years ago – this is the University of Texas at Austin Law School.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: This idea that there should be particular positions on the faculty set aside that only black or Hispanic academics could apply for, I thought this sounded very South African. And in fact, I...

Mike: [Laughing] You mean like apartheid?

Kevin: I thought it was precisely apartheid.

Mike: Okay, all right.

Kevin: And in fact at the time I was president of the UT chapter of the Federalist Society. And so we put up signs all over the law school saying that these should be referred to as the P. W. Botha chairs in law. And apparently we’re now going to have P. W. Botha chairs of, I don’t know, Supreme Court Justice.

Mike: I suppose, I mean, if you’re looking for a silver lining here, and I don’t think this is a silver lining, but just the fact that she replaced another incompetent nincompoop in Justice Souter, who famously decided the Kelo v. New London case, right down the road from where you are in Western Connecticut – right? That’s a Connecticut place; right?

Kevin: Well, yes. Actually, though, I think a lot of people are saying that. But I think it’s mistaken. It seems to me that, while Souter was pretty reliably going to come out in favor of upholding left-wing precedents, he was a pretty strong devotee of the idea of what’s called “stare decisis,” that is, that what the Court had done before should not be changed without some really good reason. And that’s actually not so left-wing a position as we might fear that Judge Sotomayor might follow. The idea of quotas for minorities and so on was not one that Souter endorsed. And so far as I can tell, Sotomayor supports it. So I actually think that Sotomayor is very likely to be worse than Souter.

Mike: Yeah, but she’d have to have four others to go along with her. Not to say that there won’t be because you have Kennedy. You have Darth Vader Ginsburg. Who is the other, John Paul Stevens. So that’s four right there.

Kevin: Right.

Mike: It doesn’t portend well. But I say it doesn’t portend well. The Supreme Court was never designed to have this authority anyways, was it?

Kevin: No, that’s exactly the problem. Ever since at least ‘87 when Bork was nominated we’ve paid more attention to nomination processes for the Supreme Court than we pay to any Senate race, as if the Supreme Court were the Supreme Legislature. And of course the reason for that is that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Legislature, and this is more important than any Senate race. So think about the attention that was given to this, and compare it to the attention that was given to the difficulty in deciding who had won the Minnesota Senate election this year, and you’ll see that it’s just orders of magnitude difference. The reason is Ms. Sotomayor is now more important than Al Franken. Maybe that’s a good thing, but...

Mike: You may not want to disparage that statement just too much. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, who’s got three books out. The paperback edition of “Who Killed the Constitution” is out now. You can get that at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com. And at KevinGutzman.com, “Virginia’s American Revolution” and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.”

We just had another guy who called, right before you were on, Kevin, and he was asking the constitutionality. And people call me for these things all the time, you may have heard him, of how can Obama sit there, or Congressman Rangel sit there and say that they have the sovereign authority to force or to compel me to buy something that I don’t want, namely health insurance, under the threat of a tax increase or a fine if I fail to do so. And of course the short snickety answer to that is, well, that they’re a national legislature now, do whatever the hell they want. The constitutional, if there was such a thing in effect, answer would be, well, they don’t have the authority. What would you have responded to that gentleman?
Kevin: Well, that’s precisely right. You know, one provision of the Constitution that left-wingers like to point to in support of their idea that we should say that there are rights to have abortions and engage in homosexual sodomy and all kinds of things that had always been not only not rights, but illegal before, is the Ninth Amendment. They want to say that the Ninth Amendment is a general protection of rights and that judges, federal judges should be able to invent new rights under the Ninth Amendment and force them against the states. I, of course, think that’s illegitimate.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: But on the other hand, the right to hire somebody to be your doctor and pay him the amount that the two of you have agreed to actually is a longstanding right of English-speaking people. And I think it’s something that does actually fall under the Ninth Amendment. So it seems to me that you could make a legitimate argument, and of course that means it’s one that wouldn’t be accepted by a federal court, you could make a legitimate historical argument that you have a Ninth Amendment right not to have Obama tell you who your doctor will be or how much you’ll pay him. But, you know, this is America, so we have arbitrary unlimited central government. And there’s really nothing you can do about it except try to vote out the congressmen who voted to impose this on you.

Mike: Right, and this is what I – one of the things that I find, well, it’s interesting to me and it’s interesting to you because we have read these things. Unfortunately, there’s 309,999,997 – I’ll include Dr. Woods in the people that have read the Ratification Debates in Virginia of the Constitution. This is exactly, this is happening according to prophecy, is it not? Isn’t this exactly what Patrick Henry and what William Grayson and what James Monroe – mainly Henry, though – said was going to happen? Aren’t we following the course?

Kevin: We could not be any closer to what he predicted. And, you know, anybody who thinks that we have constitutional government now should just compare the predictions that Patrick Henry made about the worst possible fruit of ratifying the Constitution...

Mike: Right.

Kevin: ...to what we actually live under. And what we actually live under is his worst-case scenario. We don’t call Obama the king, but other than that it’s about as bad as any of those people had nightmares it might be. That is, the central government feels free to tell you what to do in any sense at any time of your day, and it feels free to veto any policy of state government it doesn’t like, and the executive is free to make war anywhere he wants and force you to pay for it. Besides which, they feel free to put stay laws in effect and essentially transfer money from people who have loaned money in good faith to people who’ve decided they can’t pay. So, yeah, it’s an absolute failure.

Mike: Which is...

Kevin: The only question, I think the question it leaves is, is it just because of the American Constitution, is the federal constitution shortcomings that we’ve ended up in this situation? Or is this a general problem that is always going to inhere in written constitutions? Are written constitutions just ultimately bound to fail? Or is it because our own particular Constitution has led to this point that we have this problem we have now?

Mike: Well, how...

Kevin: I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that I can’t think of a written constitution that has worked over a long period of time.

Mike: Well, I was going to ask you, our forefathers were very reverent towards the English Constitution; right?

Kevin: Right.

Mike: Or I guess the one that came out in – I’m going to get the date wrong, so you can correct me, 1678 or whatever it was.

Kevin: 1688.

Mike: 1688, okay. So how long did the English live under their vaunted – and it was a great charter at the time; was it not? How long did they live under their Constitution?

Kevin: Well, of course the English Constitution of 1688 was unwritten. And they would argue that they live under it now. But the problem that the people who made the American Revolution had encountered was essentially that the English had decided that it did not apply to colonists living in North America. That is, that while there was a right under the English Constitution to be represented in Parliament, that didn’t apply to people who were outside the mother country and so on.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: So the point is, written constitutions were supposed to be a way to provide a firm check on the tendency of people in office to grab at more power than the people had intended to give them. And that was not an idea that was part of the English Constitution. There was a general idea that Parliament was sovereign and could do basically whatever it wanted to do. Then the Americans decided to reject that by writing constitutions that say exactly what government officials could do. But again, what we have now is a situation in which, as that last caller was complaining about, there is no limit to what federal officials feel entitled to do to you. There’s no limit to what they feel entitled to do to foreign countries in your name. There’s no limit to what they feel free to impose on your state government. There’s just no limit. And that’s exactly and the only thing the written Constitution was supposed to do was provide limitation on the power of the government.

Mike: Well, that’s what it was supposed to do.

Kevin: Yeah, yeah.

Mike: And it did for a while. But, I mean, as you pointed out in your books, the usurpations began as soon as the gavel banged down the First Congress in 1790; didn’t it.

Kevin: I fear that they certainly began trying to grab more power almost instantly.

So Obama IS a Socialist after all.....

2010-10-17T14:18:00.000-05:00

The big story of the day is that things that were barely touched upon, barely covered, barely reported, barely discussed back in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for the presidency, have now been proved to be unequivocally and factually correct. Correct . That includes his relationship with Bill Ayers, his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his palling around with radical nut jobs like Rashid Khalidi and other sorts of America-hating whack jobs. It always has been Obama’s goal, his mission, hell, his purpose in life was to call into mind and to question the actual existence of these United States. I mean, folks, it all makes sense now that all the facts are being exposed....

Now, look. This is not news to I. I was well apprised of this a long time ago because I’ve been a fan of and I’ve been reading what Dr. Stanley Kurtz has been writing about Obama. So I was not surprised by this one iota. Now, apparently many of you people are not surprised by it, either. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. But here’s what remains the challenge: What are we going to do about it?

And what I’m talking about is Dr. Stanley Kurtz’s book, it comes out next week, “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.” The most shocking part of this, as I told you when I was reading this, was that it was the goal of those who were promoting Obama or someone like Obama that they would use groups like ACORN and Project Vote to swell the ranks of Democrats with poor and minority voters. And that their socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots. This is a takeover of the American government. This is a takeover from within of our social systems and our institutions.

Now, they’re not finished with their takeover yet because it was quite a massive undertaking to try and consume all of it. This is the radical change that Obama has always been talking about. As a matter of fact, this is what change and hope meant. Change and hope meant throw out liberty, or what little liberty remained after the socialists began their conquests back in 1913, throw out the remaining remnants of liberty, throw out the remaining constraints against what limited the power and the reach of government, throw that out and replace it with something that felt good. It was all sticky and sugary sweet. Why, we’ve got to get rid of these banks. We have to get rid of these people, these shysters, these crooks, these criminals that are out there loaning money to your kids in student loans and what have you, and that own these car companies and these other corporations. We must get rid of them and replace them with the kind of people we want to put in there. And then we will loan them government money, and we will invest in this and that and the other.

I will make Obama’s radical past today’s story, because you people that have been called wackos and nut jobs and racists and hicks and hayseeds and what have you because you oppose Obama so vehemently, and that Obama’s rise to power and the way he has used his power has set alarm bells ringing off in your head, this justifies your alarm bells. This gives credibility to your fears. You feared this guy for the right reasons. He is a Marxist lunatic.

Now, let me take you back to August of 2008, as I have been suffering under this for over two years now. “Oh, you’re just jealous. You know what you are, Chris, you’re just a racist. Why don’t you just come out of the closet, admit it? Get the sheet and hoods out of the closet.” And as I’ve been telling you, and I have been talking about this for over two and a half years when I heard Obama give this particular speech:

"that he’s running for the presidency because he wants to bring philosophy to an end, or a particular philosophy. Well, that philosophy is the philosophy of what you people call the free market. We haven’t had one since the 1800s. But it has been called a free market. And the other philosophy is the philosophy of embracing liberty in the individual over collectivism in the state."

I heard him give the same speech on consecutive days, when I heard him give this speech I was shocked and mortified. i remember thinking,"I’m the only one that thinks that there’s anything wrong with this????" Was anyone else listening to this radical marxist racist???? I guess not, I mean hes the president right?

You see, socialists, in order to operate, they must confiscate the wealth of the people. And then they put all-knowing, all-caring, social engineers in the place of people that were running businesses before. And they run them for the social good. They don’t run them for profit. It doesn’t work anywhere it’s ever been tried. It’s not going to work here. As a matter of fact, it’s not working here. Look at the state of economic affairs around you. But it was shocking to me that Obama was out there saying he wanted to bring philosophies to an end, and people were cheering.
You don’t bring philosophies to an end....
Dictators bring philosophies to an end....
Violent revolutions bring philosophies to an end....
But there was Obama, out there throwing this stuff up, like a mama bird spitting up chewed up worms down her chicks throats on the campaign trail and being cheered for it. So let me take you back and remind you what this madman has said:

Obama: ...have a stake in each other, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.

Question: Yes or no, eliminate the electoral college, yes or no. Obama: Yes.

Obama: We need to stop sending $3 billion a year to banks that provide student loans the government could provide directly to students for less.(hows this one worked out for you lazy, shiftless, mooching off your parents, college pukes???)

Obama: We can’t afford to wait any longer. We need this fund to help New Hampshire and states across the country pay for healthcare and education, police and firefighters.(because you dumb pions in your individual towns can`t seem to handle it)

Obama: I think, when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.(you mean good for the losers that won`t go out and take care of themselves or their families)

Obama: That does involve us spreading around opportunity.

Obama: And this economic catastrophe is the final verdict on this failed philosophy, a philosophy that we cannot afford to continue. And one of the reasons I am running for the presidency of the United States is to bring this philosophy to an end.(only because of these oh so many liberal policies and dem interventions into our so called free market)

Now, he said it. I didn’t say it. He said it, “is to bring this philosophy to an end.” Now, when you read Kurtz’s piece here, it all makes sense. And again, if you missed it last hour, I’ll read you the summary:

“The pattern of misdirection upon which President Obama’s political career has been built has its roots in the socialist background of community organizing. ACORN, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers were all routes into that hidden socialist world, and that is why Obama has had to obscure the truth about these and other elements of his past. More important, the President’s socialist past is still very much alive in the governing philosophy and long-term political strategy of the Obama administration. As we move into the first national election of the Obama presidency, Americans are confronted with a fateful choice. Either we will continue to be subject to President Obama’s radical and only ... partially revealed plans for our future, or we will place a strong check on the President’s ambitions. Knowing the truth about Obama’s past is the best way to safeguard our future.”

That is why everyone must know the facts about this true racial divider, and i suggest you all start with this small but factual article written by Dr. Stanley Kurtz......

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249390/obama%E2%80%99s-radical-past-stanley-kurtz

and then read his book, "Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism"

So it shouldn’t come as a shock, really, if you have been watching what’s been going on, have been watching what this guy has been doing, have been watching who he has appointed to positions of power and the way he’s operated.

What ought to be a shock, though, is the dismissal by so many in the Parrot Press Corps, fringe media, academia, political circles and what have you, when you admit that, wait a minute, there’s just something not right about this guy. And you say that, why, the first reaction is “racist, bigot, hick, hayseed,” you know, you hear it all the time, radical Tea Party extremists, they’re just responding to Obama’s race. No. You people, or many of you people, have been correct all along. Your instincts were good. You smelled out the socialist. You sniffed it out. You knew as soon as he started it didn’t seem right. You knew as soon as this stuff started, and the explanations that were given for it, that it just didn’t seem right. There is something intrinsically and inherently wrong with being president of a country that once upon a time prized individual achievement and individualism and has thrown that overboard.

So, for how long has the left claimed that all this comes from conservative conspiracy theorist nut jobs. It’s not a conspiracy anymore. It’s only a conspiracy if you don’t know about it. I mean, this isn’t Mulder and Scully tooling around in the Antarctic, looking for Obama’s buried ancestors in the Antarctic ice that came from some faraway planet, are we? This has actually happened in real-time, right in front of your face; hasn’t it?

The Supreme Answer To Westboro Baptist

2010-10-09T12:58:00.000-05:00

I think we can all agree that protesting at the funeral of a dead soldier is a distasteful, classless, heartless, despicable act. I am of course referring to the offensive protests of the Phelps family of Westboro Baptist Church. What we might, but should not disagree on is whether or not this is a first amendment case. Most of you say it is because you have been taught Supreme Court precedent and not the Constitution. I respectfully dissent.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution were written and ratified to erect bulkheads against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT passing laws and acts or judicial rulings in the area of religion, the press and free speech, these matters were left to the sole discretion of the states. Anyone that is “for a return to the Constitution” must therefore then be for a return to the Bill of Rights as it was ratified but alas, most conservatives and Tea Party members do not want this return.

These protests are a matter for the towns where they are organized to occur in, to vigorously oppose with dedicated anti-Phelps crowds wielding pitchforks and torches and if that doesn’t work, try bare knuckles.

The much anticipated “Pledge to America” represents a glimpse into how Republicans plan to govern, and simply put, it’s a pledge to nowhere!

2010-09-26T13:51:00.000-05:00

Americans disillusioned by the massive expansion of government under President Obama’s administration, and those with short-term memory loss who are pinning their hopes and dreams on a landslide of Republicans taking back Congress after this fall’s elections take note, its still just more CHANGE you cannot believe in.

Indeed, establishment Republicans have released their to-do list and unless you relish suffering from cognitive dissonance while chanting “end big government” at tea party rallies you will be mightily disappointed. Further buttressing claims that there is little philosophical difference between the two parties save for the route in which they take to achieve their statist machinations, Republicans are seeking to repeal "ObamaCare", only so they might offer their version of massive government intervention into the health care sector, or for those with an affinity for sound bite kitsch, “BoehnerCare”.

Boehner and Co. have released a document that tips their hand and tells you where they’re headed and should instruct you that there is no party, none, zero, no political party that stands for limited government, individual liberty and freedom, and the Constitution. They talk a good game, but they’re fakes. They’re liars. They’re hacks. So, ladies and gentlemen, if you will stop what you’re doing right now, let us have a moment of silence for the Republican Party, RIP.

And there’s your moment of silence. That’s it. The party, literally, is over. How did this happen? You have to read this. It’s not enough that the preamble to this thing is an insult to all of your founding father intelligence. If you’re going to quote Thomas Jefferson, then quote him. You don’t expropriate Jefferson for your own singular political purposes. I mean, this is embarrassing. But I can’t wait to hear the hackery out there, “Oh, this is a bold plan. Oh, they’re going to trim a hundred billion dollars out of spending next year. You just wait and see, Chris, a hundred dollars makes a big difference. You wait and see. We’re on the right course. What are we supposed to do?” The empire, as they call it, is striking back [“Star Wars” theme music]. I’d like to see John Boehner in a Darth Vader costume. I’d like to see Eric Cantor in one of those Death Star General get-ups.

I asked Marsha Blackburn, repeal and replace, or repeal and repeal? And I wondered, why couldn’t she just say repeal, repeal the damn ObamaCare? Because what we got was a, I don’t know, a twisted answer. Now, Senator Jim DeMint said Repeal and Repeal, because I asked him about it. Here was Congresswoman Blackburn’s answer:
We are for repealing the healthcare bill, and we are for giving power back to individuals to make those healthcare decisions. And smart women are the drivers on healthcare decisions in their families. What they want is less government interference, less hassle from insurance companies, more accountability with insurance companies. They want to see tort reform take place. And they want to be able to make decisions for their families about their healthcare with the family physician, not with a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. And that is what I am for.

Okay. Did you get that? I’m not going to answer the question because we’ve got this Pledge for America coming out, and we’re for Repeal and Replace. So now you’re going to have ObamaCare replaced, with a couple of internal engine or internal combustion parts, with BoehnerCare or BlackburnCare or CantorCare or WhoeverCare. This is just disgraceful here. Now, either you’re for the repeal of the damn thing, and you’re for the repeal on principle, which should say that the reason that much of the malady and inefficiency that exist in the delivery of medical services today and the expense of it is because, number one, people don’t pay for it. Why don’t they pay for it? Number two, because the federal government subsidizes it; number three, because every man, woman, and child that works in that industry is regulated by the federal government, and that is the root of all medical evil.

So what do we get instead, ladies and gentlemen? Here, I’ll read it to you. Because apparently you people are just not believing this. I didn’t want to believe it, either. Oh, and by the way, we will also get into the massive, massive $100 billion entitlement cut, I mean, $100 billion in discretionary spending they’re going to cut. That will trim Obama’s budget deficit for next year from $1.5 trillion down to 1.4. It’s a sunny day. It is morning in America again; is it not? Here it is, “A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care.” This is from the document, “A Pledge to America.”

Can we now all end, can we now end the pretensions that human nature is not easily readable, and that you don’t have to be a fortune teller, and you don’t have to be a soothsayer, and you don’t have to have some kind of lofty premonition or lofty ESP to figure out what human nature says that crooked, criminal, political hack politicians are going to do in any given circumstance. That’s how I am able to predict these things to you. I wish I would have been wrong on this one. I was hoping I was going to be wrong. So right here from “A Pledge to America,” here’s what it says, “A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care.” There it is, big, giant, bold print, 18 points across the top of the page, unmistakable.

Maybe if the self-dubbed “Young Guns” were focused on leading by virtue of the power given them in the Constitution rather than self promotion, they would realize that words are not enough.....

The Pledge to America outlines how with Republicans in charge by golly, the federal government will get down to the business of creating jobs, in a more “conservative” albeit still inefficient manner.

Pressed by reporters exactly which programs Republicans would cut in order to achieve the much touted spending reductions, Minority Leader Boehner quickly pointed his finger to the sky and began citing well-established catchy Republican talking-points ad nauseam so as to avoid the question while still sounding tough on spending.

As the press continued in vain to pry greater detail regarding how cutting 100 billion dollars annually over the next decade provided any hope whatsoever of avoiding an economic catastrophe for a federal deficit now past 13 trillion, Minority Leader Boehner opted instead to put the onus back onto the American people. He answered their inquiry by stating that the people must be willing to have a grown-up conversation with politicians in Washington if the nation is to avoid a financial disaster. Minority Leader Boehner made no mention whether or not indoor voices will be required should such a meeting ever actually come to fruition.

This is exactly what’s going to happen with what Obama has done, that once the size of the federal leviathan has grown, the nitwits, the DeceptiCons, the fake, phony frauds that call themselves conservatives, that reside in what used to be known as the Republican Party – it’s just a party full of hacks now, with the exception of a few notable exceptions there – that they will claim that, why, we can’t roll all this back. We have responsibilities.

I read you now from the agenda, “A Pledge to America,” the Republican “Pledge to America.” I want you to listen to this. Now, today is either Liberation Day or Mourning Day. Either you’re mourning the death of the Republican Party and have now come fully to grips with what I’ve been telling you for three years now, that there is no hope to save Mordor on the Potomac, it’s over. Let’s bring Bill Paxton in here. You want to hear Bill Paxton??

[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?

[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: Maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal.

[Laughing] So it’s over. There is no opposition party to ObamaCare. They’ve thrown the towel in on that. But I want to read this to you. Now, keep the ratchet effect in mind. Now, your Republican Party is supposed to be the party of limited smaller government. Remember this. Now, I predicted to you, and again, I’m going to say this again for you people that hate my guts or can’t stand the fact that I’m correct on this, that I do not enjoy this. This is not an enjoyable thing for me to say that I was right. I wish, wish wish wish that I was wrong. I’m not, this is not – I’m not happy about this. I would much rather be wrong and live in a limited government constitutional federal republic than I would be proven correct time and time again. I feel it’s beyond my duty as your blog host to play citizen from time to time, and to tell you exactly what I think and where we stand.

We’re screwed. The federal game is over. Your opposition party has mailed it in. We will now be stuck with, just as Higgs predicts and just as I have been informing you, with the size of the government that Nazi Pelosi gave us. These clowns, these Republicans act as if we don’t know that they presided over the largest increase in the size and scope of the federal government in the history of Earth, from 2000 to 2006. And then when Nazi Pelosi took over she just went [mimicking Speaker Pelosi], “Oh, look what they did. We could do more.” And then she took over, and she grew the federal government, and she grew its size and its scope and its powers. And now, just as Higgs has predicted and I have informed you of, the ratchet effect is in effect. You have Republicans now putting in writing that the Pelosi era, the Pelosi-size government will be your government for the rest of your natural-born life. Get used to it.

I don’t believe I’m reading this, seriously. Here’s the headline. I’m reading from their document. “Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels.” Who was running the show during the bailout? It was Pelosi. This was after two years of Pelosi. “With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops” – oh, yes, keep the military industrial complex fully funded and expanding, the empire must grow, after all, don’t you know – “we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least” – wait a minute, ladies and gentlemen, wait for it, wait for it – “saving us at least” – at least how much? [“Austin Powers” fanfare] “$100 billion.” Gee, Dr. Evil, thanks. A hundred billion [laughing hysterically]. That’s a joke; right? That’s a big joke. You’re a funny guy. That’s a joke; right? Well, it’ll save us a hundred billion “...in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.” These people are traitors. Paring it down a hundred billion dollars, after it grew by a trillion? Don’t insult my intelligence. So you’re toast. I’m toast. Our kids are toast. Game over. Just as Bill Paxton said. Game freaking over.

[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?

So now it’s not just Democrats to play the game to eat out our sustenance. As Patrick Henry said, to send battalions of bureaucrats hither and yon like a swarm over the countryside to eat out our sustenance. They’re all in on it now. I’d love to get Robert Higgs take on this. The book is “Crisis and Leviathan,” and Higgs has been proven correct time and time again. Now, let’s get reaction here. Here is DeceptiCon fake, phony fraud hacks on Fox News this morning, whoa, this plan, the people are finally back in charge, you’re going to hear one hack Republican say. So in order, here’s who we have. We have Michele Bachmann, Shelley Moore, and then Spence Bacchus touting this new agenda, this new Pledge to America.

[Clip] Rep. Bachmann: The GOP has done a good job in listening to the heartbeat of the people right now, which is stop, turn the corner, and focus on job creation. [Mike: Oh, my God, oh, help us.]

[Clip] Rep. Capito: From what I’ve seen, I haven’t seen the whole product yet, but I think it encompasses a broad-based feeling of the loss of jobs, the economy. And we’ve stuck to the issues, I believe, that are most important to people in America trying to put food on their tables.

[Clip] Rep. Bacchus: America became the greatest economy on the face of the Earth, three times bigger than the next largest economy, not by government control, not by the government making decisions, but by the power of the people. This is putting the people back in charge of Washington.

Now[Laughing hysterically] That guy’s funny. So Pelosi and Co. spent 3.7 trillion this year, and we’re putting the people back in charge, and we’re only going to spend 3.6 trillion next year, if we get the House back. Oh, that’s putting the people in charge. My, my. Gee. How many hours did you guys stay up, burning midnight oil, to think of that one? Wait a minute, Michele Bachmann is the woman that created the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. The first cut you had, oh, the Republicans have done a good job out there, they’ve got their ear out there listening to the American people out there. So this is what the Tea Party Caucus has always wanted. Just as Gov. Palin said the other day, yes, yes, yes, we don’t want to really – we really don’t want to cut the size and the scope of the federal government. No, no, no. We just want Republicans spending the money and appropriating it.

These people are frauds, ladies and gentlemen. They should be sued and prosecuted for being frauds. How many of your neighbors are going to buy this crap hook, line, and sinker? This is absolutely inexcusable. It is wrong. And I tell you this, now, and you heard Senator DeMint on Sunday say, “Well, I really fear, if we get back in the majority, and we don’t do what we say we’re going to do, that that’s going to be the end of the Republican Party.” The Republican Party is over. It’s dead. Stick a fork in it. It’s dead. Now, they may have the apparatus to help some people like Rand Paul or like Joe Miller and a couple other select individuals win federal office. But fixing this thing from the inside out, let’s just be honest, the Constitution is dead. It was a nice run while we had it. It’s over.

At a time when America needs a bold, simple, fresh plan for putting America on the path to fiscal and constitutional sanity - we get instead an almost 8000 word term paper of inside-the-beltway regurgitation that lacks the one thing the American people seem to be dying to have… actual leadership. Harsh? Hardly.

1. The Pledge fails to address the single greatest threat to our nation’s long term fiscal health - the fact that we have precisely $0 set aside for the more than $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities staring us in the face for social security, medicare and medicaid. Instead, we get more of the same political rhetoric about seniors standing to lose Medicare because of Obamacare. MEDICARE IS BANKRUPT. SOCIAL SECURITY IS BANKRUPT. FOR GOODNESS SAKE, MAN UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

2. The Pledge blatantly fails to even mention earmarks, much less calling for a ban on them. The issue here isn’t about how much money we will save. The issue is about Congressional arrogance - and their naked addiction to using your tax dollars to try to buy off your votes back home.

3. The Pledge offers no significant, concrete plan to reduce spending such as a Balanced Budget Amendment or a Spending Limit Amendment, relying instead on gimmicks like weekly votes on spending cuts and hiring freezes, as well as nebulous promises to cap spending.

4. And perhaps most troubling of all, the Pledge adopts the nonsensical “repeal and replace” mantra for Obamacare - offering as replacement yet more federal government mandates regarding pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on benefits, which begs the question: which mandates are unconstitutional and which ones are not, GOP? And, STOP WITH THE MANDATES. STOP IT. MANDATING THAT INSURERS COVER PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IS JUST AS BAD AS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ON ITS FACE - BUT WORSE, YOU IDIOTS, IT WILL LEAD TO AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT COVER THE ALREADY SICK WITHOUT MANDATING THAT THE HEALTHY PARTICIPATE. JUST STOP IT!

The overall reocurring theme since the release of the GOP pledge is that Statism is only bad when Democrats are in charge, which of course is a fundamentally flawed philosophy and is a belief system that is the complete and total antithesis of their evolution.

[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?

Establishment GOP beginning to Crack as Tea-Party Victories Mount

2010-09-19T09:23:00.000-05:00

What happened last week was one of those moments in life where it dawns on you that, wait a minute, something is afoot here. Wait a minute, something is going on that shouldn’t be going on, hasn’t been going on, isn’t supposed to go on. The establishment nut jobs(repubs and dems alike), those that have had a stranglehold – let’s just go back to the start here for a second, quickly. It was six weeks ago or so when Angelo M. Codevilla released that brilliant essay in the American Spectator magazine about the ruling class, America’s ruling class and how they can be defeated. And a lot of us took to it. A lot of us read it. I can tell you personally that certain scholars read it and applauded it, without getting into any names. I know they read it because they have been writing and blogging about it. And what Mr. Codevilla had done is he had divided the us`s and the thems for the first time in a long time. And he divided the us`s and thems into two groups: the ruling class, which is the Mike Castles, which is the Karl Roves, which is the DeceptiCon and Libtardia establishment; and the rest of us, which he called the “country class.” Well, last week the country class struck back. Last week the country class struck a blow.

You know, here’s what’s happening out there people? Here’s what’s happening. Now, this is the most amazing thing, and this is what ought to have you members of Libtardia scared to death. You’d better start making your plans to travel to Canada. You liberty-hating, big government-embracing fools better make your plans to go live somewhere else because you’re not welcome here anymore, brother and sister. Your days of spending my money are coming to a close. Your days of spending AG’s money are coming to a close. Your days of ordering us about and telling us what we’re going to eat, Michelle Obama, are coming to a close. You’re finished. You’re through.

Here’s what’s happening. Inside the hated by the establishment media, academia, and in most parts, let’s just be honest here, libertarian movement, liberty movement, the Republican Party, it’s not very well liked. It’s looked down upon with scorn. They’re the party of big government, just like the Democrats. They’re the party of war. They’re the party of tax breaks, but only for those – or tax cuts, but only for those qualified and what have you. They grew government at a faster clip than the Democrats before them. They’re not very well liked. But there is an apparatus in place. There is a national apparatus in place that is almost impossible to duplicate. And what you’re seeing happening here is that the actual conservatives, most of you people, and those that call themselves conservatives, limited government types, that you are instructing your party bosses that they’re fired. You’re telling the Karl Roves, you’re telling the Mitch McConnells, you’re telling the Bob Bennetts, you’re telling the Bob Dole types, you’re telling the George W. Bushes, you’re fired. We’re not going to do it your way anymore. We will take you over and beat you from within.

I don’t think that the establishment types have quite gotten a grasp on what’s afoot here, they have gone a government program too far, they have gone a tax increase too far. They have grown Leviathan to the point where it’s so in the faces of people that people must make a choice. And you can’t choose just to be a little bit against government. You can’t choose just to be a little opposed to Big Brother. It’s all or nothing.

And many of you out there are warming to this idea, because I read your emails, I hear your phone calls, I watch your blog posts and what have you. And I’ve seen, just as I’ve seen myself grow more and more alienated, even from the idea of government intervention and the idea of government running this and the idea of politicians doling out favors and controlling what are supposed to be free markets, which are a laughing stock. They’re not even close to being free markets. It is an insult to that entity known as a free market to even call what we have in the United States a free market. Yet we have people, “Oh, we’ve got to go back to the free market.” We haven’t had a free market since the 1850s.

What you’re seeing here is the most momentous pushback in the history of this republic. Now, you can say that the American Revolution was a pushback, and it was, but we weren’t a republic then. We were members, we were colonial members of the empire of Great Britain. And there hasn’t been a groundswell of this type – well, you might be able to say – let me give you a marker here in history. You may, may, may be able to say that maybe, maybe at the turn of the last century, during the women’s suffrage movement, during the movement towards Prohibition, the imposition of the income tax and all that, that there was a movement. But that was not a groundswell and a people’s movement. That was an elitocrat movement. That was led by elitocrats. And they put themselves into positions of power, and we’re still paying for it today. What you’re seeing now is the beginning of the end of that era. That’s what I think.

If you don`t believe me then look at what happened the other night on hannity....the Karl Rove hissy-fit. Do you think that Hannity was taken aback? It looked to me like Sean was in shock. Rove was absolutly losing his frickin` mind....I’m just telling it from one man’s observation point of view, Hannity was in absolute shock at what was coming out of Karl Rove’s mouth.
And what you heard from rove, folks, was the empire striking back.

Don't Place Your Hope On Republicans

2010-09-15T12:15:00.000-05:00

We are on a four-man bobsled with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the entire Obama White House. We’re headed down a black slope at Breckenridge. We’re going down a 90-mile-an-hour slope. There’s a cliff up ahead. It’s on Pike’s Peak, for crying out loud. There’s a 12,000-foot drop ahead of you. And nothing is going to stop – whoof　– going off that cliff. No retrenchment, no amount of tax cuts is going to fix what ails this economy.

Now, I can tell you what would fix it and what would repair it and what would begin the process of bringing prosperity back. But it will be painful in the short run. It will not seem that it’s doing anything of the sort. And, well, no, not John Boehner. You think Boehner’s going to bring prosperity back? What? All right. Well, listen. Of course I am for cutting taxes. But I go beyond that. I mean, I’d rather have less taxes than more taxes. Let me say that.

But I go beyond that. How about abolishing the taxes? How about abolishing the insidious, invidious, heinous, evil, despicable, disgusting impediment to your own personal happiness and to keep the fruits of your own labor, the income tax. How about abolishing that? I’ve talked about abolishing the capital gains tax. I’ve talked about abolishing many taxes, not dealing with them, not making them less progressive, not taxing the rich less. I don’t care what the rich make. I want to be one of them. And I don’t want to pay the rest of you people for my success. And I refuse to hand over my money that I’ve legally earned through my own hard work because you think I should do it, or I should have some guilt trip on my head. That’s socialist, collectivist thinking there, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for thinking that way. That’s the way Marx wanted you to think.

But back to McCain here. McCain’s going to be a leader in the United States Senate. He’s going to get in there, and he’s going to push for amnesty. As soon as this election’s over and he’s assured a seat for six years, he’s going to get in there, and he’s going to betray you people in Arizona, and he’s going to push for amnesty. He’s going to get in there with Lindsey Graham and all the rest of the amnesty crowd, and they’re going to meet with Obama, and they’re going to come up with a deal, and they’re going to – I’m telling you folks. You don’t think that Scott Brown and that crowd, you don’t think that Olympia Snowejob and Susan Collins, you don’t think that they’re not going to pick up right where they left off in 2006 and go right back to amnesty scamnesty sham? They’ll call it "comprehensive immigration reform," is what they’ll call it.

Folks, don’t get me wrong. I know some of you poured your hearts and souls into these elections, in these primaries. [Clapping] God bless you. Thank you. I’m glad that you did. That’s part of the little "r" republican spirit. My point in bringing this up to you today, and to focusing on McCain, is what is going to happen when McCain becomes part of the majority in the United States Senate.

Here’s what’s going to happen. I’ve already told you this. The federal government is out of control. It is too large to be constrained from within, besides the fact that people that are inside of the monster do not want to relinquish control. And they do not want to see their power diminished. It’s as simple as that. Now, if you watch my video on the whiteboard you know that those inside the state governments don’t want to do it either. They know where the gravy train is. They know where the money’s coming from. They know that they can’t tax the citizens directly to provide the services that they want to take credit for, so they let the feds do it for them.

Well, the problem that they’re going to run into and that we’re running into is that they’re all out of money. So now they have to start rearranging the deck chairs. And the only way to rearrange the deck chairs is to do what? What do they always do? Smoke and mirrors. Bait and switch. So the systemic changes that need to occur – let me give you an example of a systemic change that you just heard McCain say that he would vote against and he will not allow happen. He said we’ve got to keep – "We’re going to keep people in their homes." Why should people be kept in their homes? If you are a renter right now, and you dream of purchasing a home someday, let me ask you a question. Answer this yes or no. Or answer this more or less. Those are the two answers, more or less. If you are currently a renter, and you desire to be a homeowner someday, do you want to pay more money for your first home, or would you rather pay, would you like to pay less money for your home?

Now, those of you that are sane and rational want to pay less money for your home. So let me explain something to you, or try to explain to you. That means that every attempt that is made to forestall or to put off a foreclosure, like McCain just said, we’ve got to – we’re going to keep people in their homes. Every attempt that is made to artificially subsidize through government money, which means government money that is stolen at the point of the IRS’s gun from somebody else that had it and given to someone that hasn’t earned it, only prolongs the inevitable. But it also ensures, at least at some level, that you will not get the opportunity to purchase that home at a decreased price. When we get into the economic news later on today, and you see that sales of existing homes have plunged, there’s a reason for that. And the reason for that is that not enough foreclosures have happened, and the prices have not come down in line with what the economy says people should be willing to pay.

There has to be a massive liquidation here. This is going to take years. What is the figure, I think there’s 18 months, or eight months of supply of existing homes on the market. That number has increased. And the reason for that is because the government with its tax subsidies and with its programs is artificially keeping the prices high by not allowing the foreclosures to happen. The foreclosures must happen. And they’re going to happen.

This is the worst part about it. All that you’re doing is prolonging, you’re prolonging the recession and the depression. You’re not doing anything to help it. You’re making it go longer. With every move you make to try to keep the bubbles inflated that were caused by the malinvestment, you’re just putting off the ultimate day of reckoning. And you can’t have growth, you can’t have economic prosperity, not like some of you want, or think you’re going to get, without liquidating the bad assets, without liquidating the loans that shouldn’t have been made. You know what the worst part is, is loans are still being made to people that aren’t going to pay them back.

This my friends is a recipe for further disaster, and all you obama fans and followers are cheering it on, what, are you people braindead or are the elitists right that you people need to be taken care of from cradle to the grave......?
Does the ways of old, "hard work and sacrifice" scare you all that much that you all are willing to sell your souls to the liberal, marxist devil? What part of history don`t you understand, this type of collective behavior has never worked, look at whats happening in cuba as of yesterday........
Its time to wake up folks!

The Intolerance of Islam

2010-09-12T14:50:00.000-05:00

This is the obvious double standard of the most outspoken Muslims when it comes to tolerance. As the controversy over the Mosque at Ground Zero and the on-again-off-again Koran burning continue to saturate the blogosphere, I ask why Americans do not have the right to be outraged when the so-called religion of peace threatens jihad against the smallest slight.

Whether it is calling for the death of a Danish cartoonist or threatening to blow up Burger King over the perceived use of an Islamic symbol, radical Muslims reach a fevered outrage at the drop of a scimitar.

The afore all lead me to ponder, why then cannot Muslims understand the sensitive nature of building a mosque so close to the tragic events of September 11th, and out of respect thereof, (which they would expect if the shoe was on the other foot) just exhibit some class and move the building elsewhere?

How shocking, now the statists claim that liberty is "racist"....

2010-09-11T18:38:00.004-05:00

As the Liberty Movement continues to grow, it is obvious the Statists are perhaps for the first time since the dawn of the Federal Reserve, a bit worried their chokehold over the Republic is slipping. As the people reject evermore weary of the failed promises of Big-Government programs, the current implosion of complete welfare Nation States such as Greece, and a ballooning debt.

People are once again beginning to consider that perhaps living free, responsible for our own decisions and the success or consequences thereof is a better alternative to those who seek to micromanage our lives all the way down to the amount of salt allowed on the dinner table and what type of light bulb we use to illuminate our homes.

This is a nightmare the Central Planners must crush anyway. Thus they return to the tired tactic of playing the race-card,what a surprise.
When all else fails fall back to what works....right race baiters and haters????

Lets get “our government back” from the politicians and special interests that have stolen it.

2010-08-31T10:19:00.003-05:00

There are many thoughtful plans being promoted that should the Republican Party regain control of the House of Representatives, they should pursue. These plans offer various degrees of remodeling the federal system but do nothing to alter its inexorable course toward either an Oligarchy or acting national democratic legislature.

I offer as a counterpoint this brief list of actions that would merely begin the process of “returning to the Constitution”. The list could easily number in the hundreds of pages and resemble one of the current Congress's legislative acts in both size and scope and even that wouldn’t completely “return us to the Constitution.”

With an open mind and with an even more hopeful heart I offer this brief set of actions that would only begin the “return” process and challenge my fellow citizens to consider the magnitude of what must be done to “secure the [former] blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.

This plan outlines a set of goals, questions and statements that you, the reader, can take to your local city council, mayor, representative or even just your neighbors to begin a discussion on how to return our country to the principles our Founding Fathers intended. This discussion is crucial as we approach mid-term elections in roughly two months because now is the opportunity to start turning around the country from the Socialist leanings that the Obama administration is preaching.

1. Freeze all federal hiring, this includes funding requests from the executive branch to hire.
2. Repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and all it’s contingent COLA “mandates” no matter the agency or program they are applicable to.
3. Freeze under threat of rescinding funding any and all new regulations currently under review or consideration
4. Have an up or down vote on a Declaration of War with Iraq and with Afghanistan. if either fails then troop withdrawals must begin immediately.
5. Pass the Private Property Restoration Act which among other things shall forbid any federal magistrate from hearing any cases to restrict use of private property.
6. Repeal the AMT permanently by statute.
7. Repeal the capital gains tax.
8. Refuse to fund the Education Department and the Department of Energy, any programs, grants projects or construction begun under these agencies must cease. The EPA’s charter must be rewritten to make it clear that it only has jurisdiction over federal and or territorial waters and land.
9. Repeal ObamaCare and all contingent legislation. Congress must then use legitimate Commerce Clause powers to “make commerce regular” and remove from the tax code all subsidies, all claims of tax credit, any and all restrictions federal law imposes on the sale or use of major medical health insurance. This must include federal recognition of PPO, HMO or other plans created to satisfy Congress.
10. Repeal the FICA and sunset the program by Jan 1, 2030. Establish a cutoff date for continued payment eligibility such as born on or before December 31, 1959.
11. Repeal the Patriot Act of 2001, 2005 and sunset the Department of Homeland Security on or before December 31, 2012.
12. Repeal all mandates, taxes and law pertaining to the SCHIP program.
13. Announce the return of U.S. Gold and Silver bullion coins as legal tender and order the treasury to begin the purchase of bullion with the intent of eliminating paper currency in favor of gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin backed notes.
14. Pass the Debt Consolidation and Repayment Act. This Act will require the sale of all lands currently “owned” by the U.S. government which do not house “needful buildings, docks, arsenals, forts and magazines”. This is not limited to “Parks” and “National forests”. All proceeds are to be solely applicable to the repayment of the U.S. Governments outstanding debts both domestic and foreign.
15. End the federal tax designations enacted and known as 501 (c), (g), 503, 527 e.g. “non-profits”.
16. Repeal the “Income tax witholding act” and enact an immediate and deduction free, flat income tax law, payable once per year by each citizen.
17. Repeal all corporate and business interest, income and profit taxation.
18. Heed the call of 38 states that shall call an convention to amend the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Now you can fool yourself in believing that just electing republicans will correct the socialist path that our country is on, but trust me you are mistaken because there is nothing in our history to prove that once the government has grabbed more liberty crushing power they will never relent it!

Why history and the past is very important...

2010-08-22T10:21:00.000-05:00

Had a debate with a gentleman yesterday over the founding father, the original intention kick. And I was instructed that I should give up and stop my devotion, stop my promotion of this stupidity called “original intent,” that it doesn’t matter because we’ve made the – we don’t have original intent, and the law of the land is what the Supreme Court says it is. And I said, oh, that’s fantastic, that’s exactly what John Galt did in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.” Soon as the machine came in and said, hey, hey, this is the way it’s going to be, you guys are going to live under what the Council of Goodness and Wellness says you will, you’ll surrender this amount of your wealth, and you will go to work, and you will create this amount of wealth, and then we’ll take it from you. John Galt said, absolutely said that, and did the rest of the Galteans that lived in “Atlas Shrugged.” They all surrendered. We can’t go back to the way we were. This is the law of the land.

And as some of us try and insist on a daily basis, no, the way back through and out of this mess is to get back to the original understanding because it’s simpler, and it removes the ability for the federal tyrant and for the black-robed tyrant and for the tyrannical Congress and for the tyrannical EPA and for the tyrannical FDA and all the rest of them to do the things that they do to you and confiscate your property and redistribute your wealth and impoverish you and enslave your children. This is what is at stake. If you bail on the original intent, and you say it’s a worthless bygone time that we could never go back to, well, then you have sentenced your children to live under this tyranny forevermore. Good luck with that. And I hope you can sleep at night after you’ve made your peace with the Incorporation Doctrine and after you’ve made your peace with Leviathan consuming and crunching out trillions of dollars of manufactured money with your name printed on the debtor note. And all the other tyrannies that they hold over your head and bludgeon you and me, and then they’re going to bludgeon future generations with.

Is that what honorable free men do? We surrender what we know to be right, what we know once worked? This is what we do? That’s the coward’s way out.“Oh, but we’ve got to make our peace with incorporation, Chris, it’s the law of the land.” Well, the law of the land, then, is wrong. And if it was wrong, and it didn’t, and it was not embraced, should I say, when we embarked on this journey, well, then, it’s wrong today. Now, put that in your incorporationista pipe and smoke it. Of course, “But we want little government, Chris. We can get it another way.” Oh, you can? Really.

Walter Williams has a piece out today, “Will Republicans Save Us?” Let me answer that question, Dr. Williams. Uh, no.
By the way, telephone number for all you devotees of the New World Order and the new constitutional interpretation and the Incorporation Doctrine and the doctrine of surrender, please, tell me why you’ve surrendered. I’d love to hear from you. As a matter of fact, why don’t you defend your surrender? How about that?

“The 1994 elections” – wait, wait. “Democrat President Lyndon Johnson’s term of office saw massive increases in federal spending. When Johnson was elected into office in 1964, federal spending was $118 billion.” Oh, Lord, to have that today. 118 billion, man. You talk about federal nirvana. “When he left office in 1968, federal spending was a mere $178 billion, a 66 percent increase. Worse than the massive increase in federal spending, his administration and democratically controlled Congress saddled us with two programs that have helped fuel today’s federal disaster – Medicare and Medicaid.

“The 1994 elections gave Republican control of both the House and Senate. They held a majority for a decade. The 2000 election of George W. Bush as President gave Republicans what the Democrats have now, total control of the legislative and executive branches of government. When Bush came to office, federal spending was $1.788 trillion. When he left office, federal spending was $2.982 trillion. That’s a 60 percent increase in federal spending, closely matching the profligacy of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency.”

Don’t worry, though. When Newtie and Mittie and all the other gang, and Johnnie Boehner and all of them get back in there this time, “You just watch, Chris, they’re going to do it this time. They’re going to hold the line. These Republicans are real conservatives. They’ve seen the light. They’re with the Tea Party now, Chris. You need to get onboard.” [Chuckling]

“During the Republican control,” writes Dr. Walter Williams, “the nation was saddled with massive federal interference in education through No Child [Gets An Education Act]. ...[D]rug handouts became a part of the Republican-controlled Congress’s legacy. And it was during this interval that Congress accelerated its interference, assisted by the Federal Reserve Bank, in the housing market in the name of homeownership that produced much of the financial meltdown that [we] suffered in 2008.

“During the last two years, Democrats have amassed unprecedented growth of federal government power in the forms of bailouts, corporate takeovers, favors to their political allies and nationalization of our healthcare system. My question is how likely is it for Republicans to behave differently if they gain control? Their past behavior doesn’t make one confident that they will behave much differently, but I could be wrong.

“If Republicans win the House of [Representin’], there are measures they should take in their first month of office, and that is to undo most of what the democratically controlled Congress has done. If they don’t win a veto-proof Senate, they can’t undo ObamaCare, but the House alone can refuse to fund any part of it.”

Now, I’ve talked about this for months and months and months, ever since it became a possibility that Republicans could regain control of the House of Representin’. And it’s very simple here. “Well, Chris, they’re not going to have the power to repeal ObamaCare.” You’re right, they’re not going to have the power to repeal ObamaCare. But they hold the power of the purse!

Hey libs you say we dont have any ideas for fixing this country, your the ones with no ideas!

2010-08-13T18:07:00.000-05:00

This Conservative Plan for economic recovery is not painless by any stretch of the imagination. However, the country will ultimately rid itself of crippling debt and entitlements by adopting this approach.

The libs the ones that are responsible for this demise, in large part. And if they extricate themselves from what they have done and repeal and self-regulate themselves and get themselves disinvested from economic activity, well, then, yes, in their absence there will be economic growth.

So let’s go over this plan for economic growth...
One, Obama goes on TV next Tuesday night and announces a freeze in all federal hiring, in all departments. That includes the military.

Two, Obama announces that our affairs overseas have come to an inescapable conclusion, and that we are withdrawing all our forces from the NATO pacts. We’re withdrawing our forces from Okinawa and from Japan. We’re pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’re downsizing the military and making it so that it’s only used to protect the American homeland. We’ll use the savings and the money to build the biggest missile shield in the history of Earth.

Three, after he has stopped all federal hiring at all levels, he then begins the process of attrition, just like what big companies do. If you’re a federal parasite, and you’ve been on the dole for 25, 30 years, and you still think you have 10 left, get an early buyout. Get them off the payroll. Pare the government down.

Four, begin the process of liquidating all public property that is owned by the federal government that is not a needful building, meaning that there are over 80,000 pieces of property that the federal government must pay rent on, must manage the debt on, and must maintain at some level. I know this because Senator Tom Coburn brought it to the floor of the Senate a year and a half ago. So you start selling that property. What do you use the money for? Pay the damn debt down.

Five, not only are you going to extend the Bush tax cuts, you’re going to send a bill to Congress or request the Congress to immediately, immediately cut the capital gains tax rate for the next decade to zero. No capital gains. It’s your money anyways.

And, four, the corporate tax rate needs to be lowered. Cut it down to 10 percent. So you cut the growth of government off. You have to forbid the EPA and the other agencies from writing any new regulations. None. “Chris, what about the environment? What about people’s food supply?” Tough. Manage it yourself. Tell your state, if they think they need to manage it, to hire a private firm to do it. It needs to end.

Now, if you did half of those things, you could at least stop the bleeding. The problem is, again – and this cannot be overstated or stated enough times. The problem is, once again, that too much capital, too much private capital has been consumed and is being consumed by that 7.5 trillion-headed Hydra monster known as Mordor on the Potomac. The problem in your state is that too much private capital is being consumed by your state government, which is why it shouldn’t bother you one iota that state bureaucrats are being laid off.

Oh, and one more thing here. And this nonsense about, oh, we’re going to start laying teachers off. Really? I dont care.....
We’re going to teach you taxpayers a lesson. How dare you say no new taxes? You know what we’re going to do to you? We’re going to take all the services that you like, like your precious little teachers and your precious little libraries, oh, and your police officers, and we’re going to get rid of them. That’s right. We’re going to start cutting them, and we’re going to make you pedestrian peasant plebian masses out there, we’re going to make you police yourselves. We’re going to make you put your own stupid fires out. Really mr maubama? How you like me now? We’re going to make you teach your own children. Really, I say go for it maubama.....

People should welcome these changes, welcome the opportunity to meet these challenges in their own communities without interference from the federal government and without the monkeying around of their business by state governments. That won’t happen, though. There’ll be town hall meetings, and people will cry and wring their hands, [sobbing] “Want my teachers back.” It’s understandable and to be expected.

All right. We have more economic news. “Freddie Mac is seeking a further government infusion of $1.8 billion after again suffering quarterly losses, the company said yesterday. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, government-sponsored lenders that back about half of all U.S. ... loans” – half? Half? You want to try 90 percent? Try getting a mortgage now without Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, thanks to the Dodd-Frank crime family. “The latest cash infusion would bring to $64.1 billion the amount of aid received by the company based just outside Washington ... in McLean, Virginia.”

Why shouldn’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be sent packing? Why should you as a taxpayer subsidize the mortgage of someone in a state far away from you? Why? Explain it to me. Why shouldn’t they be forced to liquidate, just like anyone else that has a horrible business plan and is losing ass loads of money? Why shouldn’t they have to sell their assets off, take their losses, and go under? You don’t think that someone would pick the ball up and would once again, if it were lucrative, and if it were profitable, begin the process of private lending for mortgages again? The fact that these guys are there, they’re preventing the bottoming out, which is going to happen anyways. We’re just delaying it, the bottoming out of the housing market, the biggest bubble ever erected or inflated in the history of the world.

Those of you that work in the construction business, you ought to be hoping that this happens. Your only chance you have of ever going back to work full-time and doing what you love, building homes and what have you, is to liquidate those overpriced properties, get them off the market, get people moving back into houses or renting them so that there will be a demand for new homes to be built at appropriate prices. It’ll never happen as long as the government is subsidizing the failure of tens of millions of mortgage owners, mortgage holders, many of whom aren’t even paying their notes.

I also say the states should nullify everything that the fed gov mandates, if the gov then tells the states that they will be cut off from road funds and school funds I say so be it cause its not their money to give in the first place, but if they want to play hard ball lets play.....i would tell chairman maubama that if they do that how about we (the states) just stop collecting their taxes, and i say come on maubama come on down and try to enforce your bullshit mandates!
Of course it would take a state legislature, gov, and attorney gen will some balls to finally stand up to maubama, and alas i fear that the states aren`t quite ready to do this....

Are you ready to do what must be done to take back this fine nation on gods green earth from the liberals, marxists, socialists and all enemies foriegn and domestic? Are you ready to participate in social disobedience, are you ready to call out obama and all his radical croonies????
Lets be clear about one thing, this will not be painless or easy, you have to be sure you want freedom and liberty......
So ask yourself, do you? Are you ready to return to a conservative way of life, a life of our founding fathers, and our founding document, a life of pride, sacrifice, and hard work???? Ask yourself that!

Ever hear the phrase that,"how do you know where your going, if you dont know where you came from"?

2010-08-08T12:40:00.000-05:00

Now stick with me for a minute while I state my case as I explain who foner is and why he is important to this post.....

Eric Foner: Profile

By Jacob Laksin
DiscoverTheNetworks.org
May 24, 2005

Eric Foner is a neo-Marxist professor of history at Columbia University and one of America’s most prominent tenured radicals. A prolific author and lecturer, he is a former president of several professional historical associations, including the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association. He is also regarded as a leading expert on the Civil War and the Reconstruction period that followed it. A member of the editorial board of The Nation, and his extreme leftist politics have earned him the sobriquet “Eric the Red” among Columbia students.

In many ways, Foner’s radicalism is born of his background. Growing up in New York City in what he has described as a “Communist oriented” family, Foner has long cited his father, a Communist fellow-traveler, as an influence. In his books, Foner has striven to cast his father as a victim of anti-Communist hysteria. To this end, he has related the story of his father’s firing from the City College of New York, where he worked as a history professor, following a series of hearings by a state legislative committee into the clout of Communists in academia. For Foner, this story is illustrative of the unfair treatment suffered by Communist-sympathizers at the hands of “McCarthyite” censors. (Foner’s father understandably declined to testify before the hearings about his political preferences.) Missing from Foner’s account, however, is any mention of the fact that the hearings were coterminous with the years of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, when Communist hangers-on such as Foner’s father pushed the line that the free West, symbolized by America and Britain, posed a far greater threat to world peace than Stalin and his then-allies in Nazi Germany. Foner’s father was hardly the only Communist of his bloodline. Foner’s uncle was the Communist Party labor historian Philip Foner.

Eric Foner has carried on the radical tradition. An outspoken champion of the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 70s, he could not be swayed from his attachment by the USSR’s collapse. This was clearly demonstrated in the summer of 1994, when the leftwing magazine Dissent published an article by a lapsed Communist writer, Eugene Genovese. Titled “The Crimes of Communism: What Did You Know and When Did You Know It?” the article was critical of the Soviet Union’s supporters among the American left, charging them with a willful blindness to the crimes perpetrated by Communist regimes.

In an outraged rebuttal to Genovese’s article, which also appeared in Dissent, Foner attempted to justify the left’s “silence in the face of unspeakable crimes” commited by the Soviet Union. He praised the “communists’ contribution to some of the country’s most important struggles for social betterment.” For Foner, the noble ends justified the murderous means. He further asserted that Genovese’s “current outlook has far more in common with a long tradition of elitist antiliberalism, including Tory romanticism and Old South criticism of capitalism in the nineteenth century, and with various expressions of right-wing ideology in the twentieth.” But Genovese was guilty of a yet more baleful thought crime, according to Foner: He was no longer a reliable propogandist for the radical cause:

The principles he enumerates offer no guidance whatever to those desiring to rethink the history of socialism while retaining a commitment to social change. Had they prevailed throughout American history, there would have been no antislavery movement, no feminism, labor movement, or civil rights struggle.

Foner’s undying support for the Soviet Union found its most vivid expression in his 2002 book, a collection of previously published essays called Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World. In one of these essays, called “The Russians Write a New History,” Foner trained his ire at a new generation of Russian historians. What galled Foner, who worked as a visiting professor in Russia during the presidency of Mikhail Gorbachev, was that these historians dissented from Foner’s hagiographic view of the Soviet past; no longer serving as mere stenographers for Soviet propaganda, they “painted the history of the Soviet era in the blackest hues,” and cared little for the interpretive lexicon of “class” and “imperialism.” Worse, in Foner’s book, they looked with admiration to the United States. So much so, in fact, that Foner was moved to deride his Soviet students’ "love affair with America," and sought to disabuse them of their belief that "America has become the land of liberty and prosperity of our own imagination." Such a belief was unpardonably “one-dimensional,” Foner insisted, reminding his students that the U.S. “has its own complement of mistakes and crimes,” and cautioning them to take note of “America’s ills: poverty, homelessness, racism, unemployment.” With discernible dejection, Foner reported that his condemnations of America were not “greeted with enthusiasm.”

As an avid practitioner of the historicist school of scholarship, Foner has long concentrated on rewriting history in accordance with his radical politics. Yet he is not forthcoming about his patently political revisionism. In innumerable articles and lectures, he has presented his approach as “a candid appraisal of our own society’s strengths and weaknesses, not simply an exercise in self-celebration,” one that invites students of history to think “historically—not mythically” about the American past. But Foner presents only one side of the balance sheet. The history of the United States, he claims, is an unrelieved march of bigotry and oppression. Thus, he has claimed that slavery and racism “were embedded in the Constitution.” Likewise, the American ideals of “freedom” hold no allure to Foner. America, as he sees it, cannot be redeemed from its “debasement of millions of people into slavery and the dispossession of millions of native inhabitants of the Americas.” In Foner’s telling, modern America can scarcely be distinguished from its slave-owning past. In a 1995 editorial for The Nation, Foner impugned the “American residential apartheid” between blacks and whites, which he blamed on “the inequitable operation of a putatively free market.”

Foner’s contemptuous view of American history informs many of his classes—not least his course surveying the history of American radicalism, “The American Radical Tradition.” Because of his bleak reading of America’s past, Foner felt little sympathy for his native country in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Writing in the London Review of Books, he stated: “I’m not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the [Bush] White House.” (He also urged “[American] allies to impose some restraint on the White House.”) Moreover, Foner denounced America’s preemptive war against Iraq. Of the doctrine of preemption, Foner, in an interview with the Columbia Spectator, insisted that it “takes us back to the notion of the rule of the jungle,” and claimed that it was “exactly the same argument” used by the Japanese to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nor was Foner prone to any doubts about the root causes of anti-Americanism around the globe. In a September 2004 article for the History News Network, he explained, “It is based primarily on American policies -- toward Israel, the Palestinians, oil supplies, the region’s corrupt and authoritarian regimes, and, most recently, Iraq.”

Similarly, Foner explained that “longtime allies in Europe” believe that “the war on terrorism is motivated in part by the desire to impose a Pax Americana in a grossly unequal world.” He did not altogether dismiss the notion that the U.S. might have a noble interest in championing democracy across the globe. “Nonetheless,” he wrote in an April 2003 op-ed for the New York Times, “other societies have their own historically developed definitions of freedom and ways of thinking about the social order, which may not exactly match ours. The unregulated free market, for example, can be profoundly destabilizing in societies organized on traditional lines of kinship, ethnicity or community.”

when Communist hangers-on such as Foner’s father pushed the line that the free West, symbolized by America and Britain, posed a far greater threat to world peace than Stalin and his then-allies in Nazi Germany. Foner’s father was hardly the only Communist of his bloodline. Foner’s uncle was the Communist Party labor historian Philip Foner.

Yesterday Ann Coulter wrote this: “The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said, ‘This will not’” – speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment – “‘This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’ In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians” – so Foner’s saying they were talking about Indians is incorrect, incorrect – “because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

“For a hundred years, that was how it stood,” writes Ann Coulter, “with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. And then, out of the blue, in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that ‘no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.’ (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

“Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouvé. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouvé – the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.)” Have you heard about Clement L. – no, nobody has. That’s her point. She’s making a joke. “Bouvé was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge – just some guy who wrote a book.

“So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal [aliens]. On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement – who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.”

So it just continues on, ladies and gentlemen. Now we have this argument here that is not an argument at all. And I wish to spend just a moment going over this, again, because I find myself in the position where some of my peers think that the history of this doesn’t matter. “Chris, what does this have to do with the future? Talk about today. People don’t want to hear about your stupid history lessons.” Well, it does matter. The original intent of that damn amendment is all that matters. What the ratifiers said that it meant is all that matters. When you cave in and say, “Ooh, ooh, well, we have a Supreme Court that says since 1992, ooh, hoo hoo,” that is what is irrelevant.
You must defend the original intent! This is absolute nonsense here with McCain and all these other guys running, “Well, we need an amendment to clarify.” No, we don’t. All we need to do is objectively support and obey the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and what the ratifiers said that it meant. And furthermore, how it was historically implemented!!

So I’m not going to back off the history. The history does matter. And if you don’t like the history, well, then, you should propose an amendment. But not Senator McCain’s amendment. You should propose the anyone that’s born here, they can sneak in by any means, doesn’t matter how they get here, if they pop a kid out here in the territory of a united state, then that kid is a citizen, end of story. But that is not what the Fourteenth Amendment says. So stop regurgitating the lie. It is a misstatement and distortion of American history, and I will not stand for it. And I certainly find it very objectionable and offensive that I am asked to move on. “C’mon, Chris you idiot, let’s deal with the future.” No. Our future is only our future when it relates to our past.

We have institutions for a reason. There is a reason why a Constitution is written. If you desire to amend it and change what it means, then you must pose an amendment. What Senator McCain and Gregg and Graham are droning on about is their ignorance of the Fourteenth Amendment, not their support of it. And all these people out there, “Oh, the Republicans are trying to do this to the Fourteenth Amendment,” this is all playing into the hands of the ruling class, the elitocrats. Let’s distract the people.

You ask yourself how in the hell things got this bad, simple, the marxists have been taking over our educational system and brainwashing our kids for damn near 50 years with their socialist agenda, did you people really believe that when you dump your kids in public schools for 12 hrs a day, 5 days a year, for 12 years that none of their american destroying, hating ways wouldn`t rub off??? Please, wake the hell up, the bottom line is that we did this to ourselves!

“Leaks Add to Pressure on White House Over Strategy.” There is no strategy. What do you mean, adds pressure on strategy?

2010-07-28T13:53:00.000-05:00

There’s this big hoop-de-do with this WikiLeaks thing, this antiwar website that has been gathering and leaking confidential, top-secret documents from the Department of Defense. Can I just ask the question, how is it possible – just consider this for a minute, for a moment. WikiLeaks is able to get its hands on 90,000 – 90,000 – top-secret documents from the war in Afghanistan, covering the time period of 2004 to 2009? 90,000? Who was actually taking the time to fight a war and generate the 90,000 documents necessary to become top-secret? 90,000? That’s the first thing that strikes me. Good Lord, how many other documents are there that we don’t know about that are top secret? 90,000? I mean, that is just – good grief.

And you wonder why these exercises in nation-building are now coming down, or now have the potential to crash down as they should never have been entered into. Maybe that is because there’s a lot less time spent figuring out how to actually fight a war, win it, and get the hell out, and a lot more time spent trying to figure out how to occupy forever and how to build a nation that is acceptable to the people that think we ought to be over there building said nation.

Now, this is an interesting sidebar on this. Congressman Ron Paul has posted this today on the same subject, “On the Bloated Intelligence Bureaucracy.” And he notes this. “Recently the Washington Post ran an extensive report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin on the bloated intelligence community. They found that an estimated 854,000 people hold top-secret security clearances.”

854,000 have top-secret security clearances? “Oh, but don’t worry. We need to spend more on national defense, Mr. Church. We need eight million with top-secret security clearances. Then we’ll really have a handle on this national security, national defense.” Just imagine. If you’ve seen all the wondrous things that we’ve done with 854,000 folks holding top-secret clearances, just imagine what we can do if you multiply that times 10. Just imagine the Fort Hood bombers that we can ignore and not stop before they start blasting up cafeterias full of innocent people. Just imagine the Time Square bombs that we cannot see unless they are erroneously constructed before they are erroneously detonated, or not detonated. Just imagine all the things that cannot be done if you just multiply the 854,000 times 10. Congressman Paul has done a little math here.

“They found that an estimated 854,000 people hold top-secret security clearances. Just what are all these people up to?” asks Ron Paul. “By my calculation, this is about 11,000 intelligence workers per al Qaeda member in Afghanistan.” Can’t we just have one? Can’t we just send Matt Damon over there, “The Bourne Identity”? You only need one good Matt Damon to do all of this. Matt Damon. Right? Have you seen “The Bourne Identity” movies and “The Bourne Supremacy” and all this stuff? What we need is a couple of good Jason Bournes. You don’t need 11,000 top-secret operatives per al Qaeda member. “Oh we have to catalog these guys.” What exactly are these people doing? It’s a good question to ask, don’t you think?

Let’s see here. “This also begs the question, if close to one million people are authorized to know top secrets, how closely guarded are these secrets? They also found that since the September 11th attacks, some 17 million square feet of building space has been built or is being built to accommodate the 250 percent expansion of intelligence organizations. Intelligence work is now done by some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private contracting companies in about 10,000 locations in the United States.

“The former director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, has asserted that U.S. intelligence now has the authority to target American citizens for assassination without charge or trial. How many of these resources are being devoted to spying on American citizens for nefarious reasons at home rather than targeting foreign enemies abroad?”

Hey, but we’re not spending nearly enough on defense. And we’re not spending nearly enough on intelligence. Just a measly 10,000 locations in the United States. We ought to have 150,000 locations. These things should be more populous than 7-Elevens. These things should be more populous than gas stations. These things, these locations where all this top-secret spying is going on should be more populous than anything that we have. These numbers are just startling here.

Listen to this. This is from today’s New York Slimes. Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper writing on the same subject: “Leaks Add to Pressure on White House Over Strategy.” There is no strategy. What do you mean, adds pressure on strategy? “The White House sought to reassert control over the public debate on the Afghanistan war on Monday as political reaction to the disclosure of a six-year archive of classified military documents increased pressure on President Obama to defend his war strategy.”

He doesn’t have a war strategy. Remember, ladies and gents, that it was back in August of 2009, after waiting, what was it, 180-some days from the time that the President said [mimicking President Obama], “Now, I want to be clear. We’re going to have a new plan in Afghanistan because the one we have now sucks because I didn’t design it. And once I get finished up in here, we’re going to have a plan that’s going to kick all al Qaeda ass. And we’re going to have everything we need to win this war in Afghanistan.” And then Obama hired Gen. Stanley McChrystal to write the plan.

Now, remember, this blog was one of the first, if not the first, quite possibly the only outlet to post that writer Andy McCarthy of National Review Online, who would dare to air and dare to talk about what McCarthy had found in the McChrystal report. Because McChrystal had written a plan, a game plan, on how to build Obamastan in Afghanistan. It wasnt a plan to go in and destroy the enemy and get out, it was a plan to occupy their land, to transform them to the new america, to just be their personal police force.......

I say enough is enough, its time to bring our brave boys and girls home, its time for these people in every other country to start defending, taking care of themselves, and if they cant then so be it. It is not our job or responsibility to take care of everyone else in this world, not only can we no longer afford it, but this type of behavior or world view is def unconstitutional...

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."....really pelosi?

2010-07-28T11:31:00.000-05:00

We are just finding out what was contained within that Obamacare law that Obama signed weeks ago.

Here are five things we've learned so far:

One: No sooner had Obamacare passed than the White House discovered that someone goofed. Despite all of Obama's promises and talking points, Obamacare as passed by Congress does not require insurers to cover children with expensive pre-existing medical conditions.

Immediately, the White House got an assurance from the insurers. After demonizing them for months as callous profiteers on others' misery (in fact, the entire industry is barely profitable), Obama now tells Americans that they can trust health insurance companies to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts.

Two: State governments discovered that they are no longer just required to guarantee payment for indigent patients' care under Medicaid. Obamacare changes Medicaid law so that now states must also guarantee treatment to the poor.

This is a thorny issue: Many doctors refuse to see Medicaid patients because the program doesn't pay enough for them to break even. (In some states, payments to doctors have been delayed for months or years.)

Some cash-strapped states expect this new definition to spawn court challenges, which will ultimately force them to pay exorbitantly high prices to doctors and hospitals for their existing patients.

Three: Even as Medicaid's costs increase because of the above, so will the number of Medicaid patients under Obamacare's coverage provisions. Thanks to the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- the special Nebraska provision that was extended to every state in the final version of the bill -- the federal taxpayer is on the hook for 90 percent of the new patients' expenses.

So remember those rosy budget projections about Obamacare reducing the deficit, or at least not costing too much? Forget it.

Four: Douglas Shulman, commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service, announced this week at the National Press Club that Obamacare means he can take your tax refund from you. Obamacare requires Americans to purchase insurance, but contains no serious enforcement mechanisms.

So, Shulman said, the IRS will collect penalties from those who fail to purchase "qualified" insurance by confiscating the interest-free loans that taxpayers make to the government throughout the year through employment withholding.

Five: The ski-tourism industry suddenly realizes that it is endangered by Obamacare. Ski resorts must now provide health care or else pay a fine for each employee who works more than 120 days out of the year -- and many of their employees do.

The bill had applied only at the 150-day threshold, until House Democrats changed it in reconciliation. They also cranked up the fine from $750 to $2,000 per employee, in order to pad their budget numbers.

Those are just five things we've learned, out of more than 2,000 pages. You can bet we'll learn a lot more in the seven months leading up to Election Day.

Speaking of which, on Monday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., explained away public opposition to this new health care law, shaped in large part by the special deals he made with reluctant senators last December.

"The loud minority made a lot of noise," Reid said. "Everybody acknowledges, with rare exception, that what we did with our immediate deliverables was terrific."

Reid's state defies the laws of math. Sixty-two percent of Nevadans somehow constitute a "rare exception." And it looks as though the "loud minority" will send Reid looking for a new insurance plan later this year.

Wow, your so right obama, this reform rocks and your the messiah...in 275 years since the birth of our nation how did we survive without your omnipresent hand and wisdom to guide and tell us what to do??? See, thats the problem with us stupid conservative americans, we can`t be trusted to do anything for ourselves and the liberal politicians always know best, right?
Well this conservative american thinks not! I would never trust an organization, political party, or a president for that matter that subscribes to the belief that the end justifies the means.....

How far we have come when our elected officials no longer follow the constitution when it comes to their legislation, when they see themselves as the ruling class and appoint themselves as kings and queens over the working class and see it as their duty to take from the productive to give to the non-productive just so they will all but insure their reign of power and dominence over the rest of us.

A word of advice to you people who love your free stuff and continue to support these corrupt and immoral men and women, when your liberal masters get done going after us conservatives they will turn all their energy to you and their own kind, you can be sure of that....

Shirley Sherrod resigns from the USDA after racist video surfaces. But are racist practices just the tip of the big government iceburg at the USDA?

2010-07-25T10:16:00.000-05:00

Former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, who was forced to resign after a blogger posted comments she made to an NAACP audience about race, is unsure about returning to a government job, she says.

"I don't want to be the fall guy, the fall girl, for discrimination in the Department of Agriculture," Sherrod told The Associated Press Friday at her southern Georgia home. "I need a little down time to reflect on what's happened the last few days. Is there another place for me to help all of us take advantage of what has happened over the last few days? I don't know yet."

For his part, Obama has ordered a more patient, deliberative style of governance from his aides and Cabinet members after the convulsive week surrounding Sherrod's ouster.

Sherrod, 62, said she'd like to persuade Obama to visit south Georgia.

"I need to get him down here with some regular folks to see how they live and how they get along," Sherrod said. "It might give him a better understanding on how to promote togetherness in this country."

A furor erupted this week over a conservative blogger's posting of portions of a speech Sherrod gave in which she told of giving short shrift attention 24 years ago to the pleas for financial aid by a poor white farmer. Sherrod is black, and the operator of the website BigGovernment.com posted a portion of her speech. The blogger, Andrew Breitbart, said he did so to illustrate racism within the NAACP, which earlier accused the tea party of having racist elements.

It dramatized how the nation's first black president has occasionally struggled with racial tensions since he took office over a year and a half ago, after saying repeatedly during his campaign that he wanted to bridge America's racial divide.

The real issue here is not if this woman is a racist, because she is, what you people should be outraged about is how does this governmental agency with no senate oversight and only answerable to the administration is giving out home loans, yes you heard me right, 100% USDA Home Loans For Buying A House With Bad Credit With No Money Down......
what in the hell does this have to do with the safety of our food supply, and dont give the crap talking point that this for farmers....its not!
Read on:
Rural Home Loans For People With Bad Credit And Single Mothers __ The USDA Farm Home Loans program provides low interest fixed monthly mortgage payment terms to help low and moderate income households afford a house of their own to keep the family together. In such difficult economic conditions, such rural home loans from the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Branch, can offer better credit flexibility compared to traditional lenders in the troubled and sluggish housing and lending market.

Do not be too put off by the "rural home loans" name of this program since many semi-rural properties just outside city limits also fall within the USDA farm home loans eligibility and will not seriously affect your transport options and commuting time to work or schools in the city and business district.

Note that applying for farm loans does not mean you will be living like a farmer, giving up on convenient amenities in the city and quiting your office job to start growing apples. Most sub-rural properties that meet the USDA loan eligibility locations are not more than 30 minutes drive from the nearest major cities.

So get this, the government is telling all their 0 liability voters(I call them lazy, shiftless americans that want something for nothing)that if they have been denied from other government assisted mortgage loan programs due to poor FICO credit score or lack of funds for the down payment, upfront fees, mortgage closing fees etc, you should seriously consider applying for USDA rural development loans instead of continuing to pay money on rentals as tenants. Many households have already benefited from being able to buy a house with no money down using 100% USDA home loans financing and more families are starting to join the program.

Georgia is receiving an additional $30 million in Recovery Act funds for direct home loans through USDA Rural Development, when pooled funds from all states are redistributed from Washington, D.C. These loans are for qualifying families considered to have low and very low incomes to purchase or build a home in a rural area.

“These amounts are greater than the funds we had remaining,” said Ed Peace, director of single family housing for USDA Rural Development in
Georgia. “This is a wonderful opportunity for rural families who want to become homeowners. These funds will disappear after Sept. 30, so we encourage those interested to call us immediately.”

So far, Georgia has helped 288 rural families through the direct home loan program, obligating over $31.7 million to help families achieve the dream of homeownership. The Recovery Act has funded 220 home loans for almost $25.8 million.

“The time has never been better for rural Georgia families to consider buying a home,” said Shirley Sherrod, state director. “These funds can be used to purchase an existing home or to build a new one.”

Besides the Sherrod connection, this USDA program in itself needs to be looked at closely.
This was another government scam to get people into homeownership (backed by the US taxpayer on defaults), very similar to Freddie and Fannie.

Lets not forget they are now giving business and industry loans....

This not to mention that they are giving out loans for misc equipment, cars...and tons of other items and services that have nothing to do with usda operations!

Let us not forget that this does just doesnt involve the president and the dems, the republicans have just as much invested in these kind of policies as the libs do....
These loans are for qualifying families considered to have low and very low incomes to purchase or build a home in a rural area...blah, blah, blah
Isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? Oh well. They can ALWAYS blame it on the GOP. The boys in the GOP don't mind.
CORRECTION:
the ruling class boys in the GOP don't mind.

Newt Gingrich, the Georgia Peach, was on Fox again tonight blathering about "reaching out" to the racist NAACP and "holding town meetings with them".

I bet ole Newt just loves all those millions for home loans pouring into Georgia....and if he can claim a little credit, well....all the better for him when he decides to throw his John Deere cap into the presidential ring.

Oh but whats another $100 million a year between friends right?

Obama signs sweeping financial overhaul into law - Yahoo! News#mwpphu-comment-16847604

2010-07-21T12:34:00.000-05:00

of course obama has signed this bill it doesnt address one aspect of financial reform, it only gives him more control of our economy.
So, between the health reform and now this how much control does this give give him, try 70%........

Obama signs sweeping financial overhaul into law - Yahoo! News#mwpphu-comment-16847604

It Is Hard To Blame The Child When There Is No One To Teach Them Differently

2010-07-11T13:06:00.000-05:00

In 1958, 38 percent of all black children that were born were born in single-parent households or illegitimately, and thats not to mention the percentage of whites, and other nationalities... Used to be called black, white or indifferent, dare I say again, bastards. We dropped that name because that’s not nice. “Who are you to say that there needs to be a man in the house?”
Yes, who am I.
Fast forward to 2006, last statistics I saw, and now 68 percent of all children born in this republic are born to single mothers or in single-parent households. That means – this is an economic problem as well as a social problem. That means that there is a two-thirds chance that there will be no dominant male figure for young men to look up to, learn values, morals, how to treat women, dare I go on?
can’t have that now, can we – and learn how to be a man. Man goes off to work, man protects his family, a man cares for his family.

A man lives his life around his family, a real man does. Most of these young kids will never know this because they won’t be exposed to one. And then once it becomes a cancer and a rot, well, then it’s just self-perpetuating, and it is sad. I mean, it is irresponsible, oh, it’s easy to do, but it’s irresponsible to blame all of those young people that grow up and turn out as bad as they do, as socially reckless and social anarchists as they do. They have no one there to tell them otherwise because the state has said they don’t need to learn otherwise. This to me is the great sin, moral and otherwise, of the so-called Civil Rights Movement and of the black leadership that leads it and continues to lead it down this path of ruin, and the whites and anyone else that goes along with it and doesn’t raise a hand up and say, dude, stop.

I mean, look at these kids. These are beautiful young kids. These are beautiful young Americans. Never going to have a father. Never going to know what that’s like. So society does this to them.
Children, by and large, are products of their upbringing, their socialization. And when responsible parents have basically been economically written out of the equation there, this is what you get. The thing that I see and that bothers me and ought to bother other people the most is that there is no sign of this slowing down. It is anathema to even bring it up. Woe be to the person that even dares to discuss this.

Obama was supposed to erase all these things. He’s made it worse. And he is intentionally, and his administration, it seems to me, is driving the wedge in there to make sure that it stays this way. They want to incourage young single girls to get pregnant, they need this to happen, to add to the numbers of lazy, parasite, users who will suckle at the gov teet......it means more power to these ego driven libs who want to control everything in sight. They wont be satisfied until they destroy everything moral and rightous!
No, we dont need these famlies to have fathers, chairman bama is your daddy! We dont need to work, we can collect 700 weeks of unemplyment ins....we can apply for an endless supply of food stamps.........I mean its free, right? Don`t forget about your free school loans now, and free homes, cell phones and cars too!

My god is there anything this fed gov wont steal from the productive to give to the 0liability voter? Is there anything we can expect these people to do for themselves???? Or is that too much to ask? Why dont you scumbags just take over all of my private property while your at it, oh wait, thats the master plan, isn`t it???

Now, here’s the politics of what’s going to happen.
The Republicans are going to take the House back in November. I think that they are. I don’t think that any fool would say that they’re not. That’s not going to matter. This is a soap opera that you’re witnessing here. They will get into power. They will not have control of the Senate. They will not be able to repeal anything that Pelosi and Obama and Reid and the rest of these criminals have put on us. And if they are able, by some miracle, to get a repeal of ObamaCare through the House and the Senate, Obama’s going to veto it. It will get vetoed. They do not have the two-thirds majorities to overrule these things. Therefore they will remain the law of the land.

And the only hope then is state nullification; or, as I have said over and over again, if at first you don’t secede, try, try again. And then because the taxes and the punishing regulations and the punishing bills and the punishing rules and the mountains of bureaucrats that have been erected here in Obama’s name, which are not going to be disemployed any time soon – because that’s all going to remain. Economic conditions are not going to appreciate. They’re not going to get better. And when that doesn’t happen, well, then, Ms. Pelosi will be there to go [mimicking Speaker Pelosi], “Oh, see, we told you needed more time to fix it. And now the Republicans have screwed it up.” It’s all a very ingenious plan. So they’re going to do everything they can in the lame duck session. They’re not going to attempt much between now and November. They know that they can’t get away with that because they have to pretend like they care about this November election. They don’t. They’ve already written it off.

Virginia Declaration of Rights

2010-07-05T13:26:00.000-05:00

I would bet all the gold in Fort Knox(if theres any left)that obama and all his associates never even read this document, or that they believe that these rights are outdated!

I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

IV That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.

V That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

VI That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.

IX That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

X That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

XIV That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason

Free Speech is Dead! Socialist Dictatorship is Alive!

2010-07-03T13:41:00.000-05:00

If the U.S. Senate approves President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court, it will be the end of the First Amendment right of free speech and move the United States a giant leap closer to Obama’s goal of making us a socialist nation and becoming America’s first dictator.

Kagan, has only written nine articles in her career and in those writings, she has made her stance on the restriction of free speech clearly evident. Starting with her 1993 University of Chicago Law Review article, “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

Just having such speech disappear is not enough for nominee Kagan. In her 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine”, she actually believes that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting.” She went on to support the idea that it is acceptable for the government to restrict any form of speech if it is deemed to be offensive to society or to the government.

In the case of United States v. Stevens, first argued in 2009, the brief, which was signed by Kagan, stated, “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

Does the First Amendment allow for the freedom or restriction of speech to be determined against societal costs? What it does say is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (emphasis mine). At the time our Founding Fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights, the term ‘abridging’ meant ‘to deprive’ or ‘diminish’. They understood the importance of giving people the right to openly criticize their government, especially when those criticisms were justifiable. Yet, Elena Kagan is determined to redefine ‘abridging’ to mean that those in charge will have the power and legal right to determine what one can say about the government, about sinful lifestyles or anything else that might be deemed offensive by the leadership or the vocal minority.

But Wait! There’s More!

Why would President Obama want to appoint someone to the U.S. Supreme Court who has had no judicial experience whatsoever?

Perhaps it has something to do with her undergraduate thesis where she wrote how it saddened her that socialism was declining in America, especially for those that wanted to change America. Obama has surrounded himself with socialists, Maoists and Marxists and Elena Kagan would now add one of his socialist groupies to the highest court in the land.

But Wait! There’s More!

Kagan has also openly endorsed and supported giving the office of President of the United States more power and control than the office already has. We have already seen a tremendous increase in presidential powers during the Clinton administration, but Kagan wants to give the president a larger role in regulation of affairs that deal with his own policies and agenda. This increase in power and restriction of speech could be just one step away for establishing President Obama as America’s first dictator.

When you add all of these together, you should be able to see a clear picture of a person that wants to take away our freedom of speech, give more power to the President and who would be overjoyed to see our country become a socialist nation and Obama wants to put on the Supreme Court where she can effectively rule to make these things happen.

Despite what you think of President Woodrow Wilson, he gave us a very wise warning when he said, “The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death. Concentration of power precedes the destruction of human liberties.”

It is time that Americans stand up and be heard. Everyone needs to contact their U.S. Senator and tell them NOT to approve the appointment of Kagan to the Supreme Court. She is an abomination to everything our Founding Fathers stood for and we need to resist the President’s appointment and let him and everyone else know how anti freedom, anti liberty and anti American Elena Kagan is.

But Wait! There’s More!

Did you know that Elena Kagan, Dean of the Harvard Law School, banned the United States Military from recruiting on the campus of Harvard University? Unbelievable... or is it?

Sign Our Free Congressional Petition to Stop Kagan's Nomination & Protect Freedom of Speech @
http://patriotupdate.com/stories/read/3626/Sign-Petition-to-Stop-Elena-Kagans-Nomination-Protect-Free-Speech-

And while we are on the subject of firing socialists in obamas` administration...

Obama's Labor Secretary Approves of Jobs and Pay Raises For Illegals Despite 10% Unemployment...

America is being crippled by 10% unemployment and what does Obama's Labor Secretary have to say? In a recent public service announcement, Hilda Solis stated, “Every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not,” Obama's Labor Secretary is encouraging illegal immigration and subsequently stealing jobs from hard working American citizens.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) called Solis’ comments “an explicit invitation for illegal immigrants to bring the resources and power of the Department of Labor to bear against American employers.” The "We Can Help" Web site says the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division is responsible for administering and enforcing some of the nation's most important worker protection laws – and is “committed to ensuring that workers in this country are paid properly and for all the hours they work, regardless of immigration status.”

In a different section of its Web site, the Labor Department states that “employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States (i.e., citizens and nationals of the U.S.) and aliens authorized to work in the U.S.” These blatant conflicting statements show that Solis’s liberal agenda is the problem. Illegal immigrants need to be arrested and deported, not rewarded.

Rep. King accused the Obama administration of using the limited resources of American taxpayers on behalf of illegal aliens. “It is shameful that Secretary Solis has to be reminded that her primary duty is owed to the American people, and not to those who have illegally entered our country,” said King. “The Obama Administration needs to realize that the American people have a right to have their immigration laws enforced.” Not until we enforce our current laws and secure our border will Americans be safe and have equal rights in the work place.

What follows is a transcript of Solis’s PSA:

"You work hard, and you have the right to be paid fairly. I'm U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent that they earn. Remember, every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not. So, call us -- it is free and confidential -- at 1-866-487-9243. We can help."

Having documentation is not a burden. It provides a safe and civilized society in which to work and live. We welcome legal immigrants in to our country. But those who break our laws show little respect for our society or way of life. Encouraging illegal immigration is not a solution to the problem. Rather, it is a new problem altogether. Hilda should be held accountable for her encouraging the breaking of U.S. laws.

Sign Petiton to Fire Obama's Labor Secretary for Promoting Illegal Immigration!
http://www.visiontoamerica.org/petition/petition-to-fire-obamas-labor-secretary-hilda-solis.html

Gulf Coast blowout

2010-07-03T11:30:00.000-05:00

From: stewart. beyer

-Something everyone should read about the oil spill, since you can't trust what the federal govt is telling you.

Am still going back and forth to Dallas keeping my toe in the oil business. However, fortunately, I am working on a deepwater project in offshore Ghana and will not be sticking my toe into the Gulf of Mexico . Thus, I will still miss the Thursday luncheons for the foreseeable future.

I know many of you are curious as to what is going on in the Gulf, as I am sure you are aware the politicians and press are not well informed and have no interest to be well informed. I have attached a MS Word file with a sketch of the two relief wells which are being drilled as fast as they can to "kill" the blowout well - Macondo #1. It is a good status of the two wells, one of which is closing in on the blowout. When I finish my Dallas gig, I will do a lunch presentation on the incident.

Also, let me share some statistics and personal thoughts which can put this well into perspective.

a. The U.S. has more than 525,000 producing oil wells in the country. With about 5 million barrels per day produced in the U.S. , this means that the average well in the U.S. produces less than 10 barrels per day and included in that average are prolific wells in Alaska and the Gulf which are capable of producing much more. I would bet the median oil rate of a U.S. well is less than 3 barrels per day. More than 31% of the oil wells in the U.S. according to the DOE produce less than one barrel per day!

b. With the Macondo well belching an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 barrels per day means the Macondo well is capable of flowing more than 4,000 to 5,000 average wells in the U.S! Is there no surprise that fields like this one are the prize being sought after by the industry which cannot drill in shallow waters or much of anywhere in the U.S. anymore? This one well produces about 1% of the entire U.S. production rate and is most likely the most productive well in the country! And probably one of the most productive wells in the world. It is too bad that this field will most likely never be produced following shutting and abandoning the Macondo #1 blowout.

c. The only way the Macondo well can be stopped is by intersecting the well with the relief wells being drilled now. If the "junk shot" or "top kill" method would have stopped the flow or the blowout preventer finally closed, the pressured oil would have just ruptured the shallow geological formations and oil would have been coming up in geysers all over the place for miles and then the only way to stop the flow would have been to allow the reservoir to deplete. And this could have been years! Thus, it is a "good" thing that the "top kill" failed.

d. This next statistic is not to bash our president; but to put things into perspective: When Air Force One is in the air, it consumes jet fuel (which incidentally comes from the Gulf of Mexico ) at the rate of 5 gallons per mile as indicated in data released by the govt. And anywhere the pres goes, there are at least two jets of equal size carrying his cars, golf carts, secret service, guests, press, etc. If you make the calculations, this means that when the president takes a junket in Air Force One, he and his entourage are consuming the entire oil production of approximate 450 average oil wells in the U.S. !

e. Tony Hayward, the beaten down CEO of BP, is a friend of mine who I worked with on our project in Colombia in 1994-1997. He was the Exploration Manager for BP's Bogota office. He has a phD in geoscience with highest honors and has more 28 years experience in technical and management positions with BP, which is a heck of a lot more applicable to his job than community organizing. It would be impossible for him to know the level of detail of what happened on that rig; and Rep. Waxman's questioning just revealed the U.S. government's requirement to place personal blame and focus on something other than the administrations failings on a number of fronts. I contend that the pollution in the Gulf is horrific; but the Gulf will recover. However, the government's overreach into the oil industry as a result of the incident will do more harm to the country in the long run. Waxman et. al. will deal more harm to the country which will never be cleaned up. My advice to Tony Hayward when he met with the congressional panel, and his other public appearances, would have been to have a good speech writer and use a teleprompter. That way he could have kept his foot out of his mouth and look more like a competent chief executive.

f. The blowout was clearly caused by human error and an unintentional accident and combination of unforeseen failures of protective devises which all have levels of redundancy. It is very analogous to the loss of the space shuttle Challenger which was destroyed because of seal failure of the solid fuel rocket booster. When that happened, in spite of engineer in Morton Thiokol (manufacturer of the solid fuel booster) pleading to stop the launch following freezing weather at the launch pad; I did not see the head of NASA butchered in front of Congress and asked to jump on a sword. BP has assured everybody that all legitimate claims will be honored; but I heard today that a homeowner was asking reimbursement for loss of home value as surely his failure to sell his home is the fault of BP. Am sure the hookers in New Orleans will charge BP for the loss of income from the rig workers who will be unemployed for six months. How much of the $20 billion will go to ACORN? Will be interesting to follow this money trail........

Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama

2010-06-27T14:26:00.000-05:00

Any man who has the guts to question the president of the United States is a hero in my book......

Jon Voight reads a special message to America about Barack Obama on FOX News's Huckabee show.
Below is the letter he reads to the nation.

"In one year-
The American people are witnessing the greatest lie, that is cleverly orchestrated by President Obama and his whole administration. The lie is a potent aggression that feeds the needs of people who either have not educated themselves enough to understand the assault upon us all, or the very poor needy who need to be taken care of. President Obama feeds these people poison giving them the idea that they are entitled to take from the wealthier who have lived and worked in a democracy that understands that capitalism is the only truth that keeps a nation healthy and fed. Now the lie goes very deep, and President Obama has been cleverly trained in the Alinsky Method. And it would be very important that every American knows what that method is. It is a Socialistic Marxist teaching and with it little by little he rapes this nation taking down our defenses, making new language for the Islamic extremist. The world who looked up to us as a symbol of hope and prosperity now wonders what will become of the entire world if America is losing its power.
The American people who understand exactly what is taking place have come together in the thousands vowing to try to stay together as a unit of love and freedom for all men and women from all walks of life. Shivering to think this once great nation will be a third world country.
This will be the first president to ever weaken the united states of America. President Obama uses his aggression and arrogance for his own agenda against the will of the American people when he should be using his will and aggression against our enemies.
Every loving American for peace and truth and the security of our nation must come out and join the tea parties in their states.
The opposition will continue their tactics they will lie and plant their own bullies amongst us. Everyone must pay close attention to who stands next to them. We can weed out the liars and agitators.
Let us all stay in gods light.
Let no man put us under.
We can and we will prevail.
God bless us all."

Notes on Saul Alinsky and Neo-Marxism:
Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:

"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible.... Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God."

Jonathan Vincent "Jon" Voight Biography:
With his boyish features and baby-blue eyes, Jon Voight could easily have taken the James Dean route to eternal stardom. Two major roles, in Midnight Cowboy and Deliverance - and then bang, gone, but remembered forever as both a pin-up and a consummate, risk-taking artiste, personifying his generation. He could also have done a De Niro - sought out roles that suited him and replayed himself over and over, his very intensity keeping audiences interested. Instead, he took the hardest route of all. He decided, after his first phenomenal success, that he should only take work of depth and meaning. Sounds crazy, doesn't it, considering Hollywood's perennial dearth of both. Yet, for better or worse, Voight battled to maintain this high moral standard for nearly a quarter of a century and, even now that he's mellowed, he remains one of the most fascinating and powerful actors we have. Furthermore, he's one of the very few convincing role models Hollywood might offer to the youth of today. As far as charisma and anti-establishment attitude go, he knocks his supposedly rebellious daughter, Angelina Jolie into a cocked hat.

He was born Jonathan Voight in Yonkers, New York, on the 29th of December, 1938, a matter of months before the outbreak of World War 2. His father, Elmer, was a Czech-American and a golf pro. Though a back injury in his youth ensured he would not enter competitions beyond the age of 20, he nevertheless became an excellent golf teacher. His wife, Barbara, became a homemaker, and was later described by Jon as "a benign general". She was very active, very responsible, and a terrible cook, for which she was mercilessly teased by her three boys, each of whom would become world-renowned in their chosen field. Barry would become a feted expert on volcanoes, working out of Penn State University, while James Wesley - under the name Chip Taylor - would become a legendary songwriter, penning such classics as Wild Thing and Angel Of The Morning.

And then there was Jon. Jon was a born performer, wanting to act from the age of three. Attending the local Archbishop Stepinac High School (exclusively for Catholic boys), he involved himself in school productions in any way he could, both acting and - due to a genuine ability in drawing, painting etc - even designing sets for plays.

Jon was a happy, adaptable and, above all, decent student. Taking to heart his religion's call for us to be good to one another, he found it hard to accept that his Protestant friends were to inevitably burn for Eternity. "I was always trying to be a liaison between the attitudes I was being taught by the Church and my buddies," he later recalled .

Jefferson's Declaration for Taking Arms in defence of the freedom that is our birthright...

2010-06-27T09:55:00.000-05:00

All god fearing, law abiding, freedom loving citizens must read this piece...
in response from Congress' threat to "deem" the Health Care Choices Act of 2009 as "The law of the land"

In Congress, 6 July 1775

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms

A declaration by the representatives of the united colonies of North America, now met in Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in...

and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, thatthis dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.

The legislature of Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms.

Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to sight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause. Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labour, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and unhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike barbarians. -- Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary, as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm, arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great-Britain in the late war, publicly declared, that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies. --Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. -- From that fatal movement, the affairs of the British empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions, that now shake it to its deepest foundations. -- The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and then subduing her faithful friends.

These colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder. -- The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations. -- Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the "murderers" of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried. But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language.

Administration sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful petition to the King, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great-Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure; we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. -- This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy: but subsequent events have shewn, how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.

Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his majesty's speech; our petition, tho' we were told it was a decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his parliament, was huddled into both houses among a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The lords and commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that "a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts-Bay; and that those concerned with it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to inforce due obediance to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature." -- Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of parliament; by another several of them were intirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to general Gage.

Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished peers, and commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on. -- equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? in our circumstances to accept them, would be to deserve them.

Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, general Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts-Bay, and still occupied it a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. -- The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.

By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.

The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supercede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial." -- His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown,besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.

We have rceived certain intelligence, that general Carleton, the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. -- We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather thanto live slaves.

Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. -- Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. -- We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.

Whenever a people is faced with certain demise and tyranny from their elected officials, it is necessary to turn to god and excercise common sense....

According To Congress The Constitution Requires Racism

2010-06-26T22:52:00.000-05:00

“Establishing a so-called Office of Minority and Women Inclusion within each agency is the idea of Democratic Rep. [Marxine] Waters, a Congressional Black Caucus leader and conferee. According to her amendment to the bill [which passed], ‘Each agency shall take affirmative steps to seek diversity in the workplace of the agency, at all levels of the agency,’ including recruiting,” blah blah blah, historically black colleges, women, minority universities, da da da da da. Here’s the worst part. “Each agency, in turn, is required to report to Congress detailed information describing the actions it took to diversify its staff and contract with minority-owned firms.”

This by definition is not – what is that word? What is that term used in the Constitution? Direct taxation, equally apportioned? This is not equally apportioned. The benefits of the tax certainly aren’t equally apportioned. They’re skewed. It says right in there you shall, meaning the Congress shall, enforce this. How? They will compel financial institutions to make decisions, not based on credit-worthiness, not based on employment, based on race solely. Again, the people that have been masquerading around as the defenders, oh, we’ve got to make everything fair, oh, we just want an equal shot, oh, we ought to make all the races equal. You don’t want to make it – you want to do anything but make it equal. It is a playing field that is tilted to one side. And I suppose, if you are fortunate enough, if that’s how you view fortune, as people giving you things, as having money confiscated from those that earn it stolen from them at the point of the IRS’s gun, and then redistributed to someone else because they happen to have been born in the proper racial category, I suppose that’s fortune. Is it?

Are there millions of people, tens of millions that will accept this? Absolutely. With impunity. And they’ll tell you about it that they’re accepting it. Oh, yeah, I’m taking it. You owe me. I do? Yeah, yeah, yeah. This country owes me. The world owes me. Why? Because once upon a time there were people that looked like me that were locked up, and they were called slaves, and you owe me. So this is the payback here. You know what I would rather? I would just rather the Spike Lee types and all the little foot soldiers that follow him and Marxine Waters and all the rest of them, why don’t you just tell me – I want to spare my children from this ignominious fate. Why don’t you just give me a bill? Give me an amount. What do you want from me? Even though my ancestors weren’t here when that happened, just give me an amount. How much is enough? What do you want? What do you want from me and my family? Give me a bill. I’ll pay it right now. If it’ll shut you up and make you stop pining away to do this to my kids, I’ll give it to you right now. What’s the amount? C’mon, be honest with me, you cowards. You want 50 grand? You need 50 large? Is that what you need? Will that shut you up? Will that make you happy for the rest of your life? Will that make it equal? Will that make it fair?

I mean, this, folks, this is a criminal enterprise here. This is legitimizing racism, consecrating it in law, and in financial law. It’s not eliminating it. It is making it legal to be racist. It is making it legal. It is making it compulsory to make decisions based on race. This is the exact opposite. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr., was talking about? Really? This is what people rode buses and got up from the back seat and went to the front for? Really? Someone pushed people aside at water fountains and those purported, what do you call them, iconic lunch counters, really, for this? Boy, that equality thing is something. Where’s the indignity, is what I want to know? Where’s the indignity from those that this is purportedly designed or made to help? Hmm? “Chris, what do you mean by ‘indignity’?” Why aren’t they saying, get out of my way, sucker, I can do that myself? Where’s the pull up by the bootstraps, frontier rugged individualism mentality? What, that only happens if you happen to be born in the right race? Really? You really want to take that to your grave? You really want to pass that along to your children? Do you really? Seriously?

This is pathetic. And the fact that the Dodd crime family and Frank crime family are participating in this, and they’re being cheered on by a willing sycophantic media and by a White House that’s only too happy to embrace this, is chilling. Oh, but we’re going to give police powers, meaning someone, somewhere, is going to have a gun. And to enforce this, they’re going to use the police state. And let’s see, what am I talking about?

“Still, as insurance, the bill also calls for an audit of Fed” – that’s the Federal Reserve – “‘governance’ to examine, among other things – this is from the bill, ‘the extent to which the current system of appointing Federal Reserve bank directors effectively represents the public without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.’ More, the bill sets up a data collection system to monitor small business loans for discrimination. Lenders will now be required to report if small business applicants are minority owned.” What if they’re majority owned? Well, get to the back of the line, then, I guess. “And we haven’t even gotten to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” – that’s what Jon Belmont was droning on about – “the huge new bureaucracy whose mission, among other things, will be to ensure that ‘traditionally underserved consumers and communities have access to lending investment and financial services.’”

Where are these communities? Can you show me one? If I go into the most putrid, ghetto-like, Third World-looking neighborhood in the United States, I will still see people driving around in brand new cars. They will have brand new plasma televisions in their not-so-attractive homes. They’ll be walking around, chatting it up on the latest version of the iPhone or the Crackberry or whatever the hell. Where is the disparity?

“The bureau will wield a big stick in the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, whose role will be enforcing ‘nondiscriminatory access to credit.’ It will have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents, as well as issue temporary orders requiring banks to cease and desist any practice. They will add to and work with HUD’s and Justice’s own diversity cops. The bureau adds a massive new layer of bureaucracy to the four federal agencies already enforcing fair lending compliance under the onerous [Community Resource Act, that’s the] CRA. Banks will now be under enormous political pressure to bend underwriting rules for protected classes with iffy credit.” So if you thought the first subprime mortgage meltdown, bubble, was bad, oh, just wait’ll you get a load of this one. Good grief, folks.

“The bureau, which is the White House’s baby, will invite ‘experts in fair lending [and] civil rights,’ as well as ‘representatives of communities’ – where have I heard that word, oh, community organizers, right, right, got it – ‘representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher priced mortgage loans’ to sit on a Consumer Advisory Board and consult on policy. A research unit, meanwhile, will solicit data and ‘experiences’ from urban housing activists about consumers in ‘underserved communities.’”

You mean like Detroit? Yeah, let’s look at where all the subprime, Section 8, free money lending got home prices in Detroit, Michigan? What is the average sales price now of a home in Detroit, Michigan? Would you like to take a guess? Oh, this has been tried. We already know where this has been tried. It’s been implemented. I can show you where it’s been tried. Detroit, Michigan, average home sale price $7,000. $7,000. What were those same homes worth around 2000? 135,000? 145? That’s a great job, Obama. That’s a great job, Barney. That’s a great job, Chrissy. Wow.

Your gonna sit there and tell us that this is all being done for the betterment of mankind?
I BEG TO DIFFER, THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYOTHER SCAM.....
This is just simple minded folks that think they know more than you do, folks that think they can do whatever the hell they please...and it looks to me that they may be right.
So, the question remains the same it has been since 1776, what are we prepared to do about it?

Jeffe Crouere: Judge Feldman has to carry armed escort after he crosses White House thugs

2010-06-26T22:44:00.000-05:00

While many Americans undoubtedly agree with the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman to overturn the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep water drilling, not everyone is happy. In fact, the Judge is now receiving death threats in the aftermath of his bold ruling.

In issuing his ruling, Feldman said that the moratorium was faulty because there was no “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” While there is often debate about the merits of judicial decisions, seldom does the criticism focus on the integrity of the judge. Right after he issued the ruling, Feldman came under attack as a tool of the oil industry. Media outlets reporters noted that the Judge held stock in oil and gas companies and implied that his decision was based on his own personal financial considerations. Such a personal attack is unfair and completely unwarranted, especially for Feldman, a distinguished judge known for his commitment to the law and a jurist who has earned the praise of people throughout the legal community.

Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling

Judge Feldman will NOT cave into MaObama's demands that he "stay" his ruling

2010-06-26T15:23:00.000-05:00

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans rejected the Obama administration's request to stay his decision that allowed deepwater drilling to resume. The Interior Department suspended drilling after the ruptured BP Plc (BP.L) (BP.N) well began gushing oil into the Gulf more than two months ago.

UPDATE 1-US judge denies stay on drill ban ruling | Reuters

Condoms For Elementary Students? Yes, Says Mass. Town - Are you flipping kidding me????

2010-06-24T18:57:00.000-05:00

Condoms For Elementary Students? Yes, Says Mass. Town - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston

Pelosi wants docs' fee boost, jobs money combined

2010-06-21T18:39:00.000-05:00

Pelosi wants docs' fee boost, jobs money combined
AP - Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:33:58 -0400 (EDT)
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The top House Democrat says her chamber won't vote on Senate legislation to reverse a cut in Medicare payments to doctors.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the bill -- it would reverse a 21 percent cut on Medicare doctor fees that was imposed on Friday -- has to include elements of the Democrats' jobs agenda.

The move by the California Democrat appears aimed at pressuring the Senate to break a logjam on long-sought legislation to extend unemployment benefits and give money to states to help them avoid additional layoffs and furloughs. That bill is stuck on the Senate floor because of a GOP filibuster.

The Senate passed the doctor fee fix as a stand-alone measure on Friday after a GOP filibuster killed the bigger jobs-related measure the night before. The measure would only forestall the cuts -- they are required under a 1990s budget-cutting law that Congress has routinely waived -- for six months.

The House passed legislation to prevent the cuts from going into effect through the end of next year.

"The bill Senate Republicans allowed to pass is not only inadequate with respect to physician fees, but it ignores urgent sections of the House bill to provide jobs," Pelosi said in a statement. "I see no reason to pass this inadequate bill until we see jobs legislation coming out of the Senate."

The Senate bill would also increase payments to providers by 2.2 percent. The legislation, which costs about $6.5 billion, is paid for with a series of health care and pension changes that Democrats and Republicans agreed to.

The larger package stalled in the Senate includes jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, $24 billion in aid to cash-strapped states and the extension of dozens of popular tax breaks for businesses and individuals that expired at the end of last year.

Republicans said it's wrong to hold up the physician fee fix to win passage of additional spending items like a summer jobs initiative.

"Seniors' access to health care is being held hostage to the Democrats' deficit-spending addiction," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.

Its about time that everyday citizens fight back against the hollywood liberal elite!

2010-06-21T17:44:00.000-05:00

new mexico vs val kilmer payback-time:

When actor Val Kilmer recently applied for permits to turn his 6,000-acre ranch outside Santa Fe into an upscale bed-and-breakfast, several of his neighbors protested.
They were incensed about comments attributed to Mr. Kilmer in magazine articles dating to 2003 and 2005. And they didn't want him to get his way on the ranch unless he apologized.

"That's all he has to do, come and apologize," said Jose Garcia, who runs horses on a 50-acre ranch next to Mr. Kilmer's. "We're not intimidated by him."

new-mexico-v-val-kilmer-payback-time: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

All these hollywood elitists are alike, they make their money off of the working man and then they talk crap about america and its citizens........if they dont like us or this country then they can just go to europe and make their millions...
oh thats right if they depended on europe to sustain their lifestyles then they would really have to work!

Well, which i it? Is it a tax or isnt it??? Make up your mind obama

2010-06-20T11:21:00.000-05:00

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax

DISCLOSE ACT - WE MUST DEFEAT THIS BILL

2010-06-19T10:32:00.000-05:00

Dear Fellow Tea Party Patriots,

We have received information from Capitol Hill regarding the "Disclose Act" and we must work to defeat this bill. The vote is expected to take place tonight or tomorrow.

On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (McCain- Feingold) - a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.

Speaker Pelosi and the House Majority Leadership are making it a priority to pass this bill. This bill is designed to take away the influence of Tea Party and other conservative groups in the upcoming November election. We feel like this bill will be successfully challenged in the courts, but the ruling will not come before the November election.

An exemption has been carved out for the Labor Unions and other leftist advocacy groups. The NRA was also exempted so they would not oppose it.

Roll Call Magazine reports today that they have carved out even deeper exemptions in order to assure passage and we believe it clearly shows the intent of the bill is to diminish the effectiveness of Tea Party groups and other newer conservative advocacy groups.

"Facing wide-ranging blowback from an exemption tailored for the National Rifle Association, House Democratic leaders have decided to expand the carve-out from disclosure requirements in a campaign finance measure they are trying to pass this week.
The new standard lowers the membership requirement for outside groups from 1 million members to 500,000. Those groups would still need to have members in 50 states, have existed for 10 years and can accept no more than 15 percent of their funding from corporate or union sources. The broader bill, called the DISCLOSE Act, comes in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision in January that struck down limits on corporate and union spending in elections. The bill would force groups participating in elections to name their top donors, among other changes."

We need you to make phone calls, send emails and faxes and urge the Congressmen listed below to vote no on this bill. If you are a NRA member, we urge that you email the NRA and ask them to oppose this bill.

Together, we can make a difference!

NRA - CCox@NRAHQ.org and KeeneD@CarmenGroup.com

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration 202-225-2801 202-225-5823
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy 202-225-5315 202-226-6866
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-02), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications 202-225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Altmire, Jason (PA-04) 202-225-2565 202-226-2274
Baca, Joe (CA-43) 202-225-6161 202-225-8671
Barrow, John (GA-12) 202-225-2823 202-225-3377
Berry, Marion (AR-01) 202-225-4076 202-225-5602
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02) 202-225-3631 202-225-2203
Boren, Dan (OK-02) 202-225-2701 202-225-3038
Boyd, Allen (FL-02) 202-225-5235 202-225-5615
Bright, Bobby (AL-02) 202-225-2901 202-225-8913
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18) 202-225-6131
Carney, Christopher (PA-10) 202-225-3731
Childers, Travis (MS-01) 202-225-4306 202-225-3549
Cooper, Jim (TN-05) 202-225-4311 202-226-1035
Costa, Jim (CA-20) 202-225-3341 202-225-9308
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28) 202-225-1640 202-225-1641
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03) 202-225-5406 202-225-3103
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04) 202-225-6831 202-226-5172
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02) 202-225-3915 202-225-6798
Gordon, Bart (TN-06) (202) 225-4231
Holden, Tim (PA-17) (202) 225-5546 (202) 226-0996
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01) (202) 225-5311 (202) 225-0254
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07) (202) 225-2731 (202) 225-5773
Markey, Betsy (CO-04) 202.225.4676 202-225-5870
Marshall, Jim (GA-08) 202-225-6531 202-225-3013
Matheson, Jim (UT-02) (202) 225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03) (202) 225-4031 (202) 226-3944
Michaud, Mike (ME-02) 202-225-6306 202-225-2943
Minnick, Walt (ID-01) (202) 225-6611 202) 225-3029
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05) (202) 225-2190 N/A
Moore, Dennis (KS-03) (202) 225-2865 (202) 225-2807
Murphy, Scott (NY-20) (202) 225-5614 (202) 225-1168
Nye, Glenn (VA-02) (202) 225-4215 202) 225-4218
Peterson, Collin (MN-07) (202) 225-2165 202) 225-1593
Salazar, John (CO-03) 202-225-4761 202-226-9669
Scott, David (GA-13) (202) 225-2939 202) 225-4628
Space, Zack (OH-18) (202) 225-6265 (202) 225-3394
Tanner, John (TN-08) (202) 225-4714 (202) 225-1765
Taylor, Gene (MS-04) 202-225-5772 202.225.7074

Thank you friends for your continued support and love for your country and our way of life...

Giulianai to Dylligan: If this had been Bush you'd be running impeachment specials on MSNBC 24/7

2010-06-18T21:39:00.000-05:00

RealClearPolitics - Video - Giuliani: If This Was Bush, He Would Have Been Impeached By Now

Senator Jeff Sessions on kicking Elana Kagan's nomination to the "Hahvahd" Curb

2010-06-18T21:25:00.000-05:00

Sessions Kagan Speech - Rich Lowry - The Corner on National Review Online

Obama Is Doing All He Can - To Hinder Saving The Gulf

2010-06-18T18:25:00.000-05:00

We were silently hoping that the feds had run out of ways to be able to screw up operations for cleaning this oil up (this come directly from folks who live in southeastern Louisiana). But NO. not only does Obama STILL not put a temporary wavier on the JONES ACT, but now the coast guard are literally grabbing the only vessles doing anything and threatening to jail the crews for not being properly license.

the last two weeks Anderson Cooper has been landing some very nice guests. Today his opening remarks made me lose it. According to Anderson Cooper, John Young and Billy Nungesser, the Coast Guard suspended the activites of several vessels who were SUCCESSFULLY cleaning up the oil. The reason? because the vessels were not properly registered.

WHAT?! Registration?! yes, registration, the biggest threat to our environmental clean-up efforts and trying to save the livelihoods of those in the Gulf, because Obama forbid that somebody actual work on saving the gulf if they are not registered properly.

So after letting out that steam, lets objectively look at this, it could be that this registration is needed so that the coast guard knows whats available to them, so its good to keep them off the water until they are registered... that will only take 2 to3 weeks to register the boats. Yep, 2 to 3 WEEKS. And this is only the latest act of interfearence from our wonderful government who insist that they are "going to be relentless" in their efforts down here

Don't forget that the JONES Act , which is over 65 years old, requires that no vessel can operate in conjunction with the federal government UNLESS they are staffed by UNION Members. - You can't make this up.

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/06/14/obama-blocked-clean-up-of-bp-oil-spill-by-friendly-countries-international-assistance-blocked-by-regulations-obama-had-the-authority-to-waive/

Look folks theres no other way to say this, obama doesnt give a crap about louisiana, florida, texas or any other state for that matter, he just cares about his dream for total power and domination and he will do anything OR NOT DO ANYTHING in his power to acheive his goal.
I`m sorry people but its time you people wake up and see this man for what he is, he`s a puppet for the socialist radicals, he`s just a talking piece....no executive experience, no common sense, just a south side chicago thug and crook!

Let me give you an example of how he is a thug and a lying crook...........

In his "we have to destroy oil production in this country" speech is said we’re running out of places to drill for oil, we’re running out of places to drill because the federal government has confiscated the land and has cordoned it off. We’re not running out of places to drill in shallow water. That’s just an abject lie. Here, let me go to this now. Hang on. Where are you? Good lord, I’m all the way down to the bottom of the page, and I still haven’t found it. Oh, here it is. Let me take you back to August 18, 2009: “Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling.” You read that headline correctly, according to The Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is financing oil exploration off the coast – drum roll, please, drum roll – of Brazil. Brazil?

“The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Advisor James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.”

How does the federal government get the authority to loan money to the Brazilian government so that they can explore for oil in shallow water? Here, let’s go through this exercise again. How does the federal government attain the authority, where does it divine said authority, to loan money to another foreign government for any purpose, for that matter? Can you answer that question? I can tell you this, it’s nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. But that doesn’t matter. So the Brazilians don’t have to move to a green economy. So I’m just trying to illustrate here, this is not about saving the damn planet. And this is not about climate change. This is about Obama’s buddies standing there at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange needing him to force, ramrod, shove down our throats this cap-and-destroy, cap-and-tax plan sitting dead as a doornail in the United States Senate.

There’s a follow-up story here from CNNMoney.com, “The one oil stock that may be worth buying” these days. “Brazil is one of the favorites to win the World Cup. It may also be an investor favorite in the hard-hit oil sector. While shares of BP continue to get crushed as the spill in the Gulf of Mexico gets worse by the day, Brazil’s Petrobras has stabilized in the past month. The oil giant, which is controlled by the Brazilian government, is even considering selling a big chunk of stock in order to raise money to finance more drilling off the Brazilian coast.”

Now, bear in mind that I just read you that a large chunk of what Brazil already has was obtained by what? A loan from the Obama administration. So you Brazilians, have at it. Don’t worry. It’s completely safe. Nothing to see here. The beaches of Rio de Janeiro are secure. But the rest of you buffoons over here in the United States get ready for the clean energy economy that, whether you like it or not, you’re going to live under. Back to the digital media files. I just – the juxtaposition here is just, [mimicking President Obama] “We’re going to make the Gulf better than it was before. But if you worked in an oil patch, life sucks for you.”

[Clip] President Obama: For decades we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered.

I ask: We did?

[Clip] President Obama: For decades we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again the path forward has been blocked, not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor. The consequences of our inaction are...

[Clip] President Obama: ...now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America.

I say: Are you kidding me? Countries like China are building coal-fired generating plants. [Mimicking Chinese accent] “As a matter of fact, China has a pledge to build one coal-fired generating plant every week for next 10 year, President Obama.” What are the Chinese doing that has to do with green energy off the Straits of Florida? Hmm? Anyone else remember this? There is oil in shallow water right off the coast of the United States; and it’s easy to get to, too. You know where it is? Yes, in addition to it being off the coast of Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, it’s off the coast of Florida. You ever heard of the Florida Keys? You have? Well. That little body of water that is to the south of the Keys as they stretch out into the Gulf there, it is the Gulf of Mexico, but it is known as the Straits of Florida. What is it that is between Key West and Key Largo or Key Biscayne or Islamorada or any of those Keys, or what is on the other side of the Florida Straits south of those islands I just mentioned? You know what it is? Cuba. What are the Chinese doing down there right now, Mr. President, while they’re out there pursuing their alleged green energy future? I don’t believe this guy even looks into a camera and tells these lies. The Chinese are angle drilling, what is known as angle drilling, into what amounts to the territorial waters of the United States. What are they drilling for? Oil. With the Cubans. The Chinese are exploring for oil in partnerships with the Russkies. Where? Right off the coast of Alaska in the Arctic Ocean. The Chinese are exploring for oil off the coast of South America with who? The Venezuelans. Green energy, China is becoming a green economy, my ass. Unless it’s by attrition here because they have fewer citizens every week than they had the week before.

[Clip] President Obama: We send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil.

I say: So?

[Clip] President Obama: Today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

[Clip] President Obama: We cannot consign our children to this future.

I cant help but laugh at the extent of this mans lines of bullshit and that no one will question him on it.....

[Clip] President Obama: The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful...

My response: Wait, wait, stop [laughing]. We cannot consign our children to the future that, if they want to go to one of Obama’s vaunted schools because education is key, what are you supposed to do? Take the solar transit to get there? We cannot consign our children to this future. This is again, ladies and gentlemen, just more disturbing evidence that everything that has happened before the reign of Barack Hussein has been an aberration. Everything that has happened before the reign of fire of Barack Hussein has been wrong and needs to be rewritten and needs to be done away with.
AND BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

Paying Taxes Now Voluntary????

2010-06-13T12:39:00.000-05:00

A leading member of the Senate argues in this video:

that the U.S. Tax System is completely voluntary. Yes, you read that correctly. In the most Orwellian bit of doublespeak ever offered, including anything printed in the classic 1984 itself, this leading Senator says with a straight face that our tax system is completely voluntary. You may have to go to jail or pay penalties, but he says, “it is a voluntary tax system."
I challenge any person in America to watch the video and tell me the Senator makes sense. The scariest part is he somehow believes what he is saying. Representative Hank Johnson of GA, who worried the island of Guam might tip over:

if we deployed 10,000 soldiers and their families, might not be the dumbest Congressman after all.

How can our Republic survive if we have politicians like these running our country? Senator Ensign of NV is now speaking optimistically about re-election despite lobbying violations with his mistress’s husband. Representative Stouder resigned his seat after an affair with a staff member, with whom he had been actively promoting abstinence. A candidate to replace Senator Dodd of CT, who is widely assumed to be resigning because of his sweetheart loans from Countrywide Financial or his corrupt relationship with Fannie and Freddie, or both, is in hot water for lying about his service in Vietnam, again. He seems to have forgotten that he never actually served overseas, thanks to five consecutive deferments. Why do we support political parties and characters like these?

Now I’m going to make a few of you mad with these next comments, but this must be said. These people are ruining our country. Many of them are idiots and liars, and more than 90% of them get re-elected every two years because WE continue to support this corrupt system. How much longer are we going allow this broken system to persist? For those who are questioning the re-election rate, note in 53 districts in CA on Tuesday, not a single incumbent was defeated. The system is rigged. It is time to fix it.

Two-thirds of those surveyed in a recent USA Today poll:

.

describe themselves as "angry" about the way things are going in the USA, the highest percentage in the decade the question has been asked. By nearly 2-1, they would rather vote for a candidate who has never served in Congress over one with experience. The number of people claiming to be Independent is approaching 40%, with less than a third claiming they are Democrats (32%) or Republicans (28%). Yet 90% of incumbents will win their re-election bid in the House this November.

Are you ready to do things differently? We have the solution, but it does not look like we will get the numbers we need to effect the needed change in 2010. That is more than disappointing, but watching the incumbents win in primary after primary across America I am more convinced than ever that our plan is the only solution. Trying to take the politicians on in individual races is not working and never will. We must convince our family and friends to join us.

Albert Einstein once said, “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” I am as committed to this effort as ever. Our leaders are committed. We are shifting our focus to 2012 and will adjust our strategy since it is obvious the national media is going to ignore us; we hope you will stick with us. We will continue reaching out to every group in America with the understanding that as soon as enough of us rally around this non-partisan approach we can retake control of our government. With two more years, we will have time to reach our membership goal and take the incumbents out in the primaries. If those who feared splitting the vote will get on board, we can elect true citizen representatives in a landslide.
I just hope 2012 isn’t too late!