Thursday, July 30, 2009

Conservative Thought of the Week

"Because a modern economy is so complex, the "wise" men tasked with devising regulations frequently create more problems than they solve".
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

If It Wasn’t So Scary, It Just Might Be Funny

By Susan Brinkmann, For The Bulletin

While on the campaign trail in 2008, President Barack Obama said “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

Is he kidding?

Let’s start with the most recent addition to his circle of friends, Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law Professor and former colleague from the University of Chicago who was just confirmed as head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In a book Sunstein co-authored in 2004, he wrote “[We] could even grant animals a right to bring suit . . . Congress will grant standing to animals to protect their own rights and interests.” Sunstein also advocates for the automatic donation of organs upon a person’s death and, as recently as a 2007 speech at Harvard, called for a ban on hunting and encouraging the public to eat less meat.

Sunstein becomes even more interesting when we consider his better half, the lovely anti-Israel Samantha Powers, author of the America-bashing book, “The Problem from Hell,” who thinks the U.S. brought the 9/11 terrorist attack upon itself by aping the human rights abuses of Israel.

Then there’s John Holdren, the president’s chief science advisor, who co-authored a book in 1977 suggesting radical population control measures such as forcing single women to abort their babies, implanting capsules in people when they reach puberty and/or spiking water reserves with a chemical in order to sterilize them. To achieve these goals, the book suggests setting up an armed “Planetary Regime” to oversee human population levels and control the environment.

However, Harold Hongju Koh, the State Department’s top lawyer, is the staffer who deserves the vaunted title of “Most Radical” member of the Obama Administration. A “transnationalist,” Koh believes the U.S. needs to diminish its “distinctive rights culture” and complains about how the First Amendment places too much emphasis on protecting the speech and religious rights of Americans compared to European and Asian nations. Aside from believing that abortion should be an international human right, Koh also sees no reason why Islam’s Sharia Law should not be applied to select cases in the U.S.

Another pro-global-everything employee of the Obama Administration is our new U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice. A close associate of Brookings Institution president Strobe Talbott who advocates for a world government, Rice also supports “a rapidly deployable international civilian police force,” presumably under the control of the hopelessly dysfunctional U.N.

Our list would not be complete without mentioning the various card-carrying members of the Communist party and socialist organizations that have joined Obama’s ever-widening circle of questionable friends. The recently deposed “green jobs czar,” Van Jones, was a self-admitted communist, and our new Energy and Environment Czar, Carol Browner, was a card-carrying member of Socialists International until her nomination forced her to remove her name from their member list.

And let’s not forget our nation’s top lawyer, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who bemoaned the fact that there was no socialist party in America in her senior thesis at Princeton. Kagan is so staunchly opposed to the U.S. military that she fought all the way to the Supreme Court in 2004 to have recruiters barred from Harvard because of the Pentagon’s policy on gays.

Speaking of the Department of Justice, who could overlook the infamous David Ogden, aka the “porn lawyer,” now serving as Deputy Attorney General? Ogden made a career out of advocating against laws regulating some of the most offensive forms of obscenity. He has represented Playboy and Penthouse, opposed the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 and successfully sought a court order forcing the Library of Congress to use taxpayer money to print Playboy magazine articles in Braille.

Another “jewel” in the DOJ’s crown is Dawn Johnsen, whose appointment to head the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel is being (wisely) held up due to a lack of votes. In various Supreme Court briefs, Johnsen refers to pregnancy as “involuntary servitude” and pregnant women as “fetal containers” and “losers in the contraceptive lottery.”

I can’t resist mentioning another of the president’s agenda-pushing ideologues, the illustrious Kevin Jennings, a gay activist and co-founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Jennings admits that he has always been interested in promoting the homosexual agenda to schoolchildren and is now thrilled to finally have the chance now that Obama appointed him to be – of all things - assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

And we thought Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright were bad!

In light of these “friends,” how should we judge you, Mr. President? As an anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-abortion-population-controlling-porn-loving socialist gay rights advocate?

The cast of characters that comprises our president’s inner circle sounds more like a B-rated Hollywood movie that ought to be called “The Loon Squad.”

If it wasn’t so scary, it might actually be funny.
Written by Susan Brinkmann

Bookmark and Share

Is our Health Care too Expensive?

The Democrats, in trying to sell their health insurance plan, keep bringing up the claim that we spend more money today and, in return, get inferior medical care. Does anyone think that our health care was better in 1950 than it is today?
My father died in 1969 from colon cancer. They didn't have then, colonoscopies like we have access to today. I've had about six colonoscopies over the past 20 years and on two or three occasions I've had polyps removed which probably means that I will die of something other than colon cancer in the future. Think of all the other life saving breakthroughs that have come about over the years that has raised our life expectancy to almost 80 years. This article, that appeared in the WSJ, very succinctly lays to rest the canard that health costs are soaring. I think you will agree with what the author says about this very emotional topic.

Check out our website and view a great video on comparing our medical care with that of Canada. After viewing that video, I'm sure you wouldn't trade what you have here in the U.S.A. with the medical plan in place in Canada.
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
Click this Link below for WSJ article
Health Care- Too Expensive or Better than 1950
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

A Short Course in Brain Surgery -- U.S. Health System vs Canada

A Short Course in Brain Surgery -- U.S. Health System vs Canada

Is Canada's health care system something we should adopt here in the United States? Watch this video and see if that's what we should adopt as our health care system. President Obama and the Democrats are pushing hard for us to adopt a single-payer system modeled after the Canadian system. Watch this eye opening video, it's quite an eye opener.

Please click above link to watch Video

Submitted by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Who Pays For It?

That is the question that many of us should be asking when we see people or government “ripping off” the system. It’s all around for us to see. Just watch one days worth of T.V. and you’ll see what I mean.

Firstly, let’s take the claim on T.V. that if you are over-extended on your credit cards, you can hire “X” Co. to wipe out your debts, no problem, just call the number on the screen! But, there is a problem; somebody is going to have to pay for that forgiveness of your debt. Guess who? You and I! That’s why the credit card companies are “nickel and diming” us to death with petty fees and higher interest costs.

Secondly, another claim that is regularly “hawked” on T.V., is that you can practically wipe out the money you owe the I.R.S. just by hiring the “Y” Co., as advertised. I’m no big fan of the I.R.S., but are they so stupid that someone ripping off the tax code, by design or ignorance, will have his debt cancelled outright– no problem according to the “barker” in the T.V. ad. The problem is that we will have to pay more to make up for the tax deadbeats ripping off the system, especially since Pres. Obama is spending our tax money like a “Drunken Sailor”. Oops, sorry about the comparison, Obama makes drunken sailors look frugal.

Thirdly, another mind boggling claim that seems ridiculous is that a person who thinks he/she needs a motorized scooter, for medical reasons, has no worries in trying to obtain one – in fact one of the ads says that if you get turned down by Medicare, they’ll give you the scooter free of charge. (I’ll bet the Co. hasn’t given away one yet?). The cost charged to Medicare is twice the cost if you had to purchase it outright by yourself. That’s an example of why Medicare (and Medicaid) is in financial trouble. Waste and inefficiency is rife and rampant, as a government bureaucrat is dealing with taxpayer money, not his own.

Fourthly, how many times a day have you seen the ad from law firms trying to drum up clients who might have been exposed to asbestos sometime in their life? The disease – Mesothelioma is the “disease du jour” for the lawyers to cash in on today. Years ago, no one knew asbestos was a carcinogen, it was a legal substance used for insulation and wall boards. Now, people are claiming that companies (through their insurance companies) must be held liable for using a “legal” substance approved by the government. In addition to companies going out of business because of these lawsuits, the costs to the other companies being sued will be passed onto the shoulders of we, the poor schlumps, and the purchasers of insurance and the consumers of the products they make.

Finally, our government has allocated billions of dollars for a so-called “stimulus” plan to generate economic recovery. One problem, we don’t have the money they plan on spending and it has not done what the government bureaucrats said it would do, create jobs. So far, it is a failure in practice, but it is successful in skyrocketing our deficit to $1.6 trillion by the end of 2009. It is projected by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) that our deficit will balloon to $10 trillion in ten years. Does anybody in charge have any economic common sense to see the errors of spending money we don’t have?

So who will pay for it in all the above cases? You got it, it us the ordinary people, plus our children and grandchildren, most all playing by the rules, who will have make up for the deceit of others. What a system, what a country!

Written by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Obama Agenda Protest-downtown Chicago

Right in Obama's back yard!! I'm more proud of the folks in the windy city, than I thought was ever possible! By the way, I didn't see the ABC CBS NBC CNN MSNBC covering this - did you? Wonder why...

Those who have visited Chicago will recognize the downtown area.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Conservative Thought of the Week

According to a liberal, an "Uncle Tom" is a black who says that he doesn't need welfare, affirmative action, busing and is in favor of school vouchers, and to enjoy his/her life to the fullest and to achieve what he/she deserves. Imagine the colossal nerve of saying that a black person who doesn't hold certain liberal views, isn't really black at all?"

Submitted by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Friday, July 24, 2009

Government Entitlements

Most all of my e-mail friends are on Medicare, retired, or close to joining the bankrupt government programs that are in place right now. With the ambitious proposals of the "Narcissist in Chief" concerning our health insurance problem, this attached link found below seems to capture the predicament we are in and which is causing much angst among all of us. Even with all the sweet talk and empty rhetoric that was spouted at his news conference on Wednesday, the Messiah was unable to explain exactly what he wanted us to accept. No matter what the spin or flowery goals he has used in explaining his "health insurance plan" - you can't polish horse manure - and that is what he was trying to do.
Written by Chuck Lehmann

Further reference to this subject matter can be found at Link below

"GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors Link"

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Which Obama Did You Vote For?

This video outlines some of the MANY lies Obama has been passing around over the years.

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Republicans Who Eat Their Own!

Some of the most vicious and critical comments about Sarah Palin are from people who claim to be Republicans, our so-called friends. I think that the criticism of the Palin candidacy, by these “friends”, was taken right out of the talking points of the DNC or the venom of the MSNBC talking heads. Nobody, of substance, who supported the inclusion of Palin on the ticket, has claimed that Sarah Palin was the “only” one who could’ve been vice-president or who could’ve carried the cudgel for the conservative wing of the G.O.P. She represented what was missing in the McCain campaign, a real conservative voice. To equate her with the defeat of McCain is ludicrous. McCain would’ve lost by more votes than he did without her on the ticket; he was that bad as a candidate. I was energized when she was chosen because she was someone who finally addressed some of the conservative ideas that was missing with the “Democrat-Lite” rhetoric and policies of McCain. She was a definite asset and will be again in the future.

The news media and the Saul Alinsky bred members of the Obama team pulled out one of the “Rules for Radicals” that Alinsky based his philosophy on. That was to diminish your opponent by mockery and belittlement. She made mistakes, no doubt, but were they any worse than the mistakes of Obama or Biden who made plenty but were not reported or they were played down by a fawning media? Knowing what gaffe-a-minute Biden has turned into (or he was that all along), why continue to push the canard that she was stupid, ala the Tina Fey depiction on SNL? What mainly did the McCain-Palin ticket “in” was not Palin, but the candidate himself and the sharp increase in the price of energy and the economic meltdown in September. Even Jesus Christ would’ve lost under those circumstances.

So, I think it unfair that her opponents and G.O.P. “friends” who are perpetuating the idea that Palin was a disaster for the G.O.P. are not reading the “tea leaves” with any great insight. She was the “shining star” in an otherwise lackluster campaign. She, at least, was willing to get down and dirty to confront the obvious misinformation that the Democrats and the Obama campaign were passing out as the truth. McCain was wantonly passive in confronting the opposition.

I think her resignation, as governor, was a great decision on her part. She had become a lightening rod for her political enemies who relentlessly have been going after her because of the fear that her popularity might just spill over to moderate and independent voters, who are getting jaded by the failures of the Obama Administration. She will be a “rock star” around the country when she gives speeches or attends fund raisers for G.O.P. candidates, and when her book is published. Candidate in 2012, I doubt it? My favorite still is Mitt Romney, the candidate we needed (or still need) during these perilous economic times. Charlie Christ is definitely not the answer as he is “McCain-lite” and not someone who will energize the G.O.P. base. His campaign war-chest might pull him through in his race for the Florida senate seat, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

A return to the Gingrich inspired “Contract with America” is definitely something the G.O.P. needs to do. The local congressional candidate in the 22nd C.D., Lt. Col. Allen West, is the poster boy for what the G.O.P. needs to do to re-take the Congress. He isn’t afraid to say what he means and he means what he says with conviction and verve. He’s a leader and a man of integrity, something that is missing in most all our politicians today.

So, fellow Republicans, don’t fall into the trap of “eating your own”. The liberals “hate” Sarah Palin because she’s very attractive, she’s aggressive, a no-nonsense advocate, she’s anti-abortion and she has religious values – all things that are an anathema to the liberal establishment and therefore she must be marginalized. You are buying into that false premise and harming our chances to re-take the congress next year, if you continue with this cannibalization of Sarah Palin. SO KNOCK IT OFF!

Written by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Conservative Quote of the Week

"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own"

Written by Milton Friedman, Noted Economist

Bookmark and Share

Monday, July 20, 2009

Palin Derangement Syndrome

Just by mentioning the name of Sarah Palin will get all the liberals crazy as most all have the malady call PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome). I'm waiting for the venom to be directed at me by the "tolerant left" who always champion free speech as long as you agree with them. The personal insults directed at Sarah Palin by the secular progressive left is unprecedented, even in this highly charged political climate. When a politician's personal life and family become the major means of attack upon that person, you know that the monkeys are running the zoo. The most vicious and personal attacks are put forth by the new "Misogynists", jealous and envious women themselves. Where are the so-called women's groups coming to her defense? It is quite obvious that N.O.W. and others will only come to the defense of "only" liberal thinking women. How sad and so hypocritical.
Written by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Hey, maybe someone should “claw back” Pay Czar’s big pay!

Written By Michelle Malkin
My column last week on Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg spotlighted his declaration of authority to retroactively “claw back” CEO compensation packages offered by TARP recipients that he deemed “excessive.”

Reuters reports today that His Highness the Special Master of Compensation himself has raked in some hefty compensation packages:

The “pay czar” tasked by the U.S. government with ruling on the eye-popping compensation of some of Wall Street’s top earners is far from a stranger to big paychecks and the trappings of wealth.

Kenneth Feinberg made $5.76 million last year as a partner in his Washington law firm, Feinberg Rozen LLP, according to a government ethics filing obtained by Reuters.

And his assets, which include a stake in his law firm, two homes and dozens of investments, are worth anywhere from $11 million to $37 million, according to the filing, which places assets in broad value categories.

His homes are a $1.66 million house in Bethesda, Maryland, near Washington, and a $1.96 million vacation home in West Tisbury, Massachusetts, on Martha’s Vineyard.

The article quotes experts who express hopes that Feinberg might be more sympathetic to high income-earners since he has enjoyed considerable income himself.

Nah. All depends on which cronies’ crostinis are being buttered.

Feinberg’s new filings also reveal potential conflicts of interest and — surprise — massive campaign contributions to the Special Master’s Democrat Masters:

A one-time chief of staff to U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, who died Tuesday, Feinberg is also active politically, making more than $300,000 in campaign contributions since 1990, mostly to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The recipients include Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Birds of a feather…

By Michelle Malkin

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, July 18, 2009

After Six Months of the Messiah

After six months of the reign of the “Messiah”, President Obama, does anyone reading this, who voted for him, have any tinge of buyers remorse?

Remember when everyone here was complaining about the Bush deficit and how irresponsible he was, well, what about quadrupling it in six months, not 8 years? How can liberals now defend the indefensible? Does partisan political consideration trump economic commonsense?

How do you responsibly raise taxes during an economic recession? The “Pied Piper of Cluelessness” has no clue as to what his economic and taxing policies will produce as a drag on our economy and its eventual recovery?

How do you spend trillions of dollars you don’t have to spend? When only 60% of the people pay income taxes and the other 40% don’t, there will be a tax revolt sometime in the future. People are starting to realize that the “power to tax is the power to destroy”, everyone, it seems, except the President and the Democratic Congress. Did you notice that most all of the power players in the Obama Administration are lawyers? How many have had actual business experience? Truthfully, if you were looking for a CEO to run your business, would you hire Obama to run it?

Obama likens himself to FDR, who said, “We have nothing to fear, except fear itself”, but Obama has changed that phrase to, “You have nothing to fear, except not enough fear”.

A basic economic principle is that you can’t create prosperity by over taxing the productive citizens, and by spending money that you don’t have on the non-productive citizens. That is a recipe for economic disaster, but what can you expect from a “community organizer” who was raised on the principles and ideas of Saul Alinsky and the views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Remember, “You can take the man out of Chicago, but you can’t take Chicago out of the man”.
Written by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Conservative Quote of the Week

"Instead of knowledge, students are given classes in "self-esteem", so that they can vent their ignorance with confidence."

Submitted by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

ACORN workers busted on voter fraud charges in Miami

MIAMI — Armed with a tip from the grassroots group ACORN about its own workers, authorities on Wednesday began arresting 11 people suspected of falsifying hundreds of voter applications during a registration drive last year.

ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has long been accused by Republican and conservative activists — fed by talk-radio hosts — of fraudulently registering voters. But Miami-Dade prosecutors gave credit to the group for coming forward and ACORN officials said they felt vindicated.

"It shows that we take the integrity of our voter registration work with the utmost seriousness," said ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring. "We turn in people who try to game the system."

Although ACORN is nonpartisan, its registration efforts focus on low-income and minority populations who tend to vote for Democrats; critics contend those efforts frequently bend or break registration rules. At times during the 2008 presidential campaign, people attending rallies for Republican nominee John McCain broke into chants of "No More ACORN!"

Last year, ACORN's national drive produced some 1.3 million voter applications.

ACORN first detected problems in Miami-Dade County in June 2008, according to a letter the group wrote to prosecutors. Investigators eventually determined that 11 canvassers, who were paid between $8 and $10 an hour, were turning in fake registration cards, mostly from the Homestead area.

"This is really about money. These are people who decided not to work," said Ed Griffith, spokesman for Miami-Dade State Attorney Katharine Fernandez Rundle.

The 11 workers each face multiple counts of two felony charges: false swearing in connection with voting and submission of false voter registration information. Each count is punishable by up to five years in prison.

The suspects collectively turned in about 1,400 registration cards, of which 888 were later found to be faked. Some contained names of celebrities such as actor Paul Newman, while in other cases the same real voter's name was used on multiple applications. There was no evidence anyone voted who should not have.

The FBI and Florida Department of Law Enforcement had made five arrests by midday and were looking for the remaining suspects. ACORN officials said the group regularly reports suspected fraud to authorities nationwide but the Miami prosecution marks one of the few times the complaints were taken seriously.

ACORN itself last year was the subject of fraudulent registration complaints in Missouri, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina, among others

Bookmark and Share

Conservative Quote of the Week

"It is irresponsible the way the liberal Democrats demonize the wealthy and have turned "rich" into a 4 letter word. Indeed, it is the "rich" (synonym for successful) who take risks, build businesses, and create jobs. A worker once said, "I never worked for a poor man".

Written by Fred Page

Bookmark and Share

Monday, July 13, 2009

Me, Myself, and I!

Those are the pronouns that a narcissist would generally use to the exclusion of all others. The term narcissism is defined as the trait of excessive self-love, based on self-image or ego. We have a famous politician today who seems to meet the criteria of how a narcissist conducts himself in public. His name is President Barack Hussein Obama. If you notice, in most all of President Obama’s speeches, everything is about him and what he will do for and by himself for the country. Very seldom does the word “we” or “our” appear in his verbiage as he pontificates on high from his teleprompter assisted speeches.

People in the field of training public speakers and salesmen, most always emphasize that to be successful and have empathy for your audience or customer and to gain credibility, you should always use the words “we” and “our” instead of me, myself and I.

The people who have an advanced case of narcissism, constantly use the words me, myself and I, mainly because they have an over inflated opinion of themselves and they are in dire need of attention to feed their ego and self-image. With all his excellent skills as an orator, I’m surprised his speechwriters or image handlers don’t clue him in on the proper technique of using words that do not over-hype himself and his minimal grasp of the workings of the presidency and the challenges he faces in a volatile world.

All of us, to some extent, have a certain amount of narcissism within us, but when a persons own self-importance takes over his whole life, that person has a problem relating to others around him and he tries extra hard to get approval and to have others love and accept him.

The U.S. government is too big to be run by one person with a big ego problem. Ronald Reagan was a perfect example of a president that who didn’t take himself to be all that important. He delegated many duties to his trusted underlings, but he always maintained that he was in charge and responsible for what went on around him as the president.

If you look at Reagan’s speeches, he very seldom used the words “me”, “myself” or “I” in getting across his points across to his listeners. Maybe it was his training as an actor, but whatever it was, he knew how to make a speech to get an audience enraptured into what he was saying. He didn’t have an over inflated ego like former President Clinton and President Obama seem to have. Both Clinton and Obama are considered excellent public speakers, but both used the words “me”, “myself”, and “I” excessively in their public oratory.

Charles Krauthammer, esteemed columnist and a licensed psychiatrist, said the following; “Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, have there ever been a presidential nominee and eventually a president with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements”? I guess from this evaluation you could say that President Obama is a narcissist in an empty Armani suit.

I’ll leave it at that!

Written by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Top twelve indicators the economy is bad

12. CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
11. I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
10. I went to buy a toaster oven and they gave me a bank.
9. Hotwheels and Matchbox car companies are now trading higher than GM in the stock market.
8. Obama met with small businesses - GE, Pfizer, Chrysler, Citigroup and
GM, to discuss the Stimulus Package.
7. McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
6 People in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and are learning their
children's names.
5. The most highly-paid job is now jury duty.
4. People in Africa are donating money to Americans. Mothers in Ethiopia are telling their kids, "finish your plate; do you know how many kids are starving in America?"
3. Motel Six won't leave the lights on.
2. The Mafia is laying off judges.

1. If the bank returns your check marked as "insufficient funds," you have to call them and ask if they meant you or them.
Submitted by Jim Pirretti

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Friday, July 10, 2009

Costs of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2001 to 2009

My liberal friends constantly bring up the false comparison that if we didn't have to fund the war in Iraq, we would have more money to fund many more social programs (which the left is enamoured with and which makes them "feel good" to be so benevolent with the taxpayers money, not their own).
I have compiled a breakdown as to how much money we have spent to conduct the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and compare that with what the Obama Administration will spend in just one year.
The phony charge that the left accuses President Bush of spending money like a drunken Cowboy, is not justified by the facts. Yes, Bush should have been more fiscally conservative during his presidency, but to compare him to the "Anointed One" is ludicrous. Since the Afghan War (2001) and the Iraq War (2003) were started, we will have spent a total of $907 billion up till the end of 2009. Compare that to the $1.6 trillion deficit that Obama will have just run up in one year, and you can see that our total expenditure on the war is $800 billion less than what Obama will have spent over and above the budget in just one year. So much for fiscal responsibility and so much that our fiscal woes are all the fault of George W. Bush. Bush was a piker as compared to the Messiah (a/k/a Pres. Barack Hussein Obama). I can feel "buyers remorse" already setting in among many of the Obama supporters as the ramifications of his policies are starting to set in and people see that the "change" they voted for is not the "change" they are getting. The change they see being implimented is right out of the Saul Alinsky and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright handbooks and it is not what the average American wants. Contact your elected representatives and tell them that we don't want America to become a third-rate power by slowly scuttling our economic system that has made us the pre-eminent power and the envy of the world.
God bless America!
Written by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

The Costs of War - 2001 to 2009

The costs of war in Iraq and Afghanistan will total $907 billion by the end of 2009.

The breakdown is as follows:

Iraq = $658 billion (2003-2009) plus $52 billion Supplemental (2009)

Total to be spent on Iraq up till end of 2009 = $710 billion

That’s a total of $130 billion average per year over 7 years.

Afghanistan = $172 billion (2001- 2009) plus $25 billion Supplemental (2009)

Total to be spent on Afghanistan up till end of 2009 = $197 billion

That’s a total of $25 billion average per year over 8 years.

The total amount spent on the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 – 2009 will be $907 billion.

That’s an average of $113.3 billion per year for both wars.

Compare that to the first six months of the Obama Administration which is going to have a deficit of $1.6 trillion and counting.

Facts were gleaned from the National Priorities Project.

Information compiled by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Miranda rights for terrorists

Click on Picture for better viewing

Bookmark and Share

Conservative Quote of the Day

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.
Samuel Adams

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 9, 2009

ACORN Director Pleads Guilty

A high-ranking official at the taxpayer-funded leftist group that conducts fraudulent voter registration drives has pleaded guilty to conspiracy for organizing a scheme that illegally paid workers to register new voters.

As a Nevada field director for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Christopher Edwards paid canvassers—many of them “lazy crack heads”—to register new voters for the 2008 presidential election. He also set illegal quotas of at least 20 voters a day for canvassers to keep their job and offered an additional $5 for registering 21 or more.

ACORN’s shady quota system is illegal in Nevada as well as most states and the Chicago-based community group with strong ties to President Obama faces criminal charges across the nation. As part of Edwards’ guilty plea, he is cooperating with authorities and will testify against several high-ranking ACORN regional officials.

His testimony could strengthen other pending criminal cases against the group and its crooked method of recruiting new voters in low-income, “underserved” communities. For its corrupt 2008 drives alone, ACORN faces criminal charges in Florida, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. In an effort to dismiss the charges in Pennsylvania, the group actually filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the state anti-quota law it violated unconstitutionally interferes with important political activity.

In previous elections, ACORN has been busted for falsifying information to register new voters in numerous other states, including Milwaukee, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina and Colorado to name a few. In 2007 the group settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State after seven workers were caught submitting about 2,000 fake registration forms.

ACORN’s well documented history of fraud and corruption led to an overdue congressional investigation that determined the community group is a criminal enterprise. A lengthy report recently published by the House Committee on Government Reform reveals that ACORN has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systematic fraud and that the group hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.

Incredibly, the radical leftist organization with offices around the nation continues to receive massive amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars for its various community programs. Earlier this year ACORN got a multi billion-dollar infusion—for “neighborhood stabilization activities”—from the monstrous economic recovery bill that was supposed to create new jobs and offer an immediate tax relief to stimulate the ailing economy.

Bookmark and Share

Why Are Jews Liberals?

I'm hoping buyer's remorse on Obama will finally cause a Jewish shift to the right.

One of the most extraordinary features of Barack Obama's victory over John McCain was his capture of 78% of the Jewish vote. To be sure, there was nothing extraordinary about the number itself. Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75%—far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group.

Yet there were reasons to think that it would be different in 2008. The main one was Israel. Despite some slippage in concern for Israel among American Jews, most of them were still telling pollsters that their votes would be strongly influenced by the positions of the two candidates on the Jewish state. This being the case, Mr. McCain's long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him a distinct advantage over Mr. Obama, whose own history consisted of associating with outright enemies of the Jewish state like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the historian Rashid Khalidi.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points. Except for African Americans, who gave him 95% of their vote, Mr. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. Thus the Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics.

These numbers remind us of the extent to which the continued Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: "Jews earn like Episcopalians"—then the most prosperous minority group in America—"and vote like Puerto Ricans," who were then the poorest.

Jews also remain far more heavily committed to the liberal agenda than any of their old ethno-religious New Deal partners. As the eminent sociologist Nathan Glazer has put it, "whatever the promptings of their economic interests," Jews have consistently supported "increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor."

As with these old political and economic questions, so with the newer issues being fought out in the culture wars today. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

Most American Jews sincerely believe that their liberalism, together with their commitment to the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle, stems from the teachings of Judaism and reflects the heritage of "Jewish values." But if this theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community. After all, it is they who are most familiar with the Jewish religious tradition and who shape their lives around its commandments.

Yet the Orthodox enclaves are the only Jewish neighborhoods where Republican candidates get any votes to speak of. Even more telling is that on every single cultural issue, the Orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law. To cite just a few examples: Jewish law permits abortion only to protect the life of the mother; it forbids sex between men; and it prohibits suicide (except when the only alternatives are forced conversion or incest).

The upshot is that in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right. And to the dogmas and commandments of this religion they give the kind of steadfast devotion their forefathers gave to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. For many, moving to the right is invested with much the same horror their forefathers felt about conversion to Christianity.

All this applies most fully to Jews who are Jewish only in an ethnic sense. Indeed, many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

But avowed secularists are not the only Jews who confuse Judaism with liberalism; so do many non-Orthodox Jews who practice this or that traditional observance. It is not for nothing that a cruel wag has described the Reform movement—the largest of the religious denominations within the American Jewish community—as "the Democratic Party with holidays thrown in," and the services in a Reform temple as "the Democratic Party at prayer."

As a Jew who moved from left to right more than four decades ago, I have been hoping for many years that my fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was the case in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Of course in speaking of the difference between left and right, or between liberals and conservatives, I have in mind a divide wider than the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and deeper than electoral politics. The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

In this realm, too, American Jewry surely belongs with the conservatives rather than the liberals. For the social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings throughout the centuries over the face of the earth.

The Jewish immigrants who began coming here from Eastern Europe in the 1880s were right to call America "the golden land." They soon learned that there was no gold in the streets, as some of them may have imagined, which meant that they had to struggle, and struggle hard. But there was another, more precious kind of gold in America. There was freedom and there was opportunity. Blessed with these conditions, we children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these immigrants flourished—and not just in material terms—to an extent unmatched in the history of our people.

What I am saying is that if anything bears eloquent testimony to the infinitely precious virtues of the traditional American system, it is the Jewish experience in this country. Surely, then, we Jews ought to be joining with its defenders against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the philosophical principles, the moral values, and the socioeconomic institutions on whose health and vitality the traditional American system depends.

In 2008, we were faced with a candidate who ran to an unprecedented degree on the premise that the American system was seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record powerfully indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, I hoped that my fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism to which they have remained in thrall long past the point where it has served either their interests or their ideals.

That possibility having been resoundingly dashed, I now grasp for some encouragement from the signs that buyer's remorse is beginning to set in among Jews, as it also seems to be doing among independents. Which is why I am hoping against hope that the exposure of Mr. Obama as a false messiah will at last open the eyes of my fellow Jews to the correlative falsity of the political creed he so perfectly personifies and to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995. His latest book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?" is just out from Doubleday.

Bookmark and Share

RIP, Obamamania

A Great Article By John Lillpop
Barack Obama’s falling star is NOT entirely his fault.

Yes it is true that the man has an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore. He is without question the most narcissistic, egotistical, and arrogant president to have ever occupied the White House.

It is also true that he is an unapologetic Marxist, a man who believes that he has been blessed with the only truth that matters. Only by following his way can America survive and grow, or so he thinks.

However, it was an unhealthy alliance between the mainstream media and vengeful liberals that actually allowed the Barack Obama myth to grow completely out of control.

That alliance turned an extraordinarily bright and charming man of limited achievement into a combination Messiah and Rock Star who was capable of smiting all of the thorny problems badgering weary Americans.

He would solve the economic crisis quickly and fairly, put desperate Americans back to work, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bring the troops home, act to stop global warming from inflicting further harm on Mother Earth, keep people from losing their homes to foreclosure, fix the automobile crisis, and heal the wounds resulting from hundreds of years of racial divide and stress.

When needed, he could even take to the national airwaves to recite bedtime stories full of Hope and more Hope to comfort anguished Americans during difficult times.

According to the mythmakers, Barack Obama was all things to all people. A one-stop Nanny solution to all of life’s challenges and setbacks.

The only problem is that the myth was lacking in transparency and viability. Like most of the president’s policies and actions, the Obama myth was little more than wishful thinking.

Concerned about 46 million uninsured people?

Solution: Cross your fingers, close your eyes and wish for health care reform and PRESTO! you have added 46 million to the ranks of the insured AND reduced costs in the process!

Concerned about terrorism and American homeland security?

Solution: Simply delete the terms “global war on terror” and “Jihad” from the vernacular, and PRESTO! the war on terror is no more!

Concerned about the exploding national debt?

Solution: Spend another few trillion dollars on unneeded programs and PRESTO! you have bought a way off the debt- begets- debt -begets- debt treadmill and are headed to prosperity and greener grass on the other side, forever!

So it was that the Obama Myth grew and grew, sort of at the same time and pace as the Mexican Swine flu as it were.

Unlike the Mexican flu, however, the Obama myth was without substance.

As someone famous once said about Oakland, California, “There is no there there!”

With Barack Obama, there is no there there, either.

That reality has started to resonate with millions of Americans who finally realize that the promised Messiah is actually a community organizer and Robin Hood wannabe who does not grasp the laws of supply and demand.

A Robin Hood who spreads poverty rather than wealth!

Barack Obama, it turns out, is just another privileged malcontent with a chip on his shoulder, but without a clue about how to manage the complex and massive issues confronting a nation of three hundred million people.

Again, it is not entirely Obama’s fault. We allowed him to hoodwink both himself and we the people at the same time!
By John Lillpop

Bookmark and Share

ACORN conspiracy against gun owners discovered

Written by Jim Kouri - Law Enforcement Examiner

ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- a publicly funded national organization linked to voter fraud in several states, is now actively interfering with the exercise of firearm civil rights in New Jersey, and the Second Amendment Foundation is calling for an immediate federal investigation.

One example of ACORN's gun control activism is when its officials intervened in an unsuccessful attempt to defend Jersey City, New Jersey's local gun control ordinance, which was struck down by the New Jersey state court as a violation of state law preempting stronger local gun ordinances.

"ACORN has, since 1998, received an estimated $31 million in government funding," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Now they have intervened in a New Jersey gun rights case in defense of an illegal Jersey City one-gun-a-month ordinance that violates the state preemption statute."

"For the past few election cycles," Gottlieb noted, "ACORN has clearly grown more partisan toward the political Left. ACORN'S PAC, in fact, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, even though their tax-exempt status prohibits endorsement of political candidates. That's hardly surprising since he used to serve as their legal counsel and he taught the group about community organizing. ACORN and Obama are lockstep in seeking to destroy our Second Amendment rights," he stated.

"The organization is currently under FBI investigation over allegations of voter fraud in several states," he added.

"Bad enough that ACORN is implicated in fraudulent activities in several states, but now an ACORN chapter in the Garden State is working against the ability of New Jersey gun owners to exercise a constitutionally protected individual civil right to own a handgun," said former NYPD detective, Sid Frances.

"It is an outrage that this group has intervened to defend an antigun ordinance that has already been declared illegal by the court," he observed. "So long as ACORN accepts one penny of public funding, the organization should remain absolutely neutral on social issues, political campaigns and especially legal actions defending the right to keep and bear arms."

"We call upon the FBI to expand the scope of its ACORN investigation and focus on the group's involvement in the Jersey City case," Gottlieb stated.

"We support Ohio Congressman John Boehner's request that the White House immediately block all federal funding of ACORN activities until this group's questionable activities are fully investigated. We want to know how they are paying for attorneys, and why Seton Hall's Center for Social Justice and the Public Interest Law Center are providing legal assistance to ACORN for this effort."

"This is still the United States, not a socialist gulag," Gottlieb concluded. "Public money should not be given to private organizations which then turn around and utilize that funding to usurp the electoral process and erode constitutionally guaranteed civil rights."

The fact that the federal government would even consider using ACORN as part of its 2010 Census is cause for Americans to be very concerned.

Many political observers see something more sinister at play with Obama and ACORN's interest in disarming law-abiding citizens.

"This gun control effort is part of an overall government takeover by the radical left who now control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The next part of the Obama-ACORN plan is a new military force separate from the US Armed Forces," claims political strategist Mike Baker.

"Obama has called for a 'civilian national security force' as powerful as the U.S. military, comments that were ignored by the vast majority of the corporate media but compared by conservatives to the Nazi Hitler Youth," warns Baker.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," said Obama during his presidential campaign.

Bookmark and Share

Kathleen Parker: The Barry Lynn of The South

Written by Ann Coulter
Just as the left pioneered "AstroTurf" protesters -- homeless people lured to demonstrations with the offer of a free T-shirt and a box lunch -- liberals have also specialized in producing fake "insiders" denouncing their alleged group.

There were the "winter soldiers" -- fake Vietnam veterans claiming to have personally disemboweled babies in Vietnam. It took 30 years and the publication of the book "Stolen Valor" to establish that the bulk of them were utter frauds who had never seen combat -- some had never seen Vietnam. (Shockingly, to this day, the Wikipedia entry on the winter soldiers treats their phony war records as legitimate.)

Then there's Barry Lynn, alleged "Christian minister," whose stock in trade is to denounce any mention of religion anyplace, anytime. Look, I'm a Christian minister, but even I have to admit that the sight of a kindergartner praying is terrifying to most folks. (The first person to post Barry Lynn's bar mitzvah photos or birth announcement (mazel tov!) wins a free copy of my latest book, Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America.)

The latest fake insider/whistleblower is Kathleen Parker, the Barry Lynn of the South. Fresh off her mainstream media tour as a Sarah Palin-hating "conservative," Parker is now a self-proclaimed Southerner blaming opposition to Obama's policies on the region's reputed racism.

Uncannily, this claim struck a chord with Northern liberals!

Throughout the presidential campaign last year, liberals were champing at the bit to accuse Americans of racism for not supporting Barack Obama. That was a tough argument on account of the obvious facts that: (1) for every vote he lost because he's black, Obama picked up another 20 votes for being black; (2) Obama won the election in (3) a country that's 87 percent non-black.

So the accusations of racism had to be put on hold until ... the first note of dissent from his agenda was sounded.

Inasmuch as Obama was just elected and his policies have turned out to be the most left-wing the country has ever seen, it wasn't going to be easy to claim the electorate suddenly decided they didn't like the mammoth spending bills or socialist health care bills because they just noticed Obama is black.

But Kathleen Parker has leapt into the fray to explain that the opposition to Obama's agenda is pure Southern racism. And she's from the South, so it must be true!

As she put it on Chris Matthews' "Hardball": "One word, Chris -- one word. 'Confederacy.' I mean, you know, the South is very -- I live there, OK? I want to make that clear, too, because I'm not bashing Southerners."

No, she was certainly not bashing Southerners. This she made clear in her Washington Post column calling for the Republican Party to "drive a stake through the heart of old Dixie."

How one gets from "we don't want socialized medicine" to "we hate black people" was a tough equation. As my algebra teacher used to say: "Please show your work."

Parker's explanation: "Sarah Palin may not have realized what she was doing, but Southerners weaned on Harper Lee heard the dog whistle." And on "Hardball," she said: "You don't position a white woman and a black male and pretend like there's nothing happening there. There's a deep history. That's why I mentioned Harper Lee in there."

So as I understand it, by nominating a black man for president, the Democrats had checkmated Republicans, who should have done the decent thing by not nominating a white woman for vice president, which would be seen as a deliberate ploy to lure gallant Klansmen into defending the white woman's honor by voting against Obama!

Called upon to draw a straight line between Sarah Palin and racism, I guess this is as good a try as any.

Any crackpot can put forward lunatic theories. What gives Parker's slanderous claim punch is her repeated assertion that she's a Southerner, so she's giving us the inside dope. To make sure no one misses the point, Parker issues repeated professions -- "that's what we do in the South," "I am down there," and "I live there, OK?"

Despite the implication that this Daughter of the Confederacy was virtually homecoming queen at Ole Miss, Parker was born and raised in Winter Haven, Fla. She married a South Carolinian and now splits her time between South Carolina and Washington, D.C.

I'm no Civil War buff, but I'm fairly certain there were no brave Confederate stands at Winter Haven against a superior Northern force -- unless those Northern forces were successful dentists from Larchmont. I would lay money that there aren't a lot of antebellum mansions on magnolia-lined boulevards dotted with statutes of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in Winter Haven, Fla.

Except for the coasts, Florida never had much of a culture below the northern tier on account of the fact that the area beneath the panhandle consisted primarily of malarial swamps. Northerners got that deep into Florida at the turn of the last century -- i.e., about same time as northern Floridians did.

If Parker is a Southerner because she grew up in Winter Haven, then I should be the next spokesman for Gorton's of Gloucester because I grew up in Fairfield County, Conn. I'll pose in rain gear at the wheel of my ship, dispensing flinty, down-home Yankee wisdom -- "Ya cand get theh from heah" -- just like most natives of New Canaan, Conn.

Oh, and one more thing. I was once employed by MSNBC. Speaking as an MSNBC insider, I regret to inform you: We MSNBC-ers hate the military, loathe cops, despise the South and absolutely detest Christians. No really, take it from me -- I'm an old MSNBC hand.

Bookmark and Share

Diversity Czar Threatens Free Speech


1st Amendment: Mark Lloyd, a disciple of Saul Alinsky and fan of Hugo Chavez, wants to destroy talk radio and says free speech is a distraction. The new FCC diversity "czar" says Venezuela is an example we should follow.

When Mark Lloyd was appointed July 29 as the chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission, a nation focused on ObamaCare and a deteriorating economy took little notice. But as angry constituents flood town hall meetings and call in to talk radio, a man dedicated to silencing them sits at the right hand of the president.

They share a common hero — Saul Alinsky — who wrote the community organizer's bible, "Rules for Radicals." It speaks of confrontation or, as candidate Obama put it, of "getting in their faces" as a way to obtain power, not from the people or for the people, but over the people.

Lloyd has written that we make too much of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and the press — for "the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

We thought we were democratically governed. We thought we could vote as we choose after a vigorous and open debate. Once the major networks served as information gatekeepers controlling what we saw and heard. Now talk radio, the Internet and cable news have enhanced democracy by promoting the free flow of information and discourse. Lloyd wants to stop all that.

Fox News host Glenn Beck has done yeoman work in exposing this threat posed by Mr. Lloyd. He points out that in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America," Lloyd wrote: "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. . . . This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. . . . At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies."

Lloyd wants to restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations and ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. The kicker is he would also require owners who refuse to give up profitable air time in the name of "localism" to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

He proposes using the existing FCC "localism" requirement, which can mean anything from running more public service announcements to putting Janeane Garofalo on after Rush Limbaugh. Local community organizers would be encouraged to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC.

He essentially proposes extorting money from broadcasters who have the audacity to air the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, all of whom have competed in the marketplace of ideas and won in the ratings, and use it to fund those outfits nobody wants to listen to — like NPR and Air America.

As Lloyd writes, the "part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads (Rush Limbaugh fans) upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay." Or worse.

The FCC could then say they had enough justification to revoke a station's license if they didn't comply or pay a fee. In true Alinsky style, shut them up by shutting them down.

Lloyd praises Hugo Chavez's "incredible revolution" in Venezuela and the way "Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country" by imposing restraints on cable TV and revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations" that insufficiently toed the Chavez party line.

Lloyd long ago declared war on unbridled talk radio and cable news. He wrote that "our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic and morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent, the commercial broadcasters."

When Mark Lloyd talks about diversity, it is not diversity of opinion. As in the '60s sci-fi series, "Outer Limits," his advice is to "sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear."

Bookmark and Share

Stop and Think

The mindset behind Obamacare seeks to create a new America.

By Thomas Sowell
The serious, and sometimes chilling, provisions of the medical-care legislation that President Obama has been trying to rush through Congress are important enough for all of us to stop and think, even though his political strategy from the outset has been to prevent us from having time to stop and think about it.

What we also should stop to think about is the mindset behind this legislation, which is very consistent with the mindset behind other policies of this administration, whether the particular issue is bailing out General Motors, telling banks whom to lend to, or appointing “czars” to tell all sorts of people in many walks of life what they can and cannot do.

The idea that government officials can play God from Washington is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is being pushed with new audacity.

What they are trying to do is to create an America very unlike the America that has existed for centuries — the America that people have been attracted to by the millions from every part of the world, the America that many generations of Americans have fought and died for.

This is the America about which Michelle Obama expressed her resentment before it became politically expedient to keep quiet.

It is the America that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright denounced in his sermons during the 20 years when Barack Obama was his parishioner, before political expediency required Obama to withdraw and distance himself.

The thing most associated with America — freedom — is precisely what must be destroyed if this is to be turned into a fundamentally different country to suit Obama’s vision of the country and of himself. But do not expect a savvy politician like Barack Obama to express what he is doing in terms of limiting our freedom.

He may not even think of it in those terms. He may think of it in terms of promoting “social justice” or making better decisions than ordinary people are capable of making for themselves, whether about medical care or housing or many other things. Throughout history, egalitarians have been among the most arrogant people.

Obama has surrounded himself with people who also think it is their job to make other people’s decisions for them. Not just Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, his health-care advisor who complains of Americans’ “over-utilization” of medical care, but also Prof. Cass Sunstein, who has written a whole book on how third parties should use government power to “nudge” people into making better decisions in general.

Then there are a whole array of Obama administration officials who take it as their job to pick winners and losers in the economy and tell companies how much they can and cannot pay their executives.

Just as magicians know that the secret of some of their tricks is to distract the audience, so politicians know that the secret of many political tricks is to distract the public with scapegoats.

No one is more of a political magician than Barack Obama. At the beginning of 2008, no one expected a shrewd and experienced politician like Hillary Clinton to be beaten for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States by someone completely new to the national political scene. But Obama worked his political magic, with the help of the media, which he still has.

Barack Obama’s escapes from his own past words, deeds, and associations have been escapes worthy of Houdini.

Like other magicians, Obama has chosen his distractions well. The insurance industry is currently his favorite distraction as scapegoat, after he tried to demonize doctors without much success.

Saints are no more common in the insurance industry than in politics or even among paragons of virtue like economists. So there will always be horror stories, even if these are less numerous or less horrible than what is likely to happen if Obamacare gets passed into law.

Obama even gets away with saying things such as that we need a system to “keep insurance companies honest” — and many people may not see the painful irony in politicians trying to keep other people honest. Certainly most of the media are unlikely to point out this irony.
By Thomas Sowell

Bookmark and Share

Sotomayor the Hack

Click on Picture for a better View

Bookmark and Share

Wish I Had Said That

“The main difference between the Democrats and the Gambino mob is that Democrats qualify for federal matching funds -- and at least the Gambinos have never pretended to advance the cause of 'social justice.' " Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain, Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (2006).
Submitted by Jim Pirretti

Bookmark and Share

Letter to Barbara Boxer re Her Scolding of Army General

Millions of us witnessed the video of Barbara Boxer displaying her absolute arrogance as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines, Jim Hill. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!!


You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equalled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many,especially democrats, even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?

Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for
by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a fine day. Cheers!

Jim Hill
16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East
South Hill, WA 98374
Please circulate this to remind every voter that the "cesspools"
MUST be pumped out when we go to the polls in November, 2010.
Honoring and respecting the voters is a thing of the past for many
of those in our congress and senate.We need to vote their arrogant,
self serving asses out of office if America is to get on the long
road back from the devastation that these self serving cowards have
brought upon us!

Bookmark and Share

Obama's State Department Submits to Islam

By Pamela Geller
Here is but the latest act of submission to Islam by your State Department. A State Department cable has just been sent out with this announcement:

The Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) has assembled a range of innovative and traditional tools to support Posts' outreach activities during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Here, in contrast, is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

The State Department's Ramadan programs are wide-ranging. "On August 10," the cable continues, " will publish a ‘Multicultural Ramadan' feature. American Muslims trace their ancestry to more than 80 countries and the feature will highlight the richness of these various cultural traditions through the lens of Ramadan and Eid. Content will include essays by young Muslims who are part of Eboo Patel's Interfaith Youth Core (IYC). Contact: Alexandra Abboud ("

There's more! The Bureau of International Information Programs "will publish three articles for Ramadan 2009 addressing the concept of an Islam in America 'brand'; advocacy (civic and political) of the Muslim American community; and community innovation/community building. The writer will contact Muslim American experts in each of these fields. These articles will be available on in English, Arabic, and Persian."

The main publication is Being Muslim In America: "Conceived as IIP's flagship print publication on the rich and varied experiences of the nation's growing Muslim population, this lavishly illustrated new book links the Muslim-American experience to those of other American racial, religious, and immigrant groups as they moved into the American ‘mainstream.'"

Can you imagine every Embassy and consulate putting up a Menorah and having some Rabbis as speakers via a webcast?

Can you imagine if we had the Stations of the Cross put on the walls of all of our embassies, consulates, and other posts, as well as the many Department of State buildings across the country, including C Street?

Why aren't priests, pastors, etc. invited during Christmas to give blessings or talk about Christianity in the United States?
Can you imagine if the Buddha were revered and we had some monks coming to do a meditation session with all of the officers of each embassy, consulate, etc.?
Can we get printed and distributed Hare Krishna posters for all of our posts, so as to reach massive audiences?

I mean, put it in reverse and see how crazy it is. Absolutely nuts.

Perhaps this is an initiative of President Barack Obama's newly created Office for Outreach to the Ummah at State. In June Obama had the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, at the White House. Ihsanoglu urged Obama to appoint a U.S. ambassador to the Islamic world - and Obama immediately created a new State Department Office for Muslim Outreach, with a Muslim woman, Farah Pandith, serving as the new U.S. Special Representative for Muslim Outreach. In keeping with Obama's U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, a charter of dhimmitude, we are to be conditioned to respect Muslim immigrants and accept their culture.

Obama appears to be more than comfortable with this deal with the devil as he abets the institution of an Islamo-Christian ethic, which would destroy the very foundation of this great country. Never mind that Muslims persecute Christians in every country they finally dominate. That is of no importance.

Why is this immense effort necessary? We act as if we were a slave of the Muslim world. This sickness of licking the boots of an ideology that wants to destroy us is incomprehensible.

Burt Prelutsky said it best:
"What is wrong with our leaders? Are they worried that they won't be invited to those cool Ramadan parties? The Islamists have been actively at war with us for 30 years and generally at war with western civilization for well over a thousand years, and still we pay lip service to these people in a way we never did with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. Is it because the Muslims commit sadism and murder in the name of religion and not country? If anything, I would think that would make their evil acts all the more contemptible."

It does.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs Web site and former associate publisher of the New York Observer.

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Enough Is Enough

By John Griffing
Tyranny has sprung up from amongst us. President Obama has waged a blitzkrieg on American liberty, and, in only a short time, undercut the Constitution of the United States with a brazen arrogance that should shock Americans into action.

President Obama's unconstitutional salvo exceeds even the most intolerable indulgences of the Bush Administration. President Bush was often brash and improper in his use of certain mechanisms, but President Obama has moved quickly far beyond the realm of comparatively benign Presidential Signing Statements. When our new President can appoint "Czars" to rule entire sections of American life without electoral accountability or even Congressional confirmation, we have entered the unholy realm of Dictatorship.

Presidents have made special "czar" appointments in the past, to aid in addressing key social or policy issues. But President Obama has turned this capability into direct seizures of power, brazen and unchecked. Obama's czars have usurped the roles of elected officials, with power over an ever-increasing scope of society. Pay is decided by a Czar. What can or can't be said on the internet is decided by a Czar. And the power of regulating all aspects of American private life has been transferred from multiple congressionally audited regulatory agencies to the new Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein. The environment, healthcare, finance, and the economy will all fall under the control of this Regulatory Czar, a man who has stated,

A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government... Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name.

There's even a "faith-based" Czar to handle church issues. Separation of church and state appears to be somewhat more flexible as long as Obama is in power.

But for a true outrage, consider new Czar of Science, John P. Holdren, who, in a stunning display of unabashed evil, has actively advocated "compulsory abortion":

There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

If that doesn't send a chill down your spine, consider his words, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons." Let that sink in: an American official supports forced abortion and the death of "grown persons." We know what that looks like. It has been official policy for years in Communist China.

Holdren defends his radical proposals with archaic scientific arguments revolving around the idea that too many people equal global poverty and hunger. But do not be fooled by the alleged "science" in support of "compulsory abortion." The issue is not whether the world population is exploding (an argument that has been completely discredited due to the fact that most western populations are shrinking.) The issue is whether or not government can force American women to kill their children.

Even pro-choice advocates should be outraged at the idea of bureaucrats ordering American women to turn their babies over to state butchers. And, despite Holdren's own personal belief that this wholesale slaughter can be justified "under the existing Constitution," the words, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process" make such a hollow justification meaningless.

All totalitarian regimes in history have one thing in common: population control. By controlling who conceives, government can mitigate the growth of ideas dangerous to their seizures of power. Families that teach American ideals can be gradually subdued until all Americans bow before the collective "we." How strange that liberty should end by the hands of a doctor with a vacuum and a scalpel. If this is not enough to wake the sleeping giant and arouse the fires of freedom, then we will surely perish as a nation.

Power is what Holdren and his pseudo-science is really all about. Holdren has long been a vocal supporter of a "planetary regime" to govern the affairs of the world. In his book, Ecoscience, Holdren wrote the words:

Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world....[i]

Holdren has elsewhere stated his goal of "de-developing" America. Obama's appointment of this Marxist militant says much about his true agenda.

Obama has done more to hasten America's demise than our enemies could have dreamed of doing. He must wake up every day with the words, "I can't believe I'm getting away with this" on his lips. His "change" is nothing less than the destruction of America as a free country. And there is nowhere to escape. America is the last stop in western civilization. Europe is in a state of economic decay, and has retreated into gated communities as an influx of Muslim colonials overspreads the European continent. France has 750 semi-sovereign Islamic kingdoms within its jurisdiction. If we lose freedom here, there will be nowhere left for the "tired, huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" to lay their heads.

Wake up America. Now is not the time to pat ourselves on the back for our racial sensitivity. We have proven that we are not a racist country, several times over. Now is the time to rise up against tyranny, before it consumes what is still left of the America we all know and love. Conservative, Liberal, black, and white must join hands against the despot that holds the freedom of generations in such contempt.

Every last man, woman, and child must take to the streets, or the last best hope of mankind will vanish for all time.
By John Griffing
[i] Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977), 943.

Bookmark and Share