JB Williams: America Largely Silent While Obama Destroys The Nation

I can't disagree with the title here. I see it everywhere. I see it on television. I see it in the retail stores. I see it on the Internet. There are a great many people who seem to simply not care about what is happening to their own nation.

I'm certain there were similar attitudes in Germany when the Nazis took over. (In fact, having read Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer, I am absolutely sure that such attitudes existed.) I am also certain that similar attitudes were held by the average Russian after Stalin siezed power.

That is why it scares me to see the same attitudes here in the United States while the Obama administration installs more socialist policies for which the response from the media and a majority of Americans has been nothing but silence, which Obama and his socialist cronies will take as tacet approval.

Writing for Capitol Hill Coffee House, J.B. Williams has the following observations:

Obamanation has taken the nation from a trillion in debt to over $4 trillion in debt in the first sixty days, with even more federal spending promised, which could put the nation $10 trillion in debt before the 2010 mid-term election cycle. Amnesty for illegals and ACORN led redistricting will make 2010 and beyond a moot point.

Now, Obama likes to use the excuse that he "inherited" this debt. Only up to a point. The quadrupling of the debt is entirely his fault as well as the fault of the Democrats who voted to go along with it.

Now here is where we have to wonder at the silence. If a trillion dollar debt is bad, then why would the Democrats consider a 4 trillion dollar debt to be better? Shouldn't it be four times worse? Where is the outrage at how Obama and the Democrats are threatening to squander our children's and grandchildren's future?

More:

Old concepts have been redefined. Capitalism is now referred to as Fascism. Personal ambition is now called greed. Those who seek access to other people’s rightful earnings are called charitable, and those who demand a right to only that, which they earn, are called greedy. It isn’t just the words that have new definitions. The concepts have new meaning as a result. Words like socialism and communism no longer have a negative connotation attached to them. Most Americans have no idea what they are anymore, or why they don’t want to find out the hard way. The concept of liberal interpretations limits the meaning of words only to one’s individual imagination. The Constitution means only what someone imagines it to mean. If the shoe doesn’t quite fit, a new definition will solve the problem.

We've seen Timothy Geithner ask, in the name of Obama, for the power to go in and take over any private sector entity he deems necessary. (I can see how that power can be abused simply to destroy political enemies.) We've seen how Obama wants to control the auto industry by forcing out the CEO of General Motors despite the fact that the only thing Obama or any other government official would only be able to do is drive GM further into the ground.

This is socialism, folks! And it has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried. We do not need to relearn this lesson the hard way. We simply need to crack open some history books and read. Read how the Nazis (National Socialists) drove Germany into the ground. Read how the communists drove Russia and Eastern Europe into the ground. Read how socialism is driving Europe into the ground right now.

What will it take?

Nobody knows for how long or at what expense, but so far, the people remain silent and Washington continues to profitably interpret that silence as broad-based consent. At this late date, I have no idea what will wake up the average American or how they might react once finally awake and ready to engage in self-governance. However, I am sure about two things… * When they finally do awake, they are going to be really angry... * And, the anti-American left won’t let up until then... The clock isn’t just ticking. Time has already run out as of the 2008 election. Washington DC is currently dismantling America, individual right by individual right, in an unprecedented massive multi-faceted assault on all things American.

I see the dangers and know the lessons of history.

Do you?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Americans Largely Silent As Their Nation Is Systematically Destroyed
JB Williams
Capitol Hill Coffee House
March 25, 3009

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy

The United Nations, that lovely bastion of anti-Americanism, wants to control the world's economies by invoking the hoax of human-induced climate change.

The very first paragraph of the Fox News story covering this says it all and should send chills up your spine:

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

The document is 16 pages long and it involves sending millions of American jobs offshore to other nations, all in the name of environmentalism.

And here is what is even worse:

The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

Didn't Barack Obama chastise American companies for out-sourcing jobs overseas and threaten to punitively tax anyone who did out-source their jobs? Yes, he did.

And now, Obama wants to send more American jobs overseas by signing on to this ridiculously anti-American U.N. treaty. I say anti-American because the United States will be the one nation that is hit the hardest in terms of economic losses. I also beleieve that the people at the U.N. who wrote this treaty are aiming precisely for such results.

The news article goes on:

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

This is what Obama supports? U.S. companies cannot out-source employement as a revenue saving measure, but he will allow the U.N. to force American jobs to "relocate" to other nations?

Can Obama possibly be a bigger hypocrite on this issue?

Here is more evidence of the anti-American slant that this treaty holds:

A "climate change levy on aviation" for example, is described as having undetermined "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce," as well as "tourism services." But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

The language of this document was no accident. It is clearly aimed directly at the economic throat of the United States and Barack Obama has already signed on as a supporter. Maybe Obama didn't read this proposal, just like he didn't read the Dodd Amendment of the stimulus package.

Anthroprogenic Global Warming is a hoax. But it is a hoax that the United Nations believes in and apparently Barack Obama does as well.

This new treaty would destroy the already fragile U.S. economy, destroy millions of American jobs and surrender our national sovereignity to the United Nations. I wonder if Obama is already aware of this.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy
George Russell
Fox News
March 27, 2009

Joe Biden: Fire Fighters 'Stupid Enough To Be Republicans'

Bi-partisanship? Not from Joe Biden. He insulted at least half of the fire fighters in the United States by speaking the following words in a speech to the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF):

It isn't about -- you've heard this trite phrase -- Democrats and Republicans. Hell, some of you guys are still stupid enough to be Republicans.

Of course, we all know what the response would have been if a Republican had said the opposite. Old Media would have been all over it and it would have been the lead story for two weeks.

I don't believe Biden's excuse that it was a joke. It shows very clearly his haughty, arrogant, disrespectful attitude towards those who don't think as he thinks.

You can access the complete speech on-line here:

Vice President Biden's Remarks to the IAFF
Firehouse.com
March 17, 2009

Obama Wants Transparency? Not If It Exposes The White House Chief Of Staff, Rahm Emanuel!

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would make the government "more transparent." Well, we are still waiting for that transparency to emerge. If anything, Obama and the Democrats have worked to make things more secretive. For example, the way the Republicans were excluded from meetings where the porkulus/spendulus package was written.

The broken promise of more transparency has even extended into the White House itself where Rahm Emanuel is Chief of Staff. While doing a background story on Rahm's activities at Freddie Mac, the Chicago Tribune tried to obtain meeting minutes and other information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). But the Obama Administration just outright said "No."

From the Chicago Tribune:

The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel’s time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were “commercial information” exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Why the secrecy? What is the Obama Administration afraid will be brought to light if that information were released? Perhaps that Rahm Emanuel had a bigger hand in causing the credit crisis than previously thought?

That little line about "commercial information" should only apply to private companies. Freddie and Fannie are not private anymore.

Again, what is the Obama Administration afraid of in releasing that information?

If this had been a Republican Administration denying this kind of information, the leftist leaning news networks would be all over it. But, since they won't cover this, it is up to us bloggers to ask these questions.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Rahm Emanuel's Profitable Stint At Mortgage Giant
Bob Secter and Andrew Zajac
Chicago Tribune
March 27, 2009

Obama Makes Plans To Release Terrorists Into The United States

Back on March 11th, I posted the following blog entry:

Gitmo Prisoners Defend 'Blessed' 9/11 Attack
84rules
March 11, 2009

I recieved a few responses to that post, none of which I could publish because of the use of profanity or because the responders made illogical and irrational arguments without providing any evidence to back them up.

But one responder wrote: "This isn't ****ing true. You ***hole Conservatives only make this **it up to promote Rush Limbaugh. There are no plans to release any of these people!" You can see why I refused to publish that response.

But, I like to reference back to these stories when new stories crop up that are directly related.

The most recent such story is that the Obama Administration wants to release several terrorists being held at Gitmo directly into the United States. That's right. They are to be released right here on American soil.

From AFP:

President Barack Obama's intelligence chief confirmed Thursday that some Guantanamo inmates may be released on US soil and receive assistance to return to society. "If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," said National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair at his first press conference.

Now, who among us believes that any terrorists released from Gitmo onto U.S. soil would not immediately turn around and start planning attacks against American citizens right here within our own borders?

Apparently, we have a president who is naive and ignorant enough to believe it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Terror Inmates May Be Released In US: Intel Chief
AFP via Breitbart
March 26, 3009

Bachmann Bill Would Ban Global Currency

Just yesterday I posted about a Congressional hearing in which Rep. Michelle Bachmann asked Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner to cite the Constitutional basis for all the new powers that the Obama Administration wants in order to go in and take over private businesses. Although the main crux of that post was the fact that Geithener was completely unable to answer that question, a new detail has emerged from that exchange.

During the hearing, Rep. Bachmann asked Geithner directly if he would "denounce efforts to move towards a global currency." Geithner answered plainly and unambiguously "Yes."

But the next day, Geithner did a complete turn-around and told the Council on Foreign Relations that the Obama Administration was "quite open" to the idea.

From The Politico:

"We’re actually quite open to that suggestion – you should see it as rather evolutionary rather building on the current architecture rather than moving us to global monetary union," he said. "The only thing concrete I saw was expanding the use of the [special drawing rights]," Geithner said. "Anything he’s thinking about deserves some consideration."

As a result of Geithner's flip-flop, Rep. Bachmann has proposed legislation that would ban global currency and keep the U.S. dollar in the forefront of our economy.

According to The Hill:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has introduced legislation that would "bar the dollar from being replace by any foreign currency." A statement from Bachmann's website: “Yesterday, during a Financial Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Geithner if he would denounce efforts to move towards a global currency and he answered unequivocally that he would," said Bachmann. "And President Obama gave the nation the same assurances. But just a day later, Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table. I want to know which it is. The American people deserve to know." On Monday, Geithner and Bernanke both rejected the idea of a global currency in Congressional testimony. But in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, Geithner indicated he was open to the idea.

I guess Geithner was against it before he was for it. But, I should have expected no less from an Obama Administration official who didn't even bother to pay his taxes.

We need more Congressional representatives like Michele Bachmann. She is not afraid to ask the hard questions nor is she afraid to offend anyone by putting America's interests first.

You can access both news items on-line here:

Geithner 'Open' To China Proposal
Ben Smith
The Politco
March 25, 2009

Bachmann Bill Would Ban Global Currency
Eric Zimmerman
The Hill
March 26, 2009

Video: Rep. Michelle Bachmann Questions Tim Geithner's Knowledge Of The Constitution

This is something that all legislators, Democrat and Republican, should be doing. They should always question whether or not a policy or proposed bill has a basis somewhere in the Constitution.

I don't mean from court rulings or extensions of court rulings. I mean in the document itself. For any particular bill in front of Congress, can the sponsors cite Article and Section of the Constitution that gives the government the power to enact such legislation? If they cannot, then the proposed bill should be immediately thrown out.

For example, not one member of Congress can quote any part of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to retroactively impose taxes on a narrowly defined group of people. But I can certainly point to a section of the Constitution that unambiguously prohibits it.

That is why Michelle Bachmann is such a rising start in the GOP and among Conservatives in general. She is asking such questions. Here is a transcript of the exchange between Rep. Bachmann and Seccretary of the Treasury Geithner:

BACHMANN: What provision in the Constitution could you point to ... to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of '08? GEITHNER: Oh, well, the -- the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities. BACHMANN: Sir, in the Constitution. What -- what in the Constitution could you point to to -- to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken? GEITHNER: Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is -- is -- has been using authority granted by this body -- by this body, the Congress. BACHMANN: And by -- in the Constitution, what could you point to? GEITHNER: Under the laws of the land, of course.

You'll notice that Geithner never answered her question despite the fact that it is a very legitimate question. In fact, Rep. Bachmann had to ask it three times. He punted and simply said "the laws of the land." Unfortunately for Geithner, the phrase "law of the land" appears in the Constitution only in Article VI and establishes the Constitution as the final authority over the several states. Article VI does not give the government the powers the Obama administration is taking for itself.

As for Old Media reporters, they should be asking the same questions. After all, they do style themselves as "watchdogs of government."

There are many unhinged libs at websites like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post who are stamping their feet like little children right now over the way Michelle Bachmann exposed Geithner's ignorance of the Constitution, but none of them are able to answer Rep. Bachmann's question either.

The truth is, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government any power whatsoever to go in and take over the businesses and firms in the private sector. None. If you believe there is, please respond to this post by citing Section and Article of the Constitution.

If you are able to do so, then you will have done something that the current Secretary of the Treasury was embarrassingly unable to do.

You can access the video on-line here:

Congresswoman Bachmann Questions Geithner & Bernanke About A Global Currency
YouTube
March 24, 2009

Socialist Obama Administration Makes New Power Grab To Seize Private Sector Businesses

I know there are still several libs out there who stamp their feet and whine like little children that Obama is not a socialist. Well, you can put your faux temper tantrums back into the closet for another day. All doubt about Obama's intentions of sending the United States into a socialist disaster similar to that of European nations has been erased.

The White House announced a plan for the government to come in and seize control of private sector businesses. At first, the excuse was that the government should come in and give oversight to any bank or firm that recieved TARP money. Now, they just want to go in and take over any bank, firm or business they feel like.

From the Washington Post:

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers. The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy. The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

There are two major problems with this. First, our government is so incompetant that it is extremely doubtful that they would ever be able to accurately identify a firm that was tottering "towards failure." After all, Sarbanes-Oxley was designed to do just that and it failed to give us notice every single time another Wall Street firm went bankrupt. Apart from that, if the market dictates that is business should fail then the business should fail.

Second, this is nothing more than a socialist power grab, an attempt at seizing the means of wealth and production. Sound like a part of a plan introduced by a radical who lived back in the 1800's and wrote the Communist Manifesto? It should. It is precisely that.

Obama has also mentioned that he wants to put limits on executive compensation in all businesses, whether they recieved TARP money or not.

The Obama Administration has now removed all disguise from their policies. They are most definitely socialists and they are no longer timid about exposing it. Socialism is a disaster and had failed everywhere it has been tried. Certainly, Obama is aware of history.

But I believe that Obama has a more sinister purpose in mind here. He wants his socialist allies in Congress to grant his administration these broad powers to act against the American private sector in order to tighten the devastating stranglehold that socialism will ultimately have on us and our lives.

Is this what Chris Buckley, David Brooks and Doug Kmiec had in mind when they convinced all those people to vote for Obama?

This madness must be stopped.

Wake up America!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power To Seize Firms
Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post
March 24, 2009

Rapists, Muggers And Robbers Rejoice! You Now Have Free Reign In The National Parks!

Ever wonder how criminals select their targets for their next crime? Very few do so randomly. Most size up a situation and carefully consider the risks before going in and doing the dirty deed.

Rapists often stalk their victims before moving in to strike. Robbers case houses to determine which ones will be the easiest to break into and which ones will have the most loot. Muggers tend to go after those that look weakest and least able to fight back.

You get the picture.

Now, let's say that you are a mugger, robber or rapist and you want to know where the most fertile hunting grounds are. That analysis has now been made simple for you by Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who presides in Washington D.C.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly has issued an order from the bench (judicial activism) that people with concealed weapon permits may no longer carry their firearms in National Parks.

Thus, if you happen to be a mugger, robber or rapist, you can pack your own illegal firearm, head into National Park and begin to mug, rob and rape knowing that no one on those trails or in those camp sites will be able to fight back against you.

According to the National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action:

On Thursday, March 19, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges. In Thursday's ruling, Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the preliminary injunction against the Department of the Interior rule that took effect on January 9, 2009. The revised rule allowed individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense in national parks and national wildlife refuges located in states that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

In recent years here in Virginia, we've had a few high-profile killings in the Parks and along the Appalachian Trail.

Judge Kollar-Ketelly has no common sense on this issue. Essentialy, she has sent a message to anyone who wishes to commit crimes: Go into the parks. No one will be able to stop you from inflicting harm on other people.

So, if you go hiking on a trail in a National Park, beware. You could run into a mugger or rapist or a drug-dealer who wants to protect his crop of marijuana plants.

BTW, please don't try to say that Park Rangers will be able to protect everyone. The average response time for law enforcement in a poorly marked wooded area is more than long enough for a criminal to commit a crime and then get away virtually undetected. Besides, Park Rangers won't respond until after the crime is committed.

You can access the original press release on-line here:

Concealed Carry In National Parks Suspended -- NRA Files Motion To Appeal
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action
March 20, 2009

The 9-12 Project (Saving The Forgotten Man)

If you happen to be seeking direction, or maybe are a little (or a lot) confused by what you see happening in Washington D.C. versus what you were taught in your 9th grade Civics classes, then I recommend the following website for you:

The 9-12 Project

The 9-12 Project is for those of us who feel like "The Forgotten Man." The Forgotten Man was defined by William Graham Sumner who wrote: "A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man."

If you feel anything like I do, then you feel like Man C. That is why I am promoting and advocating the 9-12 Project. It is a philosophy based upon 9 Principles and 12 Values that we Americans should all hold dear.

The mission:

This website is a place for you and other like-minded Americans looking for direction in taking back the control of our country. It is also a place to find information that will assist you in navigating the rough waters we face in the days, weeks and months ahead. We suggest that you start in your own homes. Talk to your family about the Values and Principles. Discuss the importance of what the Founders designed for America. Hold or attend a weekly meeting in your neighborhood or town. Communication with your neighbors is vital to the process of protecting our country. Gather in living rooms, coffee houses or restaurants. Share your thoughts and ideas. Visit this website often. Make use of the resources that are linked here. Share the ideas and resources that have worked in your home or town. This is a non-political movement. The 9-12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the greatest nation ever created. That same feeling – that commitment to country is what we are hoping to foster with this idea. We want to get everyone thinking like it is September 12th, 2001 again. Ask yourself these questions: Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it? Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore? Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone? If you’ve answered YES, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull back the curtain, you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all. We surround them. At the origin of America, our Founding Fathers built this country on 28 powerful principles. These principles were culled from all over the world and from centuries of great thinkers. We have distilled the original 28 down to the 9 basic principles. So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Read the nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common.

The 9 Principles:

1. America Is Good. 2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life. God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the external rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address. 3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday. Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington 4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government. Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson 5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it. Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson 6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results. Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson 7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable. Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington 8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion. On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington 9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me. Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

The 12 Values:

Honesty Reverence Hope Thrift Humility Charity Sincerity Moderation Hard Work Courage Personal Responsibility Gratitude

Each of those 12 values way have a slightly different meaning to different Americans. But, holding them near and dear will make us stronger as individuals and as a nation.

I highly recommend visiting the 9-12 Project website and reading it.

It is time to make Washington D.C. remember the Forgotten Man.

The 9-12 Project

Time For Frank Wolf (R-VA 10th District) To Resign. Otherwise, We Should Recall Him.

Frank Wolf (R-VA) is usually a stalwart Congressman who fights hard for the 10th District. But, his vote of "Yea" on HR 1586, the retroactive taxing of bonuses paid to AIG, shows that he is no longer worthy of our trust or respect.

Here's why he needs to go:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees. Frank Wolf voted "Yea."

Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.

The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. “No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed.” You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.

First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.

Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.

Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional. It is not the bonuses that matter here. It is the fact that Mr. Wolf voted to allow Congress a power that it never had before and should absolutely never, ever have at all.

I have already written Mr. Wolf asking him to resign. I highly recommend that other residents of Virginia's 10th District do likewise.

Within the next few days, we residents of the 10th District need to get together and begin a recall campaign.

If Mr. Wolf is willing to violate this part of the Constitution, then he is willing to violate other parts of the Constitution as well. The 10th District deserves much better representation than that.

We need to come together and demand that Mr. Wolf step down before he votes to do even more damage to the Constitution's integrity.

Letters To Jim Webb And Mark Warner Concerning Retroactive Taxing Of Bonuses

Here are copies of the letters I emailed to Senators Webb and Warner concerning the retroactive taxes Congress wants to impose on the bonuses to be paid to employees of AIG.

Feel free to copy and paste this message and send it to your own Senators:

[Senator], I am writing you to ask you to vote "Nay" on the upcoming bill that would impose retroactive taxes on bonuses paid out to AIG employees. Whether those bonuses are right or wrong, good or bad, is immaterial to my concern here. I am concerned about the integrity of the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 which clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attander or Ex Post Facto law shall be passed." HR1586 which passed the House yesterday falls, by definition, under that clause in two ways. First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (e.g. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional. Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law. This too makes this legislation unconstitutional. Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional. Anyone who would willingly violate a single provision of the Constitution would most certainly be willing to violate any other provision. Please do not be such a person. Please vote "Nay" on the Senate version of HR1586 and preserve the integrity of the Constitution. Thank you.

As I wrote earlier, if this becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, the Republic will be in grave danger.

House Of Representatives Votes Congress A Power It Never Had And Should Not Ever Have

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees.

Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.

The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed." You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.

First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.

Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.

Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional.

If this bill becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, then it sets a precedent that Congress can legislate retroactive laws and put through Bills of Attainder. For example, if Congress decided that they wanted to raise the income tax rate for 2007 to 50% and collect back taxes from everyone, they can point to this piece of legislation and say that they now have the power to do so and there will be nothing we can do to stop it.

I recommend that you send emails or make phone calls to your Senators and ask them to vote "nay" on this bill and to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States.

UPDATE:

Looks like the Wall Street Journal agrees with me:

A Smoot-Hawley Moment?
Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook
March 23, 2009

Another Example Of The Horrors That Socialized Medicine Will Bring Us

Remember Baghdad Bob? He was the Iraqi government official who went on TV swearing up and down that there were no Americans in Baghdad during the 2003 Iraq War. As he was making this proclaimation, a U.S. Army M-2 Bradley fighting vehicle drove by in the background. It was one of the most hilarious moments in broadcast journalism.

Well, those who support socialized medicine are just like Baghdad Bob. They shout at the top of their lungs that a nationalized health care system is the best thing since sliced bread, and while they are beating their chests, a new story about the massive failings of socialized medicine goes to print.

Such is the latest story from the United Kingdom. Specifically, The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation which runs Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals.

Jenny Hope, writing for the Daily Mail Online, notes the following:

Dehydrated patients were forced to drink out of flower vases, while others were left in soiled linen on filthy wards. Relatives of patients who died at Staffordshire General Hospital told how they were so worried by the standard of care they slept in chairs on the wards.

And other findings:

Receptionists carrying out initial checks on patients; Two clinical decision units - one unstaffed - used as 'dumping grounds' for A&E patients to avoid missing waiting targets; Nurses who turned off heart monitors because they didn't understand how to use them; Delayed operations, with some patients having surgery cancelled four days in a row and left without food, drink or medication; Vital equipment such as heart defibrilators was not working; A savings target of £10million met at the expense of 150 posts, including nurses.

Now, I know that many advocates of socialized medicine will say that these are isolated incidents or that the same things happen under a privatized health care system.

They are wrong on both points. These are not isolated incidents. You can read about a myriad of other deficiencies of socialized health care on-line at the following website:

The Truth About Socialized Medicine

And, if these incidents were as common in a privatized health care system, they would be the lead stories for CNN and MSNBC and front page news for the Washington Post and New York Times almost every day of the week. But they aren't stories here because under a privatized health care system these things don't happen on this scale or anywhere near this often.



As a new father myself, the story and picture of the baby is the most hard-hitting.

Here are some other stories about what has been happening in Staffordshire:

"My wife had treatment at this hospital and it was beyond belief. Staff tried to get my wife to believe she had already been given her tablets when they hadn't; later admitting they ran out and did not want to call out the Pharmacy! People were screaming for the toilet as their requests for assistance went unheeded." Mick, Stafford "My mother in law died at a hospital where her 'care' was almost non-existant. She died screaming in pain because nobody could be found to replace her morphine pump." Claire, Norfolk "When my father was in hospital for months, he lay in a bed with dirty, torn blankets and grubby sheets. I asked to see the Hospital Manager and was walked through the most plush of offices. I was sickened and told her so." Sammy, UK "My sister recently qualified as a nurse. During her training a fellow student commented to a manager that a doctor hadn't bothered to change his scrubs after undertaking a minor operation on a patient and wore the same ones for his next operation. She was warned any whistle blowing of that sort would result in her being kicked out." Jo, Middlesex

This is what awaits us here in the United States if we adopt socialized medicine.

We must ensure that health care decisions remain in the hands of the people who will be most affected by those decisions: the patients and their physicians.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Brown Apologises For Unacceptable Failings At Stafford 'Third World' Hospital
Jenny Hope
Daily Mail
March 19, 2009

Tax The AIG Bonuses? Only If You Want To Violate The Constitution.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed."

I'm sure we all remember this from our 4th grade history lessons. That's where I learned that "Ex Post Facto" means "After the Fact."

But, apparently, the Democrats and other members of Congress are not as well versed as I am about what is written in the Constitution.

First, we know that the Democrats in Congress voted to approve of a stimulus package that contained the Dodd Amendment which explicitly exempted the bonuses that AIG would pay out to its employees. Then, President Obama signed that legislation into law. This means that those bonuses were made perfectly legal according to the current Congress and the current President.

Now, they want to pass legislation that retroactively repeals that amendment.

According to the Fox News:

Senate and House lawmakers have returned to the idea of imposing heavy taxes to recover the bonus money. Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also vowed to recover a sizeable chunk of the money. "Remember, we, as a Congress, are not defenseless. We can also do things," the Nevada Democrat said Tuesday, announcing he has tasked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., with crafting a proposal to recover the bonuses. He said the legislation would be proposed by Wednesday and subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent. He also said lawmakers would soon work with the administration to complete a Wall Street accountability bill.

This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned as an "Ex Post Facto" law.

This legislation must not even be considered. Those who will be considering it or supporting it will be in violation of their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So, what would you choose? Irrational emotionalism over something that the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Democrat President approved of, or would you choose to support the explicit admonitions of the U.S. Constitution?

I choose the latter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

To Recover AIG Bonuses, Lawmakers Scramble To Undo Protections They Approved
FoxNews.com
March 17, 2009

AIG Bonus Furor: Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Made The Bonuses Possible

Don't you just love it when a Senator steps on his/her own foot and trips him/herself up? I do. That's why I am blogging about Senator Chris Dodd and his hypocrisy about bonuses being paid out by American International Group (AIG).

While Congress was working on the porkulus/spendulus bill, Sen. Dodd added an amendment that I am pretty sure he wishes nobody remembered.

According to Fox Business:

That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax. The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.

So, the Democrats (and a few ignorant Republicans) are all up in arms about bonuses being paid out in strict accordance with a law that they themselves passed!

Can you say CHUTZPAH?

Here are the rules of the Dodd amendment:

Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009. For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest).

Now, why would Sen. Dodd have done something like this? Perhaps OpenSecrets.org can provide us with the answer:



Note that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the two top recipients of money from AIG.

Now, people have known for over a year that these bonuses were coming out and a Democrat Senator introduced an amendment to make sure that those bonuses were legal. Why is their such a furor going on over all of it?

It is a distraction from other things, that's why. It turns out that AIG was used as a launderer to spread money around to other banks. Someone doesn't want us investigating that so they blow the bonus issue way out of proportion to try and make it into some type of scandal.

As for the outrage, I wonder why there was no outrage when public funds were used to shore up UAW retirement accounts?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries To Undo Bonus Protections He Put In
Rich Edson
Fox Business
March 17, 2009

UK Senior Judge: Nothing "Honorable" About Muslims Abusing And Killing Their Own Families

How many times have we read stories about "honor killings" or forced marriages or abuse of Muslim children? Far too many times.

I used to think that most (if not all Europeans) were simply too scared to speak out in the face of a Muslim culture that is coming to dominate them. Well, over in the United Kingdom, at least one sane, rational voice is speaking out. That voice belongs to Lord Justice Wall, a senior judge in the U.K. judicial system.

According to the Daily Mail Online:

Lord Justice Wall, giving a ruling on a case involving three Muslim children put in the care of white foster parents, said the time had come to 're-think the phrase honour killing'. He had heard that a mother had set fire to one of her three children and tried to burn down the house where they lived in an attempt to incriminate her sister-in-law. The sister-in-law 'presented a problem to the family' and had fled the home after being beaten and her first child murdered by her husband, the mother's brother. The judge said: 'The message from this case, which must be sent out loud and clear, is that this court applies a tolerant and human rights based rule of law: one which... regards parents as equals and the welfare of the child as paramount. 'That is the law of England, and that is the law which applies in this case. Arson, domestic violence and potential revenge likely to result in abduction or death are criminal acts which will be treated as such.' He said the activities brought to light by the case had 'nothing to do with any concept of honour known to English law'. 'They are acts of simply sordid, criminal behaviour and a refusal to acknowledge them as such.'

Wow! Those are some strong words and they are exactly the words that needed to be said. Two things to note:

1. Abuse and killing of family members has "nothing to do with any concept of honour known to English law."

2. The acts are "of simply sordid criminal behaviour."

That is stripping the issue down to the bare-bones essentials. Islamics who abuse and kill their own family members have no place in the civilized society of the West. That much is clear from point Number 1.

Point Number 2 serves as a reminder that moral relativism has no place in the application of laws and that all laws must be applied equally to all people across the board. As such, Muslims who abuse and kill their own family members should not be considered as adherents to a different set of beliefs, but merely common criminals who need to be held accountable and punished for their crimes.

How bad can it get? Read on:

The mother of the children - a girl aged 11 and boys of nine and five - is 32 and serving a five-year jail sentence for arson. One of her brothers had contracted a second marriage to a woman in Pakistan who came to England in 2003 pregnant with her first child. That child was taken to hospital aged 27 months suffering from multiple injuries and died. It was not known the motivation for the killing but among the injuries on the child were signs of chronic sexual abuse.

A 27-month-old child. That's not even three years. What motivates a person to physically harm a defenseless little human being like that?

I went to school here in the West and we were never taught to do anything like that. In fact, we were taught that such behavior is simply evil and that those who engage in such actions should be severely punished.

But, in certain Muslim cultures, such behavior is acceptable and encouraged and when it happens, is justified under Sharia law.

Now, I know some Muslims out there will complain that these people do not represent mainstream Islam. But my response to this complaint is that instead of berating people like me, they should go after these abusers and murderers and tell them to stop claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.

The people of Europe would do very well to listen to the admonitions of Lord Justice Wall. Maybe it's not too late yet.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senior Judge Condemns Use Of The Word 'Honour' To Describe Abuse And Murder Within Muslim Families
Daily Mail Reporter
March 16, 2009

A Few "What Have I Done?" Moments

Have you ever seen the movie Bridge On The River Kwai? There is a scene where Alec Guiness (Colonel Nicholson) comes to his senses about having helped the Japanese build a railroad bridge and then asks, "What have I done?"

Such is happening today with people who supported Barack Obama during the campaign. They are now looking at the actions of the man they helped to put in office and are asking, "What have I done?"

In a column for the American Thinker, Cliff Thier looks at a few of these people.

Christopher Buckley wrote this on October 10, 2008:

I've read Obama's books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I'm libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O'Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away. But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren't going to get us out of this pit we've dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr. Obama has in him-I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy "We are the people we have been waiting for" silly rhetoric-the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

But, on March 1, 2009, here was his "What have I done?" moment:

Hold on-there's a typo in that paragraph. "$3.6 trillion budget" can't be right. The entire national debt is-what-about $11 trillion? He can't actually be proposing to spend nearly one-third of that in one year, surely. Let me check. Hmm. He did. The Wall Street Journal notes that federal outlays in fiscal 2009 will rise to almost 30 percent of the gross national product. In language that even an innumerate English major such as myself can understand: The US government is now spending annually about one-third of what the entire US economy produces. As George Will would say, "Well."... If this is what the American people want, so be it, but they ought to have no illusions about the perils of this approach. Mr. Obama is proposing among everything else $1 trillion in new entitlements, and entitlement programs never go away, or in the oddly poetical bureaucratic jargon, "sunset." He is proposing $1.4 trillion in new taxes, an appetite for which was largely was whetted by the shameful excesses of American CEO corporate culture. And finally, he has proposed $5 trillion in new debt, one-half the total accumulated national debt in all US history. All in one fell swoop.

Clearly, not the same Barack Obama he wrote about last year.

And how about David Brooks? Here is what he wrote on October 16, 2008:

And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather - already has gathered - some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.

And his "What have I done?" moment from March 2, 2009:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates - moderate-conservative, in my case - are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.

And how about Martin Peretz, the Publisher of The New Republic? Here is what he wrote on January 31, 2008:

Obama's points, which he has made many times, should reassure anyone who is concerned about what his presidency would mean for the security of Israel. And yet many are not reassured. They are alarmed by e-mails, saying that Obama's middle name is Hussein (true, and so what?), that he is a Muslim and not a Christian (untrue, and so what if it was?), that he took the oath of office as a Senator on the Koran rather than the Bible (utterly untrue and, once again, so what?). All these charges have been aired and negated often enough that anyone interested in hearing the truth about them has heard it. But another charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that he has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel. Let's take one example. There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley is one of Obama's advisers, specifically his Middle East adviser. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the web, like the ads for Viagra. Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in The New York Review of Books, is a rabid hater of Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been a Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama's Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro. Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.

And his "What have I done?" moment from February 25, 2009, writing about the appointment of Chas Freeman:

Chas Freeman is actually a new psychological type for a Democratic administration. He has never displayed a liberal instinct and wants the United States to kow-tow to authoritarians and tyrants, in some measure just because they may seem able to keep the streets quiet. And frankly, Chas brings a bitter rancor to how he looks at Israel. No Arab country and no Arab movement--basically including Hezbollah and Hamas--poses a challenge to the kind of world order we Americans want to see. He is now very big on Hamas as the key to bringing peace to Gaza, when in fact it is the key to uproar and bloodletting, not just against Israel but against the Palestinian Authority that is the only group of Palestinians that has even given lip-service (and, to be fair, a bit more) to a settlement with Israel. That Freeman would be chosen as the president's gatekeeper to national intelligence is an absurdity. It would be as if I were appointed the gatekeeper to that intelligence. But Freeman's real offense (and the president's if he were to appoint him) is that he has questioned the loyalty and patriotism of not only Zionists and other friends of Israel, the great swath of American Jews and their Christian countrymen, who believed that the protection of Zion is at the core of our religious and secular history, from the Pilgrim fathers through Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. And how has he offended this tradition? By publishing and peddling the unabridged John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, with panegyric and hysteria. If Freeman believes that this book is the truth he can't be trusted by anyone, least of all Barack Obama. I can't believe that Obama wants to appoint someone who is quintessentially an insult to the patriotism of some many of his supporters, me included.

If only the mass media had done its job of fully vetting Barack Obama instead of being his cheerleader, these formerly "useful idiots" would not have so thoroughly humiliated themselves.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Formerly Useful Idiots
Cliff Thier
American Thinker
March 16, 2009

Latest Idea To Raise Your Taxes: Tax Your Employer Provided Health Benefits

If the Democrats are trying to paint themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, they are failing miserably. The porkulus/spendulus bill was the major indicator that the Dems have absolutely no intention of ever bringing spending under control. Now, they have to look at ways of paying for that pork-laden legislation as well as paying for all the other pork-laden political hand-out bills they are proposing.

Thus, they once again prove that they have not had an original idea since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and have proposed a new tax for you to pay. But not just any tax. This time, it is a tax on your health care benefits, the same benefits you need to take care of your family's medical needs.

According to the Washington Post:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, has repeatedly advocated changing tax laws to include employer benefits, arguing that it makes sense to fund the health-care changes by sucking cash out of the existing system.

This proposal highlights two things:

1) It means that the Dems lied when they said they only wanted to tax "the rich" since this tax would extend all the way down the income scale and affect every worker that recieves health benefits from their employer.

2) It is an attempt to make private health care artificially more expensive so that the Dems can use it as an excuse to impose a disastrous nationalized health care system on us.

And this little lie from Ron Wyden:

"I think it's extremely important from a credibility standpoint to show the American people that you're making savings in the enormous sums now being spent on health care before you go out and ask them for billions of dollars more," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the sponsors of that proposal. "And I don't think I'm the only senator who feels that way."

Savings? What savings? By imposing more taxes, Congress would be artificially inflating the price of health care. There is absolutely no "savings" in that at all. Why did Wyden utter such a lie?

Taxing the American people is not the answer. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity and socialized health care has been a disaster everywhere it has been implemented.

We don't need socialism. We need free market capitalism, including in the health care markets.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Workers' Health Benefits Eyed For Taxation
Lori Montgomery
Washington Post
March 12, 2009

Are The Democrats The Teapot Or The Kettle? Dems Wanted Bush To Fail For 8 Years

This is yet another example how the Dems and their media surrogates seem to think that we Americans don't have very good memories or that we are not smart enough to see the contradictions in their words and actions.

The recent flap over Rush Limbaugh's comments that he wanted to see Obama's policies fail are more than enough proof of that. When Rush made his comments, the Obama White House panicked and tried to turn it into a national scandal. Unfortunately, like everything else Obama is trying to do, things worked out in the exact opposite manner. Ever since the Dems initiated their smear campaign, Limbaugh's ratings have skyrocketed.

Now, contrast this with how the media reacted when the Dems publically stated that they wanted President Bush to fail. Bill Sammon at Fox News has a very interesting piece about that. From his column:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed." Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. "We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted. The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails." Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

Well, the Dems certainly didn't disregard it. For the next seven years, the Dems were publically stating that they wanted President Bush to fail. Even Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, went so far as to give moral support to the terrorists by proclaiming that in Iraq, "The war is lost!"

It even showed up in a Fox News poll taken in 2006. 51% of Democrats said they wanted President Bush to fail. From that poll:



It gets even worse when former Clinton pollster Craig Charney wrote the following:

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. [...] In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people—suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies—detest George W. Bush. When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents—hardly right-wing zealots—hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.

So, why do the Dems think it is okay for them to say that they want a Republican President to fail, but then cry foul when someone else publically says that they want a Demecrat President to fail?

We want to know: Are the Democrats teapot or kettle?

You can access the original articles on-line here:

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush To Fail
Bill Sammon
Fox News
March 11, 2009

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
Fox News
August 10, 2006

NY Post Hate Trap
Craig Charney
Charney Research
September 24, 2006

Gitmo Prisoners Defend 'Blessed' 9/11 Attack

Read this one carefully. Understand that terrorists like these five are the people that Barack Obama wants to defend with civil rights. Terrorists like this are people that liberals want to set free. Terrorists like this are the people that leftists all over the world claim are simply "misunderstood."

From CNN:

Five Guantanamo prisoners accused in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S. staunchly defended their actions, calling the operation "blessed" and "great" and the accusations against them "badges of honor." ... The military commission set up to hear the men's cases at the Guantanamo Bay inmate facility received the signed document Thursday, and a military judge ordered its release on Monday. The five are members of the al Qaeda terror network. Mohammed, who has taken credit for planning the attack, and the four other prisoners call themselves members of the 9/11 Shura Council. "With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims," the response stated.

And Barack Obama thinks that people like this can be negotiated with?

More:

Quranic verses were cited in the filing, and the men underscored their defense of "oppressed" Muslims. "Our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians and pagans. With God's willing, we are terrorists to the bone." ... "We ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peak in paradise," the response said, in reference to the al Qaeda militants who hijacked the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Would any leftist libs out there care to explain why you all are so hot on defending and/or releasing terrorists like these five? Or maybe you can explain why Barack Obama thinks that the Taliban can be reasoned with?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Gitmo Prisoners Defend 'Blessed' 9/11 Attack
CNN
March 10, 2009

The Stem Cell Debacle: Ideology Over Science

If there was any doubt that Doug Kmiec is now officially a useful idiot, Obama erased them when he signed an order allowing taxpayer money to be used for research on embryonic stem cells.

Never mind the fact that embryonic stem cells have never successfully been used in any kind of therapy whereas adult stem cells have been successfully used in hundreds of different treatment for hundreds of thousands of patients. In fact, most physicians agree that embryonic stem cells are so unstable that the outcomes of treatments using them cannot be accurately predicted.

Such was the story of a nine-year-old Israeli boy who was treated for ataxia-telangiectasia, a disease that causes degeneration of parts of the brain, with fetal stem cells. those fetal (i.e. embryonic) stem cells developed into a brain tumor. Doctors removed the tumor, but it has been gradually growing back since the surgery.

From Scientific American:

The theory is that because these stem cells are fetal cells, they are designed to proliferate and give rise to new tissue, which means they have the potential to produce tumors. The case, write the authors of this week’s case study, should serve as a warning that more research is needed to gauge the safety of these novel therapies. Other stem cell experts echo their concerns and worry that scientists don't yet understand exactly how stem cells used in such treatments behave once inside the body. Treating neurological disorders with stem cells from fetal brains is a "great scientific goal to pursue," but there is simply not enough evidence from animal studies, let alone human studies, to prove it is safe or effective for treating these diseases in children, says Sean Savitz, a neurologist at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

Scientific American predicted this is June of 2006:

Stem Cells: The Real Culprits In Cancer?
Michael F. Clarke and Wichael W. Becker
Scientific American
June 2006

But, is there any hope from any kind of stem cells?

The answer is: Yes. Adult stem cells offer a better hope than embryonic stem cells.

Savitz has just begun enrolling patients in a study on treating adult stroke victims with their own—adult—stem cells. The intent of the boy's treatment must have been to use these fetal stem cells to regenerate tissue lost in certain areas of the brain, Savitz speculates, but he adds, "we don't have a full understanding of how [brainlike] stem cells can generate different cells in the brain." Savitz says that the stem cells used in his trial are not likely to cause cancer because they are adult cells taken from bone marrow that die once they have accomplished their mission of repairing brain tissue. In their study, Savitz and his colleagues will remove cells from the bone marrow of patients 24 to 72 hours after they suffer a stroke, isolate hundreds of millions of stem cells from that marrow and then re-inject the stem cells into the bloodstream. Once inside the body, the stem cells will migrate to the brain and promote new blood vessel growth, reduce inflammation, and rescue neurons at risk of dying, Savitz hopes. And once they have done their job, they will basically commit suicide—unlike fetal neural cells, which tend to set up camp and proliferate, setting the stage for possible tumor formation, he explains.

And Dr. Savitz is not the only physician that feels this way.

Dr. Bernadine Healy recently wrote a blog piece about why embryonic stem cells are obsolete. In her essay, she notes the example of the nine-year-old Israeli boy:

His experience is neither an anomaly nor a surprise, but one feared by many scientists. These still-mysterious cell creations have been removed from the highly ordered environment of a fast-growing embryo, after all. Though they are tamed in a petri dish to be disciplined, mature cells, research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny, human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern. That dream was still alive only a few weeks before this report. Within days of Obama's inauguration, the Food and Drug Administration approved its first-ever embryonic stem cell study in humans: the biotech company Geron's plan to inject highly purified human embryonic cells into eight to 10 patients with acute spinal cord injuries. (The cells are from a stem cell line approved by Bush because it predated his ban.) The FDA should now be compelled to take another look: Are eight to 10 patients enough, or one year of monitoring sufficient, to assess safety? And doctors who participate in the trial will have to ask what every doctor must ask before performing research on a human subject: Were I this patient, would I participate? Would I encourage my loved ones to do so?

I wouldn't want any of my loved ones participating in something like this. Given the track record of embyonic stem cells, it seems more like a death sentence than any kind of avenue for hope.

Again, is there another ray of hope?

According to Dr. Healy:

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells. A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer. James Thomson, the stem cell pioneer from the University of Wisconsin who was the first to grow human embryonic stem cells in 1998, is an independent codiscoverer of iPS cells along with Japanese scientists. Already these reprogrammed cells have eclipsed the value of those harvested from embryos, he has said, because of significantly lower cost, ease of production, and genetic identity with the patient. They also bring unique application to medical and pharmaceutical research, because cells cultivated from patients with certain diseases readily become laboratory models for developing and testing therapy. That iPS cells overcome ethical concerns about creating and sacrificing embryos is an added plus.

So, what we have here is that adult stem cells offer better hope for treating ailments and induced pluripotent stem cells don't have to overcome any ethical hurdles for use. Also, fetal stem cells have a track record of being unpredicatable and are known to cause cancer.

So, why are the leftists so intent on spending money and resources on embryonic stem cells?

Because its keeps the abortion agenda moving forward. No other reason.

If this were about medicine and science, the major push would be to fund adult stem cell research and iPS research.

You can access the two articles on-line here:

Fetal Stem Cells Cause Tumor In A Teenage Boy
Coco Ballantyne
Scientific American
February 19, 2009

Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete
Dr. Bernadine Healy
U.S. News
March 4, 2009

Obama's Afghan Folly: Talks With The Taliban?

History will look back on these times and identify the key events that shaped the world. One of those events will be the recent announcement by Barack Obama that he intends to talk to the Taliban. Yes, the same Taliban that helped to plan and carry out the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed 2,996 innocent poeple.

Obama made the announcement in an interview with the New York Times this past weekend and already the experts are coming out and saying how foolish such a policy is.

From Reuters:

Obama, in an interview with the New York Times newspaper published on its website on Saturday, expressed an openness to adapting tactics in Afghanistan that had been used in Iraq to reach out to moderate elements there. ... "Obama's comment resemble a dream more than reality," said Waheed Mozhdah, an analyst who has written a book on the Taliban. "Where are the so-called moderate Taliban? Who are the moderate Taliban?" asked Mozhdah, who was an official in both the Taliban and the Karzai governments. ... "'Moderate Taliban' is like 'moderate killer'. Is there such a thing?", asked writer and analyst Qaseem Akhgar.

Apparently, the reality of extremists like the Taliban are completely lost on Obama and his cronies.

Here is a recap of what the Taliban did to the people of Afghanistan:

The Afghan people have been the primary victims of Taliban misrule, since the Taliban came to power in 1996. The Taliban militia was formed in 1994, in response to human rights abuses by other warring factions in Afghanistan. By 1996, the Taliban had captured Kabul, and, with claims to religious as well as political authority, began a reign of terror. The Taliban have made the Afghan people the unwilling hosts of foreign armed terrorists, who have exploited and endangered the Afghan people, and made Afghanistan a pariah in the world community. This fact sheet outlines documented atrocities and human rights abuses committed by the Taliban against the Afghan people. Massacres The Taliban have massacred hundreds of Afghan civilians, including women and children, in Yakaolang, Mazar-I-Sharif, Bamiyan, Qezelabad, and other towns. Many of the victims of these massacres were targeted because of their ethnic or religious identity. Massacre at Yakaolang: January 2001 Taliban forces committed a massacre in Yakaolang in January 2001. The victims were primarily Hazaras. The massacre began on January 8, 2001, and continued for four days. The Taliban detained about 300 civilian adult males, including staff members of local humanitarian organizations. The men were herded to assembly points, and then shot by firing squad in public view. According to Human Rights Watch, about 170 men are confirmed to have been killed. According to Amnesty International, eyewitnesses reported the deliberate killing of dozens of civilians hiding in a mosque: Taliban soldiers fired rockets into a mosque where some 73 women, children and elderly men had taken shelter. Massacre at Robatak Pass: May 2000 The May 2000 massacre took place near the Robatak pass. 31 bodies were found at one site, of these, 26 were positively identified as civilians. The victims were Hazara Shi'as. Massacre in Bamiyan: 1999 When the Taliban recaptured Bamiyan in 1999, there were reports that Taliban forces carried out summary executions upon entering the city. According to Amnesty International, hundreds of men, and some instances women and children, were separated from their families, taken away, and killed. Human Rights Watch reports that besides executing civilians, the Taliban burned homes and used detainees for forced labor. Massacre in the Shomaili Plains: July 1999 Human Rights Watch reports that a Taliban offensive here was marked by summary executions, the abduction and disappearance of women, the burning of homes, destruction of property, and the cutting down of fruit trees. According to a report by the U.N. Secretary General on November 16, 1999, "The Taliban forces, who allegedly carried out these acts, essentially treated the civilian population with hostility and made no distinction between combatants and non-combatants." Massacre in Mazar-I-Sharif: August 1998 In August 1998, the Taliban captured Mazar-I-Sharif. There were reports that between 2,000 and 5,000 men, women and children -- mostly ethnic Hazara civilians -- were massacred by the Taliban after the takeover of Mazar-I-Sharif. During the massacre, the Taliban forces carried out a systematic search for male members for the ethnic Hazara, Tajik, and Uzbek communities in the city. Human Rights Watch estimates that scores, perhaps hundreds, of Hazara men and boys were summarily executed. There were also reports that women and girls were raped and abducted during the Taliban takeover of the city. Massacre in Mazar-I-Sharif: September 1997 Retreating Taliban forces summarily executed Hazara villagers near Mazar-I-Sharif, after having failed to capture the city. Amnesty International reported that the Taliban massacred 70 Hazara civilians, including children, in Qezelabad, near Mazar-I-Sharif. There were also reports that the Taliban forces in Faryab province killed some 600 civilians in late 1997. Other Massacres: On at least two occasions, according to Human Rights Watch, the Taliban killed delegations of Hazara elders who had attempted to intercede with them. Human Rights Abuses Against Women and Girls Taliban rule has been particularly harsh for Afghan women and girls. Taliban restrictions against women and girls are widespread, institutionally sanctioned, and systematic in Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan. -- Girls are formally prohibited from attending school. -- Women are prohibited, with very few exceptions, from working outside the home, and are forbidden to leave their homes except in the company of a male relative. These restrictions are devastating for the thousands of Afghan war widows, who have reportedly been reduced to selling their possessions or begging to feed their families. -- The Taliban have significantly reduced women's access to health care, by decreeing that women can only be treated by women doctors. -- The Taliban threaten and beat women to enforce the Taliban's dress code for women. The Taliban and the Humanitarian Situation The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is grim. Twenty years of internal armed conflict, and four years of devastating drought have contributed to this situation, but the Taliban have made an already grave situation much worse, holding the Afghan people hostage to their political agenda. -- The Taliban do not share the hardships they have imposed on the Afghan people, and they have done nothing to alleviate these hardships. -- The Taliban have not only failed to provide security, food, and shelter for the Afghan people, but they have disrupted the efforts of international relief agencies to deliver desperately needed food and medical supplies to the Afghan people. -- The Taliban have harassed international and Afghan aid workers. -- On October 16, the Taliban seized control of two UN warehouses, containing more than half the World Food Program's wheat supply for Afghanistan. The UN Security Council on October 16 demanded that the Taliban should cease obstructing aid destined for the Afghan people. The Taliban and Islam The Taliban have imposed their own interpretation of Islam on the Afghan people. -- Taliban interpretations of Islam are not widely shared in the Muslim world. -- Taliban words and actions misrepresent Islam. -- The Taliban have used Islam as a cloak to practice ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan. -- Warning against "converting our countries into another Afghanistan," Saudi writer Turki Al Hamad, writing in As-Sharq Al Awsat, put it this way:"...[under the Taliban], Islam would be relegated from a world religion with a global human and civilized mission to a Taliban-like dogma that bans pigeon breeding, long hair, kite flying, and listening to music.... That, at a time when the rest of the world is de-coding the genome, experimenting with cloning, inventing information chips, exploring outer space and tackling the wonders of laser beams and infra-red radiation. If we want to have an impact on today's world, the only way to do so is by interacting with it." Destruction of Afghan Culture The Taliban have perverted Afghan customs, tradition, and religious practice for their own narrow political interests. -- The Taliban and their foreign armed militant "guests" have set about destroying traditional Afghan culture. -- They have prohibited all forms of music, and even traditional recreation, such as kite flying. -- They have looted and destroyed the historical and cultural patrimony of the Afghan people -- the Kabul Museum, formerly one of the finest museums in the region, is largely empty; the centuries-old Buddhist statues in Bamiyan have been reduced to rubble. -- They have deprived the people of Afghanistan both their history, and their future. Documenting Taliban Abuses -- Several non-government organizations maintain web sites documenting Taliban abuses. -- The web site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (www.rawa.fancymarketing.net) maintains a gallery of still photos and video clips documenting massacres, beatings, and executions by the Taliban. The documentary photos and videos were clandestinely made by Afghan women to provide evidence of Taliban atrocities. One video clip on this site documents the public execution of an Afghan mother of seven. -- Several human rights organizations maintain web sites documenting human rights abuses by the Taliban and other factions in the Afghan conflict. Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) and Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org) provide extensive documentation of these abuses.

Exactly how delusional is Barack Obama if he actually believes that such extremists can be rationally negotiated with?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Call On Moderate Taliban Useless - Analysts
Sayed Salahuddin
Reuters
March 9, 2009