84RULES

Jim Webb's Unbelievable Hypocrisy

2010-11-10T20:10:00.004-05:00

Exactly how stupid does Jim Webb think we Virginians are? Does he actually believe that we have not followed his voting record and the fact that he has been nothing but a lap dog of the Obama Democrats? Check out the chutzpuh he sent with his latest re-election email. It is an exceept from the RealClearPolitics website on Monday, November 8, 2010:

Jim Webb went to the White House last September. The Virginia senator was meeting with the president to discuss Guantanamo detainees. The conversation soon shifted to healthcare. "I told him this was going to be a disaster," Webb recalls. "The president believed it was all going to work out."

And Jim Webb must have believed it too, otherwise he would not have cast a "Yea" vote for cloiture and for passage of the bill. And now, Webb is saying it was a bad thing? Six months too late, Jimmy boy!

And check this out:

"I've been warning them," Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. "I've been having discussions with our leadership ever since I've been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people ... I'm very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people."

Uh-huh. This is why Jimmy voted for the bailouts and the failed stimulus package that served to do nothing except reward unions and government workers who voted Democrats into office.

Webb's comments and his emails are nothing less than insulting. I know what he has been doing over the past four years and it does not at all reflect his comments of late.

I'll say it point blank: Jim Webb is a liar. He is lying about his record because he knows that in two years, the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to work very hard to toss him back out and put in a new Senator who will actually respresent Virginia rather than be a rubber stamp for a political party. He was very happy to vote the way the Democrats told him to vote (even when it went against the wishes of Vorginia) and now he sees how wrong he was to do so. But instead of admitting his own culpability, he is making an early effort to distance himself from it by telling outright lies to people.

Supporters of Webb and his staff are especially welcome to respond to this post. I'll be very happy to compare the liar Webb's current statements with his voting record. He can lie all he wants, but his record will always tell the truth about what he really believes.

Crowd Size From 'One Nation' Versus Crowd Size From "Restoring Honor'

2010-10-04T11:41:00.006-04:00

We all know that the left-leaning media (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN as well as the Washington Post and New York Times) do whatever they can to put down Conservatives and then prop-up leftists. Many years ago, people would simply believe it because it was in print or broadcast over a major network and no one had any way of checking the news people's "facts." Until now. This is why the Internet is so important to us these days. It helps us expose who is lying and who is telling the truth.

Take for example two different rallies. On August 28th was the "Restoring Honor" and October 2nd the "One Nation" rally. The news media tried to downplay the size of the August rally and tried to make the October rally sound larger than it was.

But the real proof is below. This is a shot of the crowd from the "Restoring Honor" rally:

And this is a shot of the "One Nation" rally:

These two photos speak for themselves and also speak to the dishonest manner in which the above mentioned news outlets distort facts and information.

Democrat Violence Against Private Citizen Caught On Video

2010-09-24T15:37:00.004-04:00

The next time a Democrat tries to say that they abhor violence and are the most tolerant and peace-loving group in the nation and that they staunchly support the First Amendment, remember the following video:

Video Of Activist Thugs Attacking A Private Citizen Exercizing His First Amendment Right

Democrats are encouraged to reply and tell us how they feel about the assaults that occured in this video.

I would classify this as a hate crime since the two Democrats in question clearly hated the man they attacked.

Further, I have two questions: 1) Why invite the public to a forum where you will be making comments you do not want recorded? 2) Where is the condemnation of these two thugs by Governor Kitzhaber?

Tea Party Cartoons

2010-09-18T08:02:00.005-04:00

Time To Choose: Sacrifice Power For Principles Or Sacrifice Principles For Power?

2010-09-15T08:01:00.005-04:00

That is the question after Christine O'Donnell's huge upset win over GOP establishment candidate Mike Castle in Delaware yesterday. There are many lessons to be drawn from that contest and many new questions as a result.

The first lesson is that the Tea Party is not just a movement, it is a revolution. Remember what Tommy Lee Jones said in the movie Under Siege?

"Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face."

The RNC and RNSC haven't gotten the message yet. The Tea Party Revolution is upon them and they need to get with the program or commit political suicide.

The question now becomes: "Will the GOP sacrifice power for principles or principles for power?"

Take, for instance, what Karl Rove did on Hannity when he attacked Christine O'Donnell. According to the American Spectator:

Mere minutes after Fox News had reported the victory of conservative activist Christine O'Donnell over Establishment Congressman Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP U.S. Senate primary, former Bush Deputy Chief of Staff and Fox News consultant Karl Rove was in place on Sean Hannity's TV show to analyze.

Or…well…something.

The normally rational and analytical Mr. Rove had vanished. In his place was someone who looked like Karl Rove, sounded like Karl Rove…but spoke like the last guy out of the hoped-for-victory-party of the landslide losing candidate for Register of Deeds in NoPlaceville, Texas.

What on earth was Rove thinking? He was bitter, angry, cutting, demeaning, mean-spirited…and those were the nice things he had to say about O'Donnell.

Even former Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perrino stuck to the old GOP establishment talking points by constantly referring to candidates who "could win."

Rove and Perrino, like most establishment GOPers, were hoping to get that Senate seat in Delaware even if it meant abandoning Conservative principles to get it. In other words, they are more than willing to sacrifice principles for power.

But the Tea Party Revolution is going in the opposite direction. We value principles over power because without strong, consistent principles, power becomes corrupt.

Well, it also turns out that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is also deaf to the call of the Tea Party:

Carl Cameron of Fox News is reporting the National Republican Senatorial Committee will not be helping the official nominee of the Delaware Republican Party for the United States Senate in her Senate campaign.

Apparently, if their is no chance of getting the power, supporting the principles means nothing to the RNSC. This is yet another reason why they don't get any money from me.

Since the RNC and RNSC have abandoned princples for power, I suggest to everyone who was thinking of donating to either of those organizations to hold on to your money and instead donate it directly to candidates that will hold on to their principles regardless of whether or not such faithfulness will translate into power.

Rove Attack, NRSC Refusal, Will Aid O'Donnell
Jeffrey Lord
American Spectator
September 14, 2010

UPDATE: Apparently, the NRSC has had a change of heart:

NRSC Chairman Cornyn’s Statement On Delaware Senate Race
National Republican Senatorial Committee
September 15, 2010

Barack Obama: Thin-Skinned And Easily Hurt

2010-09-14T12:38:00.002-04:00

Let's think back a few short years ago and remember all the nasty, vile things that were said publically about George W. Bush. All of them were infantile insults and many of the people who uttered them are today invited to be guest speakers at colleges, universities and political events around the United States. Even today, Sarah Palin is to target of a great deal of irrational hatred from the peace-loving and tolerant left. (Note the sarcasm of those last five words.)

So, what happens when Barack Obama is on the receiving end of a few criticisms? Well, first he complains that people are talking about him "like a dog." But then check out what happens if someone writes a private note with an insult or criticism:

Luke Angel, 17, sent an angry email to the White House after watching a documentary about the September 11 attacks while drunk.

The FBI intercepted the email and contacted police in his home town of Silsoe, Bedfordshire.

Mr Angel has now been placed on a list of people banned from entering the US.

Mr Angel told the Bedfordshire On Sunday newspaper that he was unconcerned about the ban.

"I don't really care. My parents aren't very happy about it," the paper quoted Mr Angel as saying.

"The police who came round took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever."

Mr Angel told the newspaper he had called Mr Obama a "prick", but he could not remember exactly what he had written because he was "drunk and high".

A "prick." During the 2008 election, Democrats were wearing tee-shirts that read: "Sarah Palin is a cunt." None of them ever had any law-enforcement people come after them.

And neither Sarah Palin nor President Bush ever uttered one single word of complaint about any of it.

But a 17-year-old gets banned from the U.S, for hurting Obama's feelings?

Barack Obama needs to grow up and put on his big-boy shorts. The Democrats need a consistent set of standards too.

Teen banned from US for insulting Obama
ABC News
September 14, 2010

Video Of Our Unsecure Border

2010-09-12T08:11:00.001-04:00

We remembered 9/11. How long before we completely forget the lessons?

Video Trailer: I Want Your Money (2010)

2010-09-10T12:05:00.002-04:00

Excellent video. I love the comparisons between Reagan and Obama. I also love the part where Nancy Pelosi is promising no legislation or spending that adds to the deficit.

Out Of Touch Hilda Solis: 'There Are Jobs Out There'

2010-09-07T11:57:00.003-04:00

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis has written a propaganda puff-piece that Baghdad Bob and Joseph Goebbels would be proud of. Despite the fact that more jobs have been lost than created since Obama's economic policies went into effect and despite the fact that jobless claims have consistently gone up during the same time period and despite the fact that economic growth is an anemic 1.6%, Solis wrote the following in USA Today:

I am not an economist. I believe that numbers only tell you part of the story. I deal with real people, and I know that the only true replacement for a job lost, is a new job that pays good wages. I'm committed to making that a reality for anyone who wants a job.

That's why I'm so excited to announce www.myskillsmyfuture.org— a new online tool to connect workers with high quality training and local employment.

By visiting the site and adding information about your most recent work experience, you can see exactly what skills you need to qualify for a broad range of careers. You can also find local training and education providers and, yes — you can see local job postings.

In other words, what's next ... is up to you.

There are jobs out there. And, this Labor Day — and every day — I'm going to continue helping people find them and employers fill them. If you're ready to embrace a 21st century career, I want you to know your Department of Labor is here to help you. And, if you're an employer looking to fill positions, we've got a list of great candidates for you.

In other words, if you don't have a good paying job, it's your fault for not trying hard enough in your search.

Well, Solis did get one thing right: she is not an economist.

This is simply more evidence of how badly the Dems are out of touch with reality and why we need to send them packing come November.

You can access the complete essay on-line here:

Labor Secretary: 'There Are Jobs Out There'
Hilda Solis
USA Today
September 3, 2010

Real Or Fake? Can You Spot The Bogus Government Programs Funded By The Stimulus Package?

2010-09-03T14:42:00.004-04:00

Watch this video:

How much more evidence do we need to prove that the government has done nothing but squander our hard earned tax dollars for the past year and a half?

Remember in November.

James Freeman: Glenn Beck's 'Happy Warriors'

2010-09-01T13:09:00.005-04:00

Despite all the claims by leftists like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et. al., the Restoring Honor rally was the most peacful and good-mannered that D.C. has seen since, well, has ever seen period.

There was no hate. And the claims of it being an all-white crowd were quashed with the presence of a large number of African-Americans and their families, including Harry R. Jackson. (I know Rev. Jackson was there because I saw him in a video of the event, a video that Keith Olbermann either never knew existed or, more likely, deliberately chose to ignore.)

Anyway, James Freeman of the Wall Street Journal has a fantastic summary of what he saw and heard at the rally.

From his column:

This army of well-mannered folks that marched into Washington seemed comprised mainly of people who had once marched in the U.S. Army or other military branch, or at least had a family member who had. Perhaps that's not surprising, given that the event was a fund-raiser for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which provides scholarships to the children of elite troops killed in the performance of their duty. The day was largely devoted to expressions of gratitude for the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers, for great men of American history like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and for God.

But it didn't end there. Dave Roever, a Vietnam veteran, offered a closing prayer in which he thanked the Lord for the president and for the Congress. Despite the unpopularity of the latter two, no booing or catcalls could be heard.

Perhaps feeling defensive about how they would be portrayed in media reports, various attendees wore t-shirts noting that they were "Not violent" or "Non-violent." For other participants, there was no need for an explicit message. Relaxed young parents felt comfortable enough to push toddlers in strollers through the crowded areas along the memorial's reflecting pool.

If Olbermann, Matthews and the other members of the hate-filled left would actually take the time see reality, they might not look so foolish when they make their outlandish claims.

One aspect of the event made it undeniably superior to other rallies of comparable size: the area was cleaner when they were done than it was before they started.

Not only was the rally akin to a "huge church picnic" (in one Journal reporter's description), but one had to wonder if the over-achievers in this crowd actually left the area in better shape than they found it.

After the event, walking from the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool through Constitution Gardens, this reporter scanned 360 degrees and could not see a scrap of trash anywhere. Participants and volunteers had collected all their refuse and left it piled neatly in bags around the public garbage cans. Near Constitution Avenue, I did encounter one stray piece of paper—but too old and faded to have been left that day.

Contrast that with how Obama supporters left the mall after they were done so rudely singing "Na-na-na-na. Hey! Hey! Goodbye!" to George W. Bush:

Here is a video showing how the participants of the Restoring Honor cleaned up in a way that Obama's supporters didn't even dream of doing:

And although Glenn Beck himself claimed to disagree with the final two paragraphs, they are relevent:

The conservative Mr. Beck's ability to draw this many people to Washington may suggest enormous gains for Republicans come the fall. But the GOP shouldn't expect voters to simply hand them a congressional majority without making them earn it. If pregame chatter and off-season optimism translated into victory, the New York Jets and the Washington Redskins would meet in the Super Bowl every year.

Between Saturday's crowd in Washington and the tea partiers agitating for limited government, we may be witnessing the rebuilding of the Reagan coalition, the "fusion" of religious and economic conservatives that political theorist Frank Meyer once endorsed. Reagan always believed that the Republican Party was the natural home for this movement, but GOP leaders in Washington need to prove they are worthy of it.

Yes, they do.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Glenn Beck's 'Happy Warriors'
James Freeman
Wall Street Journal
August 31, 2010

Gretchen Carlson Smacks Down Robert Gibbs

2010-08-31T16:38:00.001-04:00

Too bad the newsreaders at ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN don't have the guts or werewithal to ask the tough questions and hold fast to a demand for straight answers. Also note that Gibbs is caught in bold-faced lie about Obama's stated position on the surge back in 2007. (For reference, see the inset videos of Obama speaking back in 2007.)

This is priceless:

Is Gibbs a pathological liar or is he really that clueless about his boss?

Cars Are Not Toys! Learn To Drive Gently.

2010-08-28T14:47:00.003-04:00

This video is for all those who have not yet learned how to drive gently, learned how to drive without talking on the cell phone, learned to drive without texting or haven't yet figured out the function of that little lever on the ;left side of the sterring column.

Pass this one along to your friends, especially if they have teenagers or fall into one of the above categories.

Pigs Of Waste - The Nuge Weighs In

2010-08-26T10:07:00.005-04:00

I think that Ted Nugent may be a better writer than Ann Coulter. He certainly has the wit and humor to match and his premises are valid and based in reality.

That's what makes his latest column so funny, and so angering at the same time. He takes on Government waste a la the failed Stimuls package. From his article:

Fedzilla shoveled two million of our tax dollars into a fire pit so that the California Academy of Sciences could send photographers to the Southwest Indian Ocean and to East Africa to take pictures of ants. That's right, ants.

Seventy-two thousand more of our hard-earned tax dollars was given to Wake Forest University so that they could set it on fire by studying how monkeys react when stoned on cocaine. Read the Kurt Cobain story. It's been done.

If that isn't insulting enough, Georgia State University received almost $700,000 to determine how monkeys and chimps respond to "distributional inequality" and "unfairness." Rumor has it that Koko the gorilla responded "yes" by pressing a blue button when asked if she thought the study was discriminatory because gorillas were not included. King Kong could not be reached for comment. Jane Goodall, please report to your parole officer immediately.

Yes, this is funny. But it also highlights how asanine the pols in DC have become when it comes to spending our money. The Dem-controlled Congress has no idea that people are not able to send their high school graduates to college nor do they have any idea that people with young children need that money to feed and clothe them. No, Congress thinks that it can take your money and just give to whomever they please for whatever reason they please and your family that needs that money be damned.

November can't come soon enough.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Pigs Of Waste
Ted Nugent
HumanEvents.com
August 26, 2010

Where Are The Jobs? Why Are So Few Hiring?

2010-08-26T08:00:00.005-04:00

I've seen alot of squawking on the Internet about how corporations and businesses are sitting on $8 trillion in assets but won't hire new workers. As the husband of a woman who owns a small business, I have yet to see any of that $8 trillion in my wife's bookkeeping.

But, even if that $8 trillion really existed, the question of so few hirings would have nothing to do with that money and have everything to do with government constantly intervening in economic matters, usually at the expense of the economy in general.

John Stossel has this to say about why there are so few new hires right now:

The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone.

Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire.

President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden.

In at least three big areas — health insurance, financial regulation, and taxes — no one can know what will happen.

New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers.

Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies."

These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity.

The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A "distinguished" deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax?

Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads.

It wouldn't matter if the assets totaled more than $8 quadrillion or $8 quintillion. With uncertainty like this coming out of the Obama White House and the Pelosi-Reid Congress, hiring on the scale we need to boost the economy is not going to happen anytime soon.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Big Government Policies Aren't Creating New Jobs
John Stossel
NewsMax.com
August 24, 2010

The White House War On Jobs

2010-08-25T10:32:00.004-04:00

If Joeseph Goebbels were re-incarnated and alive today, he would be somewhere in the Obama administration writing press releases about how jobs were being created or had been thus far saved. Those proclamations from the Obama White House are certainly strange, especially when the concurrent news stories are about how jobless claims are increasing on a monthly basis.

I don't think that Baghdad Bob would approve of such efforts at misleading propaganda.

But, Obama still has trouble accepting responsibility for the failed stimulus package and preferes to continue assigning blame to George W. Bush, who has been out of office for over a year-and-a-half now. Joe Biden is loathe to go back to the "good old days" when people had stable jobs and steady paychecks.

Michelle Malkin has a great article regarding the jobs being lost, even as Obama and family enjoy an upper-class vacation at Martha's Vineyard when most Americans can barely afford to take any kind of vacation at all.

From her column:

These are not the wealthy fat cats and Big Business titans Democrats love to demonize.

They're employees of companies like Assurant Health, which announced last week that it would slash 130 jobs at its offices in Milwaukee and Plymouth, Minn., to prepare for costly Obamacare mandates.

They're employees of medical device firms in Massachusetts, where officials say they'll be forced to cut back on operational costs and jobs thanks to a little-noticed Obamacare tax on their products that goes into effect in 2013.

They're employees of restaurants like White Castle and International House of Pancakes, whose executives say they will be forced into layoffs and premium hikes to cope with the federal law's $3,000-per-employee penalty on companies whose workers pay more than 9.5 percent of household income in premiums for company-provided insurance.

They're mom-and-pop enterprises across the country that must now deal with Obamacare's onerous Section 9006 tax-filing mandate. It requires them to file 1099 forms with the IRS for every vendor from whom they purchase $600 or more in goods. Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns calls it one of many "job-crushing provisions" that will bury small business in paperwork and legal costs.

They're the estimated 23,000 workers in the deepwater drilling industry whom the White House deliberately wrote off in pursuit of its junk science-based drilling moratorium.

They're the estimated tens of thousands of workers employed by car dealers that were shut down by Obama's auto czars at a time, as the TARP inspector general pointed out last month, "when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs... -- all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions' broader economic impact."

They're employees of Utah oil and gas companies whose leases have been pulled without cause by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The Interior Department's own Inspector General rejected Salazar's explanation that the Bush administration had rushed the leases through. The Deseret News reports that "rescinding these leases has likely cost the state millions already. Officials in Uintah county estimate the county lost 3,000 jobs in 2009, and Duchesne lost 1,000 jobs."

They're employees of commercial and recreational fishing businesses in New England, who have organized a flotilla on Martha's Vineyard on Thursday to protest the Obama administration's restrictive environmental policies and stealth regulatory ocean grab.

It's no wonder that Democrats up for re-election this year are stampeding as fast as they can away from the White House and its current occupant.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The White House War on Jobs
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
August 25, 2010

From King Of The World To Chicken Of The Sea: James Cameron Backs Out Of Global Warming Public Debate

2010-08-23T07:52:00.003-04:00

Before we get into the details, let's look at some of Cameron's more outspoken moments:

Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: "I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads"

Cameron: "If we don't do something, we're all going to die! What's it going to take, a big f#cking disaster with all kinds of people dying?" March 1, 2010 – Grist Mag.

Cameron: "Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their ass I'm not sure they could hear me." March 24, 2010

We heard him loud and clear, especially when he agreed to a public debate about Global Warming in Aspen, Colorado this past weekend. But, he decided to back out.

From Climate Depot:

Hollywood director James Cameron challenged three high profile global warming skeptics to a public debate at a global warming and energy conference. But Cameron backed out of the debate at the last minute after environmentalists "came out of the woodwork" to warn him not to engage in a debate with skeptics because it was not in his best interest.

Cameron challenged Andrew Breitbart, Climate Depot's Marc Morano and filmmaker Ann McElhinney of 'Not Evil Just Wrong.' The debate was already in the program for the Aspen American Renewable Energy Day (AREDAY) summit. The website program described the agreed to debate as “AREDAY Climate Change Debate: Reality or Fiction?"

After setting up the public global warming debate, Cameron and his negotiator then changed formats multiple times and initially said it would be open to the media and then said he would only participate if it was private with no recording devices. The skeptics agreed to all the changes. According to AREDAY organizers, activist Joseph Romm of Climate Progress urged Cameron not to go ahead with the debate as well.

Why are all the Global Warming alarmists so afraid of public debate? Is it because of the scientific fraud that was made public by the East Anglia emails? Is it because the satellites used by NOAA for ground temperature measurements were found to be severely out of calibration?

Whatever the reason, it is clear that Global Warming alarmists like Al Gore and James Cameron do not want to have certain issues and pieces of information discussed in a public venue for fear of being exposed as frauds.

There is no good reason whatsoever to hide information from the public about this issue, yet the Global Warming alarmist crowd seems dead set on doing just that.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

From King Of The World To Chicken Of The Sea: Director James Cameron Challenges Climate Skeptics To Debate And Then Bails Out At Last Minute
Marc Morano
Climate Depot
August 23, 2010

Mosque Yes, Christian Church No

2010-08-19T08:43:00.005-04:00

Here is another aspect of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy that is going completely unnoticed.

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks in which 19 Muslims caused the deaths of almost 3000 innocent people. The church itself was a four story structure that was crushed by the collapsing towers.

In the nine years that have passed since then, the congregation has been trying to rebuild their house of worship but have been constantly thwarted by bureaucracy and politcal posturing of the Port Authority and other local government entities.

From Fox News:

Though talks between the church and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey stalled last year, church leaders say they've been trying to kick-start discussions ever since. But amid debate over whether a proposed Islamic community center should go forward near Ground Zero, government officials threw cold water on the prospect of any deal with the church -- telling Fox News the deal is off the table.

Confronted with the Port Authority's verdict, Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, said it's the first he's heard that.

"Negotiations did break off last year. We were expecting to hear from their lawyers -- we never did. We're still expecting to hear from them," he told Fox News. "We're disappointed. ... 130 Liberty Street was promised to us."

Now, contrast this with the Ground Zero Mosque which is being fast-tracked and is being endorsed by high-profile political figures like Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg. Where are the endorsements of these politicians for rebuilding St. Nicholas? Is a Christian Church simply not worth it?

I'll give my own opinion here. This is political correctness running rampant over the wishes and sensitivities of the American people. All should be equal before the law, but those who espouse political correctness will consider some (e.g. the Ground Zero Mosque) to be more worthy of attention and support than others (e.g. St. Nicholas Church).

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Decision Not to Rebuild Church Destroyed on 9/11 Surprises Greek Orthodox Leaders
David Lee Miller, Kathleen Foster and Judson Berger
FoxNews.com
August 18, 2010

Harry Reid's Hypocrisy On Illegal Immigration

2010-08-18T14:13:00.004-04:00

Apparently, Harry Reid (D-NV) was against amnesty before he was for it. Perhaps the idea of a millions-strong voting bloc that was pro-leftist/liberal/socialist/Democrat was just too much for him to resist.

Even so, what he said on the issue back in 1993 is still very true today.

"Religion Of Peace" Worshippers Stone Couple To Death

2010-08-16T08:13:00.003-04:00

Somehow, the appelation "Religion of Peace" doesn't seem to stick when I read stories like this.

From the Telegraph UK:

A man and woman have been stoned to death in northern Afghanistan after being accused by the Taliban of having an affair.

The 23-year-old woman and 28-year-old man were killed because "they had an affair," said Mohammad Ayob, the governor of Imam Sahib district in Kunduz province.

"Two people were stoned to death by Taliban in Mullah Quli village late yesterday," he said. The village is under the control of the Taliban.

...

The couple had their hands bound behind their backs and were forced to stand in an empty field as their sentence was carried out, he said.

A local Taliban commander, who contacted media but refused to give his name, confirmed the killings.

...

Earlier this month, the Taliban publicly flogged and then killed a pregnant widow for alleged "adultery" in western Badghis province.

Where is the outrage from the so-called "moderate" Muslims? If this were a Christian or Jewish happening, the entire world would be screaming with rage (including the Muslims). Where was the courageous Islamic who stood up in front of the crowd and said, "Let him who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone!"

But then, I'm sure that the apologists for the Islamics will assert that the couple was violently stoned to death in the most peaceful manner possible.

Taliban Kill Couple In Public Stoning
Foreign Staff
Telegraph UK
August 16, 2010

Excellent Cartoon About The Bogus Racism Charges Against The Tea Party

2010-08-16T07:46:00.004-04:00

Obama: Okay Hosting Muslim Function, Says No To "Christian Character" Of "God And Country" Rally

2010-08-13T08:28:00.004-04:00

I said it before, and I'll say it again: "If it weren't for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all."

So, the Obama administration refuses to allow Flyovers for the "God and Country" rally in Nampa, Idaho because of the "Christian Character" of the rally.

Pentagon Denies Flyover of Patriotic ‘God and Country Rally’ in Nampa Idaho Because of its Christian Content
George Vogt
Metro Catholic
July 4, 2009

This marks the first time in the 42 year history of the event that a flyover request was denied by the Pentagon.

The event is held ever year to honor the spiritual foundations of our country with a special emphasis on the men and women who serve in the armed forces.

In past years, the “God and Country Rally” has focused on honoring and paying tribute to those veterans who have served our nation in the past and those who are currently on active duty.

At the rally this year, all five branches of the armed services were featured with over 60 new recruits sworn into the military at the event.

After a phone conversation and an e-mail response from the Pentagon, Rally Director Patti Syme says they were denied the request for a flyover this year because of the “Christian” nature of the event.

But, the Obama administration is perfectly fine with hosting a Muslim event right in the White House.

Statement by the President on the Occasion of Ramadan
White House Press Release
August 11, 2010

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want to extend my best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families and friends – as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan.

I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.

So, it's okay to say "no" because of "Christian Character" but then turn around and say yes to Muslims in the name of "justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

I wonder how dignified women feel when they are subjugated by Sharia law and what Barack Obama's position on this is?

I know alot of you out there are going to say that Bush did the same thing at Ramadan, but Bush did not cancel flyovers for the God and Country rally saying the event was too "Christian." Still, I'd also like to know Bush's position on the subjugation of women under Sharia law.

Funny But Accurate Cartoon

2010-08-03T09:26:00.001-04:00

Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status

2010-08-02T14:37:00.003-04:00

In a move similar to Arizona's SB1070, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ruled that law enforcement officials in Virginia can check on the immigration status of suspects when they are arrested. This almost seems like Richmond daring the Obama Administration to launch a lawsuit directly across the Potomac River.

From Fox News:

In a decision that could lay the groundwork for an Arizona-style immigration policy, Virginia's attorney general said state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone "stopped or arrested."

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued the legal opinion Friday extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.

"It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested," he wrote.

If Barack Obama was hoping that the immigration issue would "go away" after leftist judge Susan Bolton gutted the Arizona law, he must be sorely disappointed at this point.

Also, coming on the heels of a Federal judge allowing a Virginia lawsuit against Obamacare to move forward, this comes as a double whammy.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status
FoxNews.com
August 2, 2010

Illegal Alien Supporters Desecrate US Flag During National Anthem

2010-08-02T14:20:00.003-04:00

Disgusting. View the video here:

I thought the people who supported "immigration reform" said that these people wanted to integrate themselves into U.S. society and become productive citizens. I don't see alot of that here. You may try to say that the idiots in this video represent the fringe, but I have yet to hear about any illegal immigrant advocacy group speaking out against such a disrespectful display.

Federal Judge Allows Virginia Lawsuit Against Obamacare To Move Forward

2010-08-02T12:46:00.004-04:00

From the Wall Street Journal:

Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that he’ll let the state of Virginia’s challenge to the landmark health care law passed in March go forward, at least for the time being. Click here for the early Reuters story; here for the 32-page opinion.

The Department of Health and Human Services had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in March, shortly after the passage of the law. But Judge Hudson on Monday denied the motion.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Virginia’s lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the health-care law. Another large one was filed in a Florida federal court by a handful of state attorneys general.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson ruled:

The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

In other words, off to discovery we head.

And a whole lot of stuff is going to come out that the Obama administration and its supporters would rather not have a public debate about. Things like how the Republicans were locked out of meetings where the bill was written, the benefits offered to certain states so that their Senators would vote the right way, etc. This is going to be a very fun case to watch.

Thank God there is some sanity left in the Judiciary somewhere.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Virginia Judge: The Suit Against The Health Care Law Goes Forward
Ashby Jones
Wall Street Journal
August 2, 2010

Leftist Judge Susan Bolton Sides With Illegals And Drug Lords Against America

2010-07-29T07:49:00.005-04:00

No, that's not sour grapes in the title. It's the bare truth. Essentially, Susan Bolton is saying that Arizona cannot enforce Federal Law and that the Feds do not have to enforce their own laws.

Think I'm kidding? Here is what Investor's Business Daily notes:

Bolton blocked the main provisions of Arizona's law requiring state lawmen to ask people they come into legitimate contact with to show documentation if there's reasonable suspicion they're here illegally.

So now a van driver arrested by a state trooper for driving 120 miles per hour with 30 people stuffed under his floorboards will still get a speeding ticket, but the officer can't ask about his immigration status. Nothing to see here; move along.

Bolton also blocked provisions requiring foreigners to carry papers at all times (as federal law already requires), as well as a section prohibiting public solicitation of work. Likewise, a section allowing warrantless arrests on probable cause was tossed.

Judging Arizona
Investor's Business Daily
July 28, 2010

In essence, by tossing the Arizona law, Bolton also tossed Federal Law.

Now, we have nothing to contain the tide of illegals, drugs and other contraband that is coming across the Mexican border. Barack Obama has gotten his wish, as he expressed to Senator Kyl of Arizona:

Obama Won't Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package
Fox News
June 21, 2010

So, what we have here is a situation where the Federal Government is refusing to carry out its responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States and it is prohibiting the citizens from protecting themselves. That is a volatile combination, one that will either have mildly serious consequences or majorly serious consequences down the road.

I don't know who, but someone once said: "When the government fails in its responsibility to protect its citizens, it is the duty of the citizen to take up that responsibility for himself." That is going to come into play here very soon. It will come in two phases.

First, the November elections are coming up fast. The mood across the United States is clear. The Obama Administration is in the toilet and this ruling against a state law that enjoyed broad support across the United States is only going to make that worse. There were several Democrat Governors visiting the White House who expressed their concern that the actions against Arizona are "toxic" to the election and re-election hopes of Democrats.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns On Immigration
Abby Goodnough
New York Times
July 11, 2010

After the November elections, if the Federal Government doesn't get the message from the American people, then the people will begin taking matters into their own hands. A nation that is truly free must have laws and those laws must be enforced by the government entrusted to enforce them. If the government decided to pick and choose which laws it will enforce and which laws it will ignore, it will destroy the confidence of the people and the people will respond accordingly.

We may very likely begin seeing a violent backlash against illegals in the country with a concurrent attempt by the government to stem this backlash. But that will only fuel the fire. People will see a government cracking down on its own citizens while ignoring the threat coming across the border. That will, in turn, result in more violence.

Think that's exaggerating? Consider this:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put on a brave face, saying the battle was "far from over" and her state would fight all the way to the Supreme Court. But this will take decades, giving Mexico's murderous cartels many years of people-smuggling profits.

So the delay itself amounts to a victory for the law's foes. In addition to paying for the expensive litigation, Arizona can look forward to a growing bill for housing, schooling, jailing and providing "free" health care for the illegals who will now flow into the state.

And it can't say no. Isn't that taxation without representation?

Some 15,000 Arizona state officers could be helping the federal government enforce the laws it isn't enforcing now. Now, they'll do other things instead. By the logic of Bolton's ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995 would now be prohibited from arresting him for the federal crime of the bombing, too.

If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The federal government has no intent of enforcing the laws against rampant and brazen illegal immigration. Indeed, it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and human traffickers that now freely cross our southern border.

Once that level has been achieved, the Federal government will have no way of controlling it. Think law enforcement agencies will be able to handle what is coming? No, it will be too big. Think using the military will work? No, most members of the military will refuse to take action against American citizens and will openly question why the illegal invasion was allowed to go unchecked in the first place.

Susan Bolton may very well have written the modern day Uncle Tom's Cabin that will spark a modern civil war, a war that the Federal Government will not be able to win this time.

How The Death Tax Kills Small Businesses, Communities—And Civil Society

2010-07-27T11:33:00.005-04:00

Think that the "Death Tax" is an engine for redistributing wealth from the wealthy to the needy? Not so. A more accurate description would be that it redistrubutes wealth from small communities to large corporations.

This isn't to say that large super-chains like Wal-Mart and Target are to blame. No, far from it. The large corporations are simply taking advantage of the opportunities that the Death Tax makes available to them.

When the owner of a business or farm whose valuation is over the Death Tax threshold dies, those who stand to inherit the estate will have to pay the Death Tax. Now, if the deceased did not leave enough cash reserves to pay off the Death Tax, the heirs will have to come up with the money. That usually means selling off land or assets and most often, a large corporation will be there to make the purchase.

But it isn't only the business or farm that suffers. The community around which the business or farm existed also suffers, especially now since the new owner's have no vested interest in the local community the way a family-owned business does.

Writing for the Heritage Foundation, Patrick Fagan, Ph.D., illustrates this witrh crystal clear reasoning:

All across America, the day-to-day richness of Americans’ way of life is evident among families who live in tight-knit towns and small communities. Communities are formed through an intricate web of connections. The typical web-building process is familiar: Children gather at a local swimming pool or join a Boys & Girls Club. Their parents become acquainted. Parents and children form friendships and find their lives intersecting in a widening variety of places—at church, at school and local civic organizations, on athletic teams, and through charitable projects. They visit in one another’s homes, share their concerns about their children’s schools, and render mutual aid and moral support in times of difficulty. Through such interactions, individuals and families spontaneously knit the fabric of a community. Then the boy marries the girl and it all starts over again.

But community is not an inevitable result even when people live in close proximity to each other. The associations that form a community are like an ecosystem, where all the complex interactions depend on a few sources of sustenance: air, water, sunlight. Degrade one of those sources, and the ecosystem is vulnerable to systemic breakdown. So, too, with communities.

By undermining a primary source of sustenance for communities, the small business, the “death tax” (the federal estate tax levied on individuals, including owners of small companies, after their death) is a direct assault on a community’s ecosystem. In any typical community, small businesses are not external sources of nurturance, like sunlight cast on an ecosystem from afar. They are integral parts of—and active participants in—a community. As such, they generate some of the most critical forces that knit communities together. These crucial economic resources are often destroyed by death taxes.

...

Playgrounds, senior centers, volunteer organizations—are all spaces within which people interact to form community. These spaces are not optional; a community cannot exist without them. In threatening the source of their support, the death tax is the Grim Reaper that can gut small communities by uprooting people’s livelihoods, decimating charity flow, cutting down young entrepreneurial talent, while in the process robbing small-town America and city neighborhoods of much of their civil society underpinnings.

While the Obama administration deems many businesses (usually those with large bodies of Union employees) as "too big to fail" they have yet to declare any community as "too small to steam roll."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

How The Death Tax Kills Small Businesses, Communities—And Civil Society
Patrick Fagan
Heritage Foundation
July 26, 2010

Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up

2010-07-22T15:17:00.004-04:00

It's a hot topic this week. What we have been seeing with ThinkProgress.org editing a video for propaganda purposes and then with Shirley Sherrod admitting to an overt act of racism, is a massive playing of the race card by the left. Only this time, the race card is blowing up right in their faces, and they know it. Thus, they go on the offensive and claim that only Conservatives can be racist but they immediately clam up or go into major spin mode when asked to explain the comments of people like King Shabazz and Shirley Sherrod.

And of course, no one on the left will even consider commenting on the Justice Department's directive not to pursue any case where the victim was white and the perpetrator black.

Ann Coulter has a nice take on this:

This is what "racism" has come to in America. Democrats are in trouble, so they say "let's call conservatives racists." We always knew it, but the Journolist postings gave us the smoking gun.

This explains why we've heard so much about Tea Partiers being "racists" lately.

But despite a frantic search, the media have been unable to produce any actual evidence of racism at the Tea Parties. Even the trace elements are either frauds or utterly trivial.

Whereas bloggers like me have been posting hard evidence about racism in other organizations or that alleged Tea Party racism turns out to be fabricated, we have yet to find one person or group that has any hard evidence of a racist Tea Party.

Rememeber when Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone who could produce an audio or video tape showing that some Tea Partier had called Rep. John Lewis a certain racial epithtet (beginning with the letter "N") at least one time, nevermind the 15 times that the news media charged? That reward still remains unclaimed. Why? Because the incident never happened.

Given the number of video cameras, cell phones and other recording devices that were present, there is no way someone could have yelled that word fifteen times and it never got recorded.

More:

And now this week, with the NAACP accusing the Tea Partiers of harboring racists, and conservatives demanding proof, the George Soros-backed Center for American Progress ran a 45-second video allegedly showing racism at the Tea Parties.

One of the videos shows an obvious liberal plant announcing, "I'm a proud racist!" Apparently this was their best shot, because they had to work this video into the montage twice, amid utterly innocuous posters, for example, saying, "God bless Glenn Beck." So I guess they didn't have anything better.

Here's the part Soros' people didn't show you: In the fuller video shown on the Glenn Beck show, the Tea Partiers surrounded the (liberal plant) racist, jeering at him, telling him he's not one of them and to go home. In a spectacularly evil fraud, all that was edited out.

I have that very video posted on this blog.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up
Ann Coulter
Townhall.com
July 22, 2010

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

2010-07-22T08:49:00.004-04:00

A wonderful essay from Fred Barnes at the Wall Street Journal regarding the expose of liberal journalists on JournoList who worked to make sure that certain negative stories about Barack Obama got covered up. Before I get to the meat of the article, I have to relay one particular item that seems relevent due to the recent stories about racism within the NAACP and the fact that ThinkProgress.org found it necessary to edit a six minute video down to a few seconds in order to produce a piece of propaganda that had been intended to make the Tea Party look racist.

Here is what Fred wrote:

What was particularly pathetic about the scheme to smear Mr. Obama's critics was labeling them as racists. The accusation has been made so frequently in recent years, without evidence to back it up, that it has little effect. It's now the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.

Italic emphasis mine. Those two lines show why the Tea Party has been under attack. It is not because they are racist. It is because their message of lower taxes, reducing wasteful government spending and getting government out of our private lives is resonating among mainstream America. The progressive left finds this to be a huge threat and therefore must resort of making false accusations in an attempt to discredit the Tea Partiers.

Now, about that JournoList. Here is what Fred wrote:

JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the [Reverend Wright] controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire.

And this:

I think JournoList is—or was—fundamentally different, and not simply because one of its members proposed to make palpably false accusations. As best I can tell, those involved in JournoList considered themselves part of a team. And their goal was to make sure the team won. In 2008, this was Mr. Obama's team. More recently, the goal seems to have been to defeat the conservative team.

Until JournoList came along, liberal journalists were rarely part of a team. Neither are conservative journalists today, so far as I know. If there's a team, no one has asked me to join.

Ethics in journalism from outlets like the Washington Post or New York Times? Not from what I have seen.

Thank God we have an Internet and alternative means of getting good, accurate information that the major media outlets cannot censor or cover up.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy
Fred Barnes
Wall Street Journal
July 22, 2010

Think Progress Used A Heavily Edited Video To 'Prove' Tea Party Is Racist

2010-07-21T09:11:00.006-04:00

But they didn't show the full video nor did they mention that the subject of the video was a Democrat plant sent in to stir up controversy. That man was a well-documented Tea Party crasher.

In the Think Progress version of the clip, you only see one or two seconds of this man claiming that he is a white racist. This is due to the editing that Think Progress did to reduce the six-minute clip down to only those parts they could use as propaganda. In other words, Think Progress is deliberately misleading their viewership.

Here is the full video and proof that the Tea Party is not tolerent of racists in their midst:

Also note that Think Progress used another video to claim Tea Party racism but retracted it when it was learned that the video footage they were using was from 2006, three years before the Tea Party revolution began.

Any members or supporters of Think Progress are welcome to address this post and give their side of the story.

Racism Within The NAACP

2010-07-19T13:58:00.004-04:00

The NAACP really needs to clean up its own ranks before calling other organizations racist, exspecially when there is no evidence of racism in those other organizations (like the Tea Party) but their is solid evidence of racism within the NAACP.

Note the following video in which USDA official Shirley Sherrod admits to acting on her own racist beliefs and feelings when dealing with a white farmer. Especially note how other members of the NAACP either approve of her action or conspicuously fail to call her out for it.

Actions speak louder than words.

With Mid-Term Disaster Looming, Dems Backtrack On 'Racist Tea-Party' Rhetoric

2010-07-19T07:47:00.004-04:00

It appears that the Dems are beginning to understand exactly what is going to happen to their party come November. Why else would Vice President Joe Biden declare that the Tea Parties were "not racist" when that has been the mantra of the Dems and their media allies for over a year?

From the Washington Times:

"Very conservative, very different views on government and a whole lot of things," Biden said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "But it is not a racist organization."

President Barack Obama doesn't think so, either, Biden said.

Looks like panic mode has been achieved.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Biden: Tea Party Isn't Racist Organization
Associated Press via Washington Times
July 18, 2010

Women Of America Are Rising Up, Again! (Mama Grizzlies)

2010-07-08T07:31:00.003-04:00

The Dems are completely incompetent and the so-called men in the GOP are falling all over themselves to become Dem-lite. Let's let the traditional women of America take over for a while. I'll bet they'll get the hard work done that others are completely incapable of doing.

Black Panther Advocated Killing White Babies

2010-07-07T10:17:00.004-04:00

And this is the same Black Panther (King Shamir Shabazz) who was standing out in front of a polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters.

From Hot Air:

When Attorney General Eric Holder suddenly reversed course and had the DoJ dismiss the voter-intimidation case against two New Black Panther Party activists stemming from an incident in 2008 in Philadelphia, many questioned why the DoJ would quit a case it had already won. Attorneys within the DoJ wondered why the federal government had suddenly become disinterested in voter intimidation. Some, like Christian Adams, Asheesh Agarwal, and Mark Corallo have gone public with their outrage, and also wonder where the hell Congress has gone in its duty to oversee the executive branch and its enforcement of laws Congress passed.

Well, look, maybe this was just a bad day for the defendants. Maybe they were just nice young men who took civic engagement to a momentary extreme of enthusiasm. They’re probably just nice guys caught in a single instance of bad judgment … right?

Let's look at the video:

All that racial hatred from these people and yet Obama wanted to be the post-racial President. If he was so post-racial, why did he allow the Department of Justice to drop the case against such a racist scumbag as Shabazz?

You can access the original blog entry on-line here:

Video: The Nice Young Man Eric Holder Let Off The Hook
Ed Morrisey
HotAir.com
July 6, 2010

The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration

2010-07-07T07:59:00.003-04:00

Ever wonder what the Federal Government and the media were NOT telling you about illegal immigration? Well, we finally have a website that brings all the facts together in one spot for easy reference.

Herein you will learn facts that don't make the front page of major newspapers nor the lead stories of television newscasts. Things like:

Tuberculosis (TB) kills approximately 2 million people each year. It is estimated that between 2002 and 2020, approximately 1,000,000,000 people will be newly infected, over 150 million people will get sick, and 36 million will die. TB is a highly contagious disease. Like the common cold, it spreads through the air. When infectious people cough, sneeze, talk or spit, they propel TB germs, known as bacilli, into the air. Each person with active TB will infect on average between 10 and 15 people every year.

The United States currently has one of the lowest rates of TB in the world. Mexico has 10 times the rate of prevalence and many African countries along with Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Indonesia have rates that are 100 – 150 times higher. Making matters worse, a few years ago a Multi-Drug-Resistant (MDR) strain of TB has emerged that is resistant to all standard anti-TB drugs. Treating a single case of MDR TB costs over $250,000 and as much as $1,200,000 per person, and even with treatment about half of the patients with MDR-TB prematurely die.

The MSM report ad nauseam that illegal aliens are only "doing work that Americans won't." This mantra is mercilessly bandied about by illegal immigration supporters and echoes throughout the halls of Congress and the White House whenever the topic comes up. What is never mentioned, however, is that the illegal aliens are artificially depressing compensation and that illegal aliens are the only ones who will do the work at such low wages. In actual fact, illegal immigration distorts the law of supply and demand in a capitalistic society. Additionally it is grossly hypocritical to want to raise the minimum wage on one hand while the other hand winks at illegal aliens working at far below prevailing wages.

While some of the costs summarized above are subsets, e.g. cost of the murders as part of the cost of crime, as you can see the economic costs of tolerating illegal immigration is quite considerable. You are paying for it in terms of higher taxes, insurance premiums, et cetera. Some estimates place the net costs of each illegal alien in the country at $50,000 – $100,000. (FYI: 12,000,000 X $50,000 = $600,000,000,000) When the all the indirect costs are factored in, it is probably even higher. In any case, it is a cost that YOU are paying for.

You can access the website on-line here:

The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration
P.F. Wagner and Dan Amato

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says

2010-07-06T13:40:00.004-04:00

It's a sad day when the President of the United States sides with illegals over legitimate American citizens. This action shows where Obama's heart really is, and it is not with the American people.

From Fox News:

Obama and other top officials have criticized the law as misguided, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has slammed the administration for pursuing a lawsuit. She claims the administration has not done enough to secure the border -- a charge the administration denies.

Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law.

"We'll meet them in court ... and we will win," she said, calling the administration's actions a "disappointment."

The Arizona law has touched off an intense national debate over immigration. The results of any court challenge would have wide-ranging implications, as a number of other states and jurisdictions have taken up tough immigration policies similar to Arizona's.

The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed and that he won't "kick the can down the road" any longer.

There's only one problem with Obama's statements on the issue: The Arizona law mirrors current Federal law.

Lack Of Leadership In The Immigration Debate
Michael Zuckerman
CBS News
May 12, 2010

That's right, 8 USC 1357 is the same law except that it is more permissive in it's enforcement. The Arizona law is much more restrictive in how it can be applied.

Also remember that Eric Holder admitted that he had never read the Arizona law before offering criticism for it.

Far from being post-racial or any kind of a uniter, this latest action shows Obama in his true colors. He is a race-hustler and a class-warfare scam artist who holds non-Americans in higher regard than he holds legitimate Americans.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says
Fox News with Mike Levine
July 6, 2010

NRA To Endorse Anti-Gun Harry Reid In Nevada?

2010-07-01T10:32:00.005-04:00

I guess no organization is safe from committing political suicide. What has gotten into Wayne LePierre? Why is he playing footsie with politicians who want to trample on the 2nd Amendment?

Erick Erickson over at RedState.com is wondering why the NRA would even consider endorsing leftist Harry Reid (who endorsed every single anti-gun judicial nominee) over the pro-gun Sharron Angle? Here is Reid's record on gun-control votes:

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.

October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment.

November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.

June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program.

September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder.

September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school.

May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions.

May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds.

May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner.

May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks.

May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns.

May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada.

March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.

July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

If LaPierre does end up endorsing the gun-grabbing Harry Reid, then I and hundreds of thousands of others will immediately cancel our memberships and the NRA will cease to exist. If that happens, look for me to join Gun Owners of America instead.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid
Erick Erickson
RedState.com
July 1, 2010

Dr. Suess Comments On Hope And Change

2010-06-29T11:53:00.001-04:00

I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker, Nan,
I do not like this 'YES WE CAN.'
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like your smug replies,
when I complain about your lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it, nope, nope, nope!

Former Grand Kleagle Of The KKK And Democrat From West Virginia Robert Byrd Dies

2010-06-28T10:57:00.004-04:00

From KKK To U.S. Senate
Jim Kouri
Washington Examiner
June 28, 2010

Here is an exceprt of Byrd's letter to fellow Democrat Bilbo of Mississippi:

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." -Robert Byrd (D-WV)

And yet you will not hear about any of this from the ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN. They will rarely ever take a Dem to task for this stuff.

For me, I will hold Byrd to the same standard that the leftists in Old Media held Sen. Trent Lott to. If any libs wish to argue the point with me, feel free to do so.

Democrat Supervisor Doesn't Know That Arizona Is A Border State

2010-06-25T11:11:00.005-04:00

America, meet the Obama voter. Willing to believe anything desite the facts against it.

(Yes, Arizona really is a border state. Go look at a map of the Southwestern United States.)

“If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border.”

Of course, the Dems will ignore this comment and replay the old news of Rep. Barton's apology.

What? Mexico Wants To Dictate Internal U.S. Law?

2010-06-24T07:47:00.003-04:00

This is nothing but complete hypocritical arrogance on the part of the Mexican government. Mexico encourages its citizens to illegally enter the U.S. and then turns around and slaps us in the face if we try to enforce our own, very Constitutional, immigration law.

First, let's remember that Mexico is the progenitor of one of the largest human rights violations crises in the Western Hemisphere thanks to their own policy of dealing with illegals inside their own borders. You can read about those violations here:

Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning Mexican Immigration Policy

From Fox News:

Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.

Their own interest? Let's see what that means. That means they can allow their drug lords unfettered access to the american border. That means they can send their citizens across the border to get free medical care from our Emergency Room's at the expense of the American taxpayer. That means they can go on kidnapping and raping illegals within their own borders but cry foul at the very humane treatment we give illegals here. It's all propanganda and Obama and the media have bought it hook, line and sinker.

Did you ever hear the joke about the Mexican who brought a knife to a gunfight? Well this case is a joke about a Mexican lawyer who brought an arrogant attitude to a Constitutional fight. If these Mexican lawyers were so good, then why didn't they read 8 U.S.C. 1357. Had they done so, they would realize how idiotic their suit is considering that Arizona's law is a mirror of existing Federal law. Before they can go after Arizona, they have to go after the U.S. Federal government. Do you think Obama is going to allow that?

Speaking of Obama, if he shows preference for the Mexicans over American citizens, then this nation will entering into a dark age in which violence may very well result. Obama and his leftists cronies cannot keep throwing fuel onto this fire without expecting a flame-over at some point.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona's Immigration Law, Citing 'Grave Concerns'
Fox News
June 23, 2010

Planned Parenthood Unable To Account For Over $1 Billion In Taxpayer Funding

2010-06-23T10:25:00.004-04:00

Planned Parenthood does not have a good track record at all and it just got worse. $1.3 billion worse. The organization that deliberately covers up cases of statutory rape is now under scrutiny for losing $1.3 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Planned Parenthood had been the recipient of over $2 billion from the Federal Government, but an audit by the General Accounting Office can only account for a little over $6 million of that. Where did the rest of the money go?

From the Washington Times:

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on federal tax money funneled into Planned Parenthood and similar organizations raises more questions than it answers about the nation's largest abortion chain.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America's (PPFA) audits show the organization spent just $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs, but the abortion behemoth's own annual reports show that it took in $2.3 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.

That's not pocket change. Why the discrepancy?

Yes. That is a good question, one that the CEO of PP should be made to answer, preferably in front of a Congressional panel with the C-SPAN cameras running.

More:

Someone, then, needs to explain to all those people why $2.3 billion in tax dollars have been doled out to an organization that admits to systematically having killed more than 1.8 million pre-born babies between 2002 and 2008 and then reports it only spent $657.1 million in federal dollars.

Has Planned Parenthood managed to tuck away megamillions of our tax dollars, seemingly unnoticed? Or is that much of its government funding coming from sources other than the federal government? Or is there a problem with the way Planned Parenthood is reporting its expenditure of our federal monies?

In just two weeks, Planned Parenthood will complete its 2009-10 fiscal year. Yet it still has not released its annual report for its 2008-09 fiscal year. In light of the discrepancy revealed in this GAO report, we must ask: What is Planned Parenthood trying to keep secret?

And as a futher question, we must ask why the leftists and other pro-abortion people are so silent on this issue. After all, if a pro-life group suddenly couldn't account for $1.3 billion in taxpayer funds, the pro-abortion lobby would be demanding someone's head on a platter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Planned Parenthood's Missing Millions
Rita Diller
Washington Times
June 18, 2010

Obama Turning The Corner On The Gulf Oil Spill?

2010-06-21T08:42:00.006-04:00

After all the rhetoric Obama and his cronies spewed last week, they apparently seem to think the crisis is over since their attention is no longer focused on the spill.

According to Michael D. Shear of the Washington Post:

Has the president turned the corner on the oil drilling crisis?

This week's schedule for President Obama suggests that the White House believes he has. After dominating the conversation in Washington all last week, the environmental crisis in the Gulf of Mexico does not appear front and center on the White House calendar.

Not that the West Wing can afford to take their eye off the ball, as chief of staff Rahm Emanuel acknowledged yesterday during a rare Sunday morning television appearance.

"What's important is, are we capping the well?," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on the network's "This Week" program. "Are we capturing the oil? Are we containing the clean-up? Are we filing the claims? Are we also cleaning up the mess? That's what's important."

But the administration is clearly expecting -- maybe hoping -- that the intense public attention on the spill fades a bit, starting with this week, giving them a chance to turn to other subjects.

Wait a minute! We are entering Summer vacation time and a large segment of America's vacation region is being threatened by a massive oil spill and the White House actually believes that our attention can be directed elsewhere? This is just another attempt by Obama to cover-up his own incompetence at handling the situation.

Here is what Obama has planned as a diversion:

For the rest of the week, Obama and his aides hope they can focus on Afghanistan, health insurance reform, relations with Russia (whose president arrives for a visit on Thursday) and the global economy.

Obama departs Thursday for Canada for the G-20 gathering of the world's largest economies. Ahead of the meeting, the president warned the group last week that members must redouble their prior commitments or risk allowing the global economy to sink once again.

Tuesday's meeting with state health care commissioners is another chance for Obama to remind the public of the benefits he predicts will come from the massive overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

And Tuesday night's White House celebration of gay and lesbian pride month should be an upbeat event for Obama. That constituency -- which has been angry about the slow pace of some changes -- is likely to be happier at this year's version of the annual event, as Congress is on the verge of ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Yes! God forbid that the worst environmental disaster in the Gulf take any time away from pandering to the radical agenda of gays and lesbians! Clearly listening to the complaints of the gay community is more important than solving the problem that is putting thousands of people in the Gulf region out of work and destroying the livelihood of thousands more!

Whatever complaints the Dems had about the way George W. Bush handled Katrina, Obama has proven to be at least twice as bad.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Turning The Corner On The Gulf Oil Spill?
Michael D. Shear
Washington Post
June 21, 2010

James Carville Asks Obama: "What Took You So Long?"

2010-06-16T14:51:00.001-04:00

Yes, Carville really said that.

FACT CHECK: Obama Left Blanks In Oil Spill Speech

2010-06-16T11:50:00.003-04:00

Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press looks into Obama's speech from last night and how certain claims stacked up against reality:

OBAMA: "We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused and we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. ... Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party."

THE FACTS: An independent arbiter is no more bound to the government's wishes than an oil company's. In that sense, there is no certainty BP will be forced to make the Gulf economy whole again or that taxpayers are off the hook for the myriad costs associated with the spill or cleanup. The government can certainly press for that, using legislative and legal tools. But there are no guarantees and the past is not reassuring.

It took 20 years to sort through liability after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, and in the end, punitive damages were slashed by the courts to about $500 million from $2.5 billion. Many people who had lost their livelihoods in the spill died without ever seeing a check.

___

OBAMA: "In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well."

THE FACTS: BP and the administration contend that if all goes as planned, they should be able to contain nearly 90 percent of the worst-case oil flow. But that's a big "if." So far, little has gone as planned in the various remedies attempted to shut off or contain the flow. Possibly as much as 60,000 barrels a day is escaping. BP would need to nearly triple its recovery rate to reach the target.

___

OBAMA: Temporary measures will capture leaking oil "until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely."

THE FACTS: That's the hope, but experts say the relief well runs the same risks that caused the original well to blow out. It potentially could create a worse spill if engineers were to accidentally damage the existing well or tear a hole in the undersea oil reservoir.

___

OBAMA: "From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history."

THE FACTS: Early on, the government established a command center and put Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen in charge of coordinating the overall spill response. But officials also repeatedly have emphasized that BP was "responsible" and they have relied heavily on BP in making decisions from hiring cleanup workers to what oil dispersing chemicals to use. Local officials in the Gulf region have complained that often they don't know who's in charge _ the government or BP.

___

OBAMA: "We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore."

THE FACTS: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and local officials pleaded for weeks with the Army Corps of Engineers and the spill response command for permission to build about 40 miles of sand berms along the barrier islands.

State officials applied for an emergency permit to build the berms May 11, but as days went by Jindal became increasingly angry at federal inaction. The White House finally agreed to a portion of the berm plan on June 2. BP then agreed to pay for the project.

The corps was worried that in some cases such a move would alter tides and drive oil into new areas and produce more harm than good.

___

OBAMA: "Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue."

THE FACTS: Obama issued a six-month moratorium on new permits for deepwater drilling but production continues from existing deepwater wells.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama Left Blanks In Oil Spill Speech
Calvin Woodward
AP via TownHall.com
June 16, 2010

U.S.-Mexican Border Security Continues To Deteriorate

2010-06-15T08:39:00.004-04:00

Despite Barack Obama's May 5, 2010 claim that the Federal government has secured the border, violence continues, especially when Mexican authorities flatly refuse to control their side of the border. This refusal to control their own citizens has resulted in two deaths, Anastasio Hernandez Rojas and Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereca, the latter known to be a drug smuggler.

From Sara A. Carter in the Washington Examiner:

After the shooting, Mexico opened a homicide investigation, and the FBI also commenced a probe of the death. Mexican President Felipe Calderone said he was "shocked and outraged" regarding the two deaths, and Mexico's foreign affairs minister said shooting at the teen in El Paso was a "disproportionate use of force."

But for U.S. agents working the border, the deaths illustrate the stark reality of a violent situation that threatens to spin out of control.

"Enough is enough," said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents U.S. agents.

"The Mexican government demanding a full investigation and pretending they have no control or responsibility over what happened is unbelievable," Bonner said. "They openly encourage people to cross. Nobody shows up to stop the rock throwers, smugglers on their side. It's a terrible thing that they are allowing criminals to gather on their side of the border to assault our agents."

How long will our government remain asleep at the switch? Here is an especially telling fact about how hypocritical the Mexican government is on this issue:

"Do you think U.S. Border Patrol agents would allow American teenagers to throw rocks at Mexican police or military from our side of the border into Mexico?" a Department of Homeland Security official said. "It would never happen. But daily, agents and officers are confronted by thugs while Mexican law enforcement rarely lifts a finger and many times are a part of the problem. "

You can access the complete article on-line here:

U.S.-Mexican Border Security Continues To Deteriorate
Sara A. Carter
Washington Examiner
June 15, 2010

Democrat Bob Etheridge (D-NC) Assaults Student On Street

2010-06-14T10:01:00.006-04:00

Uh-oh! The Dems are really getting nervous now as November approaches and the mid-term elections are now being billed as a referendum on Obama's radical agenda.

So, it is no surprise that a Democrat Congressman from North Carolina would react in such a vile and uncivil manner to being asked a simple question by a couple of students on the street. However, this does not make his act any less illegal than it was. Etheridge assaulted and illegally detained a young man. (He grabbed the student by the arm thereby arresting his movements and then grabbed him around the neck.)

I doubt you will see this on ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN nor will it be on the front page of either the Washington Post or New York Times. You see, Etheridge isn't a Conservative Republican.

Hidden Cameras Show That The Border Is NOT Secure

2010-06-13T10:43:00.003-04:00

During a Cinco de Mayo speech last month, Obama said the following:

"The way to fix our broken immigration system is through common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. That means responsibility from government to secure our borders, something we have done and will continue to do."

Well, let's check the video from a hidden camera at the border to see whether or not border security is really "something we have done."

Where are the Washington Post, New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN on this story?

To access this and many other videos exposing Obama's lie about securing the border, go to the following:

Secure Border Intel

Obama Supporter Turns Violent At Tea Party Protest

2010-06-10T10:07:00.004-04:00

I can see it now. Libs and Dems all over the media world are going to renew their parroting that Tea Party Protesters are violent extremists. And yet, the only acts of violence ever recorded at Tea Party protests have been committed by leftists coming in to counter-protest.

Such is the latest video and story from Greensboro, North Carolina:

From Fox Channel 8:

Tabor says they were protesting a proposed amendment that would give companies money to help with rising credit card fees. He says he was videotaping the event when Govenor Spencer, of Greensboro, approached the protest.

"About that time a gentleman walks around the corner and walks into the middle of the crowd saying it's all George W. Bush's fault. It's all Dick Cheney's fault." Tabor said.

The video shows Spencer and at least one protester arguing. Tabor says he stopped recording as the protest began to conclude and walked over to the sidewalk where his wife and 5-year-old daughter were standing.

"As I walked around the corner this gentleman pushed me. And when he pushed me the first time I turned my camera on and brought my camera up. I said please don't push me. And when I said that he slapped my camera." Tabor said. "He pushes me again. In the video you can see my body fall back. And I did not say anything to him, I didn't engage him. I was going to, until he touched me wife."

Tabor says Spencer pushed his wife and he pushed Spencer back. The video shows Spencer then punching Tabor in the face.

The video shows very clearly that Spencer was most definitely in the wrong.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

VIDEO: Man Punched During Protest Against Government Bailouts
Chad Tucker
Fox News Channel 8
June 9, 2010

Reuters Doctors Photos Again In Overt Attempt To Discredit Israel

2010-06-09T08:26:00.006-04:00

It happened before. Back in 2006, Reuters doctored several photos taken by Adnan Hajj to make the damage in Beirut appear more severe than it really was. Now, Reuters has doctored more photos to make the terrorists and militants aboard a Turkish ship that ran the Gaza blockade to appear like "peaceful passengers."

According to the New York Post:

The camera never lies, they say -- but what if the photos are sent out by the Reuters news agency?

And especially what if they make Israel look bad?

Which is precisely what happened after IHH, the Turkish "humanitarian" group with longstanding terrorist ties, released photos of the bloody clash between its activists and Israeli commandos who boarded a ship trying to break the Gaza blockade.

One photo shows an Israeli surrounded by IHH "peace" activists, one of whom is holding a knife.

The second shows another Israeli lying under a bloodstained railing as a second IHH activist also holds a knife.

At least that's what appears in the images distributed by The Associated Press.

In the photos distributed by Reuters, there were no knives. And no blood.

The impact being to make it look more like an Israeli massacre of innocent civilians and less like an act of self-defense against armed thugs masquerading as humanitarian workers.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Lying With Photos
New York Post
June 9, 2010

Tax Hikes And The Coming 2011 Economic Collapse

2010-06-07T09:49:00.004-04:00

Arthur Laffer is probably best known for the "Laffer Curve" which showed the relationship between tax rates versus government income from taxes. In essence, lower tax rates translate into more government revenues. This theory has been tested time and time again against empirical data and has been shown to be extrememly sound.

But today, he has penned a very prophetic essay for the Wall Street Journal in which he shows exactly how allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire will hasten the collapse of the U.S. economy beginning in January of 2011.

From his article:

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

... [I]t's also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.

People do not like to go to work only to see their money confiscated by the government and given to someone who did not work to earn that money. Along the same line of logic, those who get money without having to work for it will never want to work.

More:

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there's always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

The people who see this coming will do something this year to avoid the massive losses they will face next year when their taxes will dramatically go up.

They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession.

This is in contrast to the Reagan tax cuts, a fair bulk of which did not take effect until January 1, 1983, after which the economy took off like a bat out of hell. The coming tax cut expirations (which Barack Obama and the Democrats are more than happy to allow) will have the exact opposite effect of the Reagan tax cuts. When this happens, we really will have the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and only Barack Obama and the Democrats can be blamed. Of course, Obama and the Dems will try to assign blame everywhere else.

And if you have retirement accounts that will be affected:

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts. After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what's going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

Get ready. The Obama Depression is just around the corner and the President is travelling for photo-ops and parties instead of taking steps to effectively deal with it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Tax Hikes And The 2011 Economic Collapse
Arthur Laffer
Wall Street Journal
June 7, 2010

I Was Right! Senator Mark Warner Is A Coward!

2010-05-28T10:32:00.004-04:00

Yes! I said it! Mark Warner (D-VA) is a coward of the first order!

On May 24, 2010, I posted the following:

Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning The Applause Offered To Felipe Calderon By The Democrats
84rules
May 24, 2010

In my letter to Warner, I made the following points and mentioned that I did not expect him to have the courage or integrity to respond to any of them:

Why do you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned?

Why have you not called out your fellow Democrats and demanded to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane and lenient U.S. system?

Why have you not called out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold?

Why have you not demanded that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce?

Well, here is Warner's response:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's immigration system. I appreciate the benefit of your views on this important issue.

Our current immigration system is broken, which is why I believe Congress should work to pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform should include policies to secure our nation's borders, curb future illegal immigration, establish an effective employer verification system and find a practical solution for the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S.

I do not believe that illegal immigrants should gain an unfair advantage from their actions. Any effort to earn legal status must include paying back taxes, a fine or penalty and taking steps to learn English. Reform should also not penalize those individuals who have followed the law and are here legally.

On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Arizona State Bill 1070, which grants broad powers to local law enforcement officials to determine and request proof of legal status of anyone suspected of violating federal immigration laws. The enactment of this new law is yet another sign that the federal government needs to act to fix our broken immigration system rather than allowing for a state-by-state patchwork of laws and ordinances. I also believe Arizona's law raises civil rights concerns, fails to recognize the economic contributions of legal immigrant workers, and harms our nation's ability to attract entrepreneurs from around the world who create jobs here in the United States.

Our nation faces many tough challenges. Immigration reform is a complicated and difficult issue but the current system is not working. We must put our differences aside to create a better system. Again, thank you for writing. As we move forward in the 111th Congress, please continue to contact me with your opinions and concerns.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

He did not address one single point of my original letter. Instead, like a scared dog, he tucked his tail between his legs and simply rattled off a bunch of meaningless talking points. In his criticism of Arizona law, he completely ignored how Title 8 of the United States Code makes Arizona's law completely Constitutional, which I also pointed out to him in my original letter.

Clearly, Mark Warner is a coward who cannot be trusted to answer straightforward questions nor can he be the least bit expected to stand up to the corruption and wrong-doing of his own party, even when his own party applauds a foreign leader who is viciously and hypocritically maligning the United States.

Any supporters of Warner or members of his staff are strongly encouraged to respond to this post as a public debate on this issue will certainly go a long way to allowing a greater understanding of Warner's detachment from reality regarding this issue.

Now, it remains to be seen if Mr. Webb's cowardice will be the equal of Mr. Warner's.

Obama Appoints Health Care Rationing Czar

2010-05-26T10:22:00.005-04:00

Wait a minute! What did that title read? "Rationing Czar?" But Obama and the Democrats promised us that there wouldn't be any rationing and that anyone who made such a claim was guilty of "fear-mongering."

Well, let's meet Obama's new Rationing Czar, Donald Berwick, and see whether we were "fear-mongering" or we simply called out the Democrats' lie earlier than they expected:

From an article by Terry Jeffrey at TownHall:

"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care," Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare, "the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

President Obama has nominated Berwick to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal agency that runs these two massive proto-socialist health care programs. If confirmed, he will oversee the massive cuts that Obamacare mandated in Medicare.

"Fear-mongering?" That is the term the Dems use when they want to silence critics who have correctly identified a Democrat lie.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Names Rationing Czar To Run Medicare
Terry Jeffrey
TownHall.com
May 25, 2010

SEIU = Strum Abteilung (SA Stormtroopers)

2010-05-26T07:25:00.003-04:00

So, how would you feel if a mob of 500 rabble-rousers surrounded your house, blocked your door, trampled your lawn and terrorized your children?

And how would it make you feel to know that the police department of Washington D.C. gave this mob an escort and the police departments of Maryland did not do their duty of protecting the innocent and upholding the law?

From Investor's Business Daily:

On May 16, Washington, D.C., police escorted 14 busloads full of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members at least part of the way to storm the Chevy Chase, Md., home of Bank of America's deputy legal counsel, Greg Baer.

Some 500 protestors affiliated with SEIU and their allies in the community organizing group National Political Action (NPA) trampled his lawn, blocked his doorway to his home and screamed "greed." Legally, it was burglary, trespassing and, possibly, assault.

But Maryland cops didn't enforce the law. And Baer had to brave the insult-hurling mob alone to rescue his 14-year old son who, home alone, had locked himself in the bathroom in fear.

Yep, Adolf Hitler and Ernst Rohm would be proud of the SEIU and their Democrat supporters. As for the Dems, you will not hear one little peep of protest concerning this barbaric behavior becasue the Dems take a great deal of money from SEIU contributions.

And somehow, the Dems want you to believe that the Tea Party protesters are the violent, lawless ones?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Mob Rule From SEIU
Investors Business Daily
May 24, 2010

Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning The Applause Offered To Felipe Calderon By The Democrats

2010-05-24T07:19:00.008-04:00

And, here is the latest travel warning from the U.S. State Department regarding fake Mexican Checkpoints:

Travel Warning
U.S. State Department
May 24, 2010

If you were watching the news last week, then you know that when Mexican Presdient Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress and viciously and hypocritically maligned the United States, the Democrats jumped up and applauded his anti-American diatribe. I have written to both of my Senators, both of whom are Democrats and both of whom jumped up and applauded with their peers.

Feel free to use them as guides in writing your own Senators and Representatives and letting them know that you do not appreciate them applauding a foreign leader coming to America and making hypocritical criticisms.

Any supporters of Jim Webb or Mark Warner are especially encouraged to respond to this post. I would love a public debate about how these two humiliated the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Letter to Webb:

Mr. Webb,

I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting.

A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.”

Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts.

For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world."

These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities.

And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him!

I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted.

You claim to be a man who was “Born Fightin’” and yet, you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned.

If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would be calling out your fellow Democrats and demanding to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane U.S. system.

If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would call out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold.

If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would demand that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce.

I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon.

Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the points I made in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all.

Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely.

2012 is little more than two years away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

Letter to Warner:

Mr. Warner,

I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting.

A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.”

Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts.

For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world."

These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities.

And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him!

I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted.

Why do you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned?

Why have you not called out your fellow Democrats and demanded to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane and lenient U.S. system?

Why have you not called out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold?

Why have you not demanded that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce?

I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon.

Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the questions I ask in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all.

Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely.

2014 is not far away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

I'm not holding my breath for any kind of meaningful response from either one of these cowards.

"The level of non-disclosure of adverse data we saw was perhaps perfectly acceptable."

2010-05-19T10:30:00.004-04:00

The quote in the title came from Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. It clearly shows how the AGW alarmist crowd is perfectly willing to unethically manipulte data and information to prove their cause.

No true scientist would ever accept any level of "non-disclosure" for anything. Non-disclosure is simply another way of saying "hiding the truth."

From the American Thinker:

After Apollo 17 moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt, gave a wonderful presentation on climate policy from a constitutional standpoint, Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre took the podium to discuss Climategate and the valuable role he played in uncovering the scandal. But after walking us through the Briffa and Mann reconstructions, Mike’s Nature Trick, the conspiratorial emails and other unscrupulous goings on at CRU, Steve stopped quite a bit short of passing judgment on the co-conspirators. In fact, referring to those who have obstructed the truth about the “hockey stick” and thereby climate sensitivity itself, Steve – who admitted he had no problem with governments dictating energy policy -- suggested only that their “tricks” be disavowed and “such practices be avoided in the future.”

During the Q&A segment that followed, Bass let us in on something McIntyre told him upon ending his presentation – that the rousing standing ovation from the audience Steve received before his talk began and decidedly less enthusiastic and predominately seated reaction afterwards didn’t go unnoticed.

When questioned why Mann, Jones, and company shouldn’t be thrown in jail, Steve surprised and, no doubt, disappointed many in attendance. He approached CRU’s trickery as “academic misconduct,” stating that in academic circles the level of non-disclosure of adverse data we saw was perhaps perfectly acceptable.

No. What they've have done and are doing is completely reprehensible and will only serve to undermine the public's trust of real science.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

ICCC 4 Opens With A Climategate Surprise
Marc Sheppard
American Thinker
May 18, 2010

Mothers Against Debt Video

2010-05-18T08:34:00.003-04:00

This is the first of what will probably be multiple videos. The politicians in Washington D.C. clearly do not care what sort of hardships they are saddling on our children and grandchildren as a result of all this out of control government spending. Fortunately, the Mothers of America are stepping up and raising their voices. Which political party is going to listen first?

And check out the U.S. Debt Clock:

U.S. Debt Clock

Given that we are being forewarned about the economic catastrophe we are heading into, no one, especially the politicians who are currently in power, should be the least bit surprised by it nor should they make any attempt to assign blame to anyone else.

"I Do Think At A Certain Point, You've Made Enough Money"

2010-05-11T09:03:00.006-04:00

On April 29th, 2010, Barack Obama made the following statement:

I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.

Well, what about Obama's friends and donors? At what point did they make enough money? Glenn Beck asks that question without speaking a single word:

Note the final question at the end:

Mr. President, why don't you ask your friends to set the example on how much is too much?

Immigrants Stomp On American Flag

2010-05-11T07:50:00.003-04:00

I keep hearing how immigrants are law-abiding people who want to live in peace here in the United States. But I keep seeing videos like the following:

Where are La Raza and other Latino groups when this happens? Why don't they come out and condemn such hateful and disrespectful behavior?

Pro-Immigration Violence Escalates

2010-05-04T11:19:00.004-04:00

This is yet another example of how the libs and Dems are completely out of touch with reality. For the past year, the left has been screaming that the Tea Parties endorse violence and hate. And also for the past year, not one single Tea Partier has been arrested at a rally for any kind of violent act.

Now, let's contrast this with the immigration rallies of this past weekend that protested Arizona's new Immigration Law. From the Washington Times:

[F]rom the very first demonstration in Phoenix when the bill was signed on April 23, liberal protests have been marked by violence and arrests. In Chicago last week, the local Fox station reported that "police clashed with demonstrators" and protesters blocked vehicles; 24 were arrested. A Sunday march in Santa Cruz, Calif., damaged 18 businesses, with repair costs reaching an estimated $100,000. In San Francisco, three people were beaten by protesters, with two arrested. During a pro-illegal-immigration protest outside the White House on Saturday, 35 were arrested. The list goes on.

So, any libs or Dems that are reading this, if my political point of view is so violent and hateful, then would you care to explain why the violence is happeneing on your end of the political spectrum and not on mine?

I doubt you will try.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pro-Immigration Violence Escalates
The Washington Times
May 4, 2010

Riot Police Called Out Against Senior Citizen Tea Party

2010-04-29T11:48:00.004-04:00

So, we can't secure the border but we can call out the SWAT team against unarmed grandparents? Who is the numb-nuts at the Secret Service that decided to squander taxpayer money this way? I think that person should have the cost of this ridiculous use of law enforcement assets taken out of their paycheck.

You can see more photos and video and read about this idiocy here:

TEAM OBAMA CALLS IN SWAT TEAM ON TEA PARTY PATRIOTS!
Gateway Pundit
April 28, 2010

Democrats Admit Companies Were Right To Claim Obamacare Would Make Costs Higher Rather Than Lower

2010-04-27T11:32:00.006-04:00

Now, before you start thinking this is some sort of right-wing Tea Party claim, look at the source:

Inquiry Says Health Care Charges Were Proper
Robert Pear
New York Times
April 26, 2010

Yes, you read that right. The New York Times. Hardly a bastion of right-wing thought.

Here is what Mr. Pear wrote:

When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.

...

Within days after President Obama signed the law on March 23, companies filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying the tax change would have a material adverse effect on their earnings.

The White House suggested that companies were exaggerating the effects of the tax change. The commerce secretary, Gary F. Locke, said the companies were being “premature and irresponsible” in taking such write-downs.

"Irresonsible?" This from a hard-core leftist administration that is squandering our grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's futures as we speak?

Well, it turns out that the companies were right and the Dems were wrong:

In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”

Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries.

Didn't the Dems promise that Obamacare would make health care less expensive? This law is only going to make it more expensive and less accessible. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak (both Democrats) were going to hold hearing on the claims these companies made until the two learned that the claims were well-founded. Those hearings have now been cancelled.

Fatal Flaws Of The Wall Street Bailout Bill

2010-04-23T11:18:00.006-04:00

The Dems are at it again and this time they have to complicity of several Republicans. The current financial reform bill before the Senate (S. 3217) is supposed to make bailouts and financial crises a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it will do the exact opposite.

Writing for the Heritage Foundation, James L. Gattuso notes the following flaws:

Creates a protected class of “too big to fail” firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a “Financial Stability Oversight Council,” charged with identifying firms that would “pose a threat to the financial security of the United States if they encounter “material financial distress.” These firms would be subject to enhanced regulation. However, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison wrote, “Designating large non-bank financial companies as too big to fail will be like creating Fannies and Freddies in every area of the economy.”[1]
Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is “in danger of default” and whose failure would have “serious adverse effects on financial stability.” This determination is subject to review in the courts only on a “substantial evidence” standard of review, meaning that the seizure must be upheld if the government produces any evidence in favor of its action. This makes reversal extremely difficult.
Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to “make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.” Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm’s shareholders, the firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the scheme implemented for AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs[2]—hardly a model to be emulated.
Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion “Orderly Resolution Fund” created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees, and investors of each firm.[3]
Opens a “line of credit” to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support.
Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of “solvent depository institutions” if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis (“event”) exists.
Limits financial choices of American consumers. The bill contains a new “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” with broad powers to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers. The intended purpose is to protect consumers from unfair practices. But the effect would be to reduce available choices, even in cases where a consumer fully understands and accepts the costs and risks. For many consumers, this will make credit more expensive and harder to get.[4]
Undermines safety and soundness regulation. The proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would nominally be part of the Federal Reserve System, but it would have substantial autonomy. Decisions of the new bureau would not be subject to approval by the Fed. New rules could be stopped only through a cumbersome, after-the-fact review process involving a council of all the major regulatory agencies. This could impede efforts of economic (or “safety and soundness”) regulators to ensure the financial stability of regulated firms, as the new, independent “consumer” regulator would establish rules that conflict with that goal.
Enriches trial lawyers by authorizing consumer regulators to ban arbitration agreements. Section 1028 specifically authorizes the new consumer regulatory agency to ban arbitration agreements between consumers and financial firms. By reducing the use of streamlined dispute resolution procedures, more consumers and businesses would be forced to pay the costs of litigation—to the benefit of trial lawyers.
Subjects firms to hundreds of varying state and local rules. Section 1044 limits pre-emption of state and local rules, subjecting banks and their customers to confusing, costly, and inconsistent red tape imposed by regulators in jurisdictions across the country.
Subjects non-financial firms to financial regulation. Regulation under this legislation would extend far beyond banks. Many firms largely outside the financial industry would find themselves caught in the regulatory net. Section 102(B)(ii) of the bill defines a “nonbank financial company”” as a company “substantially engaged in activities … that are financial in nature.” The phrase “financial in nature” is defined in existing law quite broadly. According to former Treasury official Gregory Zerzan, it includes things such as “holding assets of others in trust, investing in securities … or even leasing real estate and offering certain consulting services.”[5] As a result, a broad swath of private industry may find itself ensnared in the financial regulatory net. As Zerzan explains: “An airplane manufacturer that holds customer down payments for future delivery, a large home improvement chain that invests its profits as part of a plan to increase revenues, and an energy firm that makes markets in derivatives are all engaged in ‘financial activities’ and potentially subject to systemic risk regulation.”
Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. The bill would subject derivatives now traded over-the-counter by banks and other financial institutions to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and/or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It would require most derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Yet derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed.[6] The Senate’s bill, however, would require virtually all derivatives to be so traded. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.[7]
Allows activist groups to use the corporate governance process for issues unrelated to the corporation or its shareholders. Section 972 of the bill authorizes the SEC to require firms to allow shareholders to nominate directors in proxy statement. Such proxy access turns corporate board elections from a process designed to ensure that each board has a good mix of skills and experience into a popularity contest where the long-term interests of the stockholders become secondary to political agendas or corporate raiders. The process can also be used by labor unions, politicians who manage public pension funds, and others to force corporations to respond to pet social or political causes.
Does nothing to address problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government-sponsored housing giants helped fuel the housing bubble. When it popped, taxpayers—because of an implicit guarantee by the U.S. Treasury—found themselves on the hook for some $125 billion in bailout money. Not only has little of this amount been paid back, but the Treasury Department recently eliminated the cap on how much more Fannie and Freddie can receive. Yet the bill does nothing to resolve the problem or reform these government-run enterprises.

Contact your Senators today and oppose what is turning out to be yet another piece of ignorant legislation that the idiots in Washington are imagining will somehow be good for us.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senator Dodd’s Regulation Plan: 14 Fatal Flaws
James Gattuso
Heritage.org
April 22, 2010

Jason Levin: The Man Behind The "Crash The Tea Party" Movement

2010-04-11T10:41:00.004-04:00

Study the following picture:

This person is Jason Levin. His goal in life is to crash the Tea Party movement and incite racial incidents in an attempt to damage the image of the Tea Parties. He started the following website:

Crash The Tea Parties

At this website, you will read the following:

HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! ... Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities ...

In other words, they will be fabricating racial slurs and other such falsehoods while pretending to be Tea Party activists. Also note that the people in this group claim to be Democrats. (Nevermind the fact that at least 40% of Tea Party members are Democrats or Independents.)

So, the next time you here about an alleged (and completely unsupported charge) of racism in the Tea Parties, remember to first ask if Jason Levin is responsible for it.

Also, here is something interesting to note. After Levin created this website, he tried to hide his tracks by changing the registry information. Here is what he tried to pass off:

Registrant:
Ben Franklin
3 chestnut lane
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115
United States

Here is the true registry info:

Domain ID:D158773927-LROR
Domain Name:CRASHTHETEAPARTY.ORG
Created On:03-Apr-2010 22:52:43 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Registrant ID:CR45137659
Registrant Name:Jason Levin
Registrant Street1:8575 SW Birch Street
Registrant City:Portland
Registrant State/Province:Oregon
Registrant Postal Code:97223
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5039366588
Registrant Email:xenex11@gmail.com
Admin ID:CR45137663
Admin Name:Jason Levin
Tech ID:CR45137661
Name Server:NS2.IPOWER.COM
Name Server:NS1.IPOWER.COM

How many Democrats out there will claim to be proud of such a pathetic display of lies and deceptions as Jason Levin has shown?

You can also check out the following link to see a self-description of Jason Levin and some pictures of others who may try to help him in his infiltration:

Intelius Search: Jason Levin

Does The U.S. Need To Split?

2010-04-09T12:23:00.003-04:00

Back on May 9, 2009, I posted the following:

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing
84rules
May 9, 2009

I'm sure that most people who read that blog entry dismissed it as nothing worth noting.

Now flash forward to April 5, 2010 and we read the following from economist Dr. Walter Williams:

Ten years ago I asked the following question in a column titled "It's Time To Part Company":

"If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?"

The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

If those words don't sound ominous to you or you don't see how they tie into a "State Sovereignty Movement" then you are clearly not listening nor are you taking note of what is happening right here in your own nation.

More:

There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

...

Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating.

I don't see how this could be any more clear. We may very well be witnessing the laying of foundations upon which many states will finally say "Enough!" to the Socialists who currently control Congress and the White House. The Union might very well be dissolved once again, only this time, those who seek to be free of Washington D.C. will be seeking greater freedom for the people rather than trying to keep people dependent on the government.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Does The U.S. Need To Split Along Political Lines?
Dr. Walter Williams
Investors.com
April 4, 2010

Iran Laughing At Obama's Nuclear Retaliation Policy

2010-04-07T07:40:00.005-04:00

The announcements made yesterday were beyond belief. Obama has actually come out and said that he will not retaliate against anyone who uses chemical or biological weapons against American citiziens. Whatever happened to the man who claimed that he had "no patience or tolerance" for those who would attack innocent civilians?

Now, the Iranians are laughing at us. From the Associated Press via Google:

Iran's hard-line president has ridiculed President Barack Obama's new strategy aimed at reducing the likelihood of nuclear conflict.

Obama on Tuesday announced new rules constraining the use of America's nuclear arsenal, vowing not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. However, Iran and North Korea were not included in that pledge because they do not cooperate with other countries on nonproliferation standards.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressing thousands in northwestern Iran on Wednesday, likened Obama to a "cowboy" and called him an inexperienced newcomer who follows the will of Israel. Ahmadinejad said the U.S. president "can't do a damn thing."

Weren't countries like Iran supposed to start liking us after Obama got elected? Seems like the rhetoric coming out of Tehran is worse than it ever was under George W. Bush.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Iran Ridcules Obama's Nuclear Strategy
Associated Press via Google
April 7, 2010

Eloi! Eloi! Lama sabachthani!

2010-04-02T08:54:00.000-04:00

Do you understand the meaning and significance of this post's title?

Polls Apart: Democrats Should Not Bank On Obama In November

2010-03-26T09:19:00.005-04:00

This Congress has been under more scrutiny than any other Congress in modern history. That means that Representatives and Senators will not be able to hide their voting records behind rhetoic or spin without the general population being able to identify them as either ignorant or liars. A year ago, the Democrats didn't seem very worried about that. But they better be worried about it now. In fact, it is a wonder that many of the freshmen Dems who won seats from traditionally Republican districts are even bothering to run for re-election after the disaster they have created for themselves by following Barack Obama off of a cliff.

And even though the next Virginia Senate race isn't until 2012, Jim Webb is already beginning his campaign by sending out emails filled with lies about Tea Party supporters and insults towards the Republicans. Apparently Webb knows better than to highlight his own unpopular voting record. But people like me will be there to remind everyone of exactly what type of leftist Jim Webb is. Again, it is a wonder why he is even considering running for re-election since he cannot hide from his voting record which will clearly show how he has helped to run up a debt that our grand-children won't be able to pay and how he is in favor of more unwanted government intrusion into our lives. Warner will be gone two years behind Webb.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last tells us why:

When the president took office in January 2009, Gallup measured his overall job approval at 67 percent, with 86 percent of blacks approving. Since then, blacks have shown an increasingly favorable opinion of him.

...

Using Gallup’s data, blacks push Obama’s overall number up by about 5 points; using Rasmussen’s by roughly 7 points.

...

The median congressional district has a black population of only 6.41 percent.

This uneven dispersal magnifies the disparity of approval between Obama’s base and the rest of the country. If relatively few congressional districts look like America, then in most congressional districts Obama’s job approval is likely to be lower—anywhere from 2 to 7 points lower—than the national average.

That will spell major difficulties for the Dems this November. They might want to seriously rethink that thunderous applause they gave when they shoved Nationalized Health Care down our throats.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Polls Apart: Why Imperiled Congressional Democrats Can Take No Solace From Obama’s Approval Ratings
Jonathan V. Last
The Weekly Standard
March 29, 2010

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

2010-03-23T08:48:00.005-04:00

So, Obama, Pelosi and Reid said that Congress needs to pass the Health Care Bill so that America can see what's really in it? Well, let's get started! Below are 20 items in HR3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee. You will also read how it affects us Americans.

From Investor's Business Daily:

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Now, who are those idiots claiming that this isn't socialized medicine?

There's more in this bill that gives the government more power to regulate your lives and spending. But items #2 and #6 are particularly galling since they essentially amount to a welfare system for people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Items #12 and #13 will eventually lead to the same shortage of services that are being experienced in Canada and Great Britain.

And here's a real kicker: Item 14# is designed only to put insurance companies out of business thereby giving the Socialists in the Democrat Party an excuse to go to the disastrous "single payer system."

This bill needs to get tossed out by the courts or repealed by Congress after we toss the Socialist bums out in 2010 and elect a Constitutional Conservative in 2012.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
David Hogberg
Investor's Business Daily
March 21, 2010

Freedom Dies With Thunderous Applause: Democrats Shove Government Health Care Down Our Throats

2010-03-22T08:16:00.005-04:00

The vote on a government takeover of Health Care last night was sickening. What was even more sickening was the fact that when the final tally was in, the Democrats stood up and gave themselves a standing ovation.

It reminded me of what Amadala said in Star Wars: Episode III: "So, this is how freedom dies. With thunderous applause."

If this bill is not killed in the courts for it's unconstitutionality, in addition to higher taxes, here is what we will be looking forward to:

Cruel And Neglectful Care Of One Million British Patients Exposed

Man Collapses With Ruptured Appendix ... Three Weeks After It Was Removed

More Reasons Why We Do Not Want Socialized Medicine

Statement From The American College Of Surgeons Regarding Disinformation Being Spread By Barack Obama

Oregon Woman Denied Medicine, Offered Assisted Suicide Instead

Another Look At Socialized Medicine From A Canadian Doctor

A Look At Socialized Medicine Through The Eyes Of A British Oncologist

Another Example Of The Horrors That Socialized Medicine Will Bring Us

Socialized Medicine: Enforcing Your Duty To Die

Another Example Of What Awaits Us In A Socialized Medicine System: Father Dies In Waiting Room While In Intense Pain

What Democrats Think Of The American People

2010-03-17T08:49:00.007-04:00

Bill Kristol sums it up in two words: "Not much."

Writing for the Weekly Standard and referencing an article from the Politico, Bill notes the following:

A memo from a top aide to Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen late last week counseled other Democratic staffers to tell their bosses not to worry, that "things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL." Yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters, "I don't think any American ... is going to make the distinction" between the Slaughter procedure and a straightforward vote on the legislation. "Process is interesting, particularly to all of us around this room. But in the final analysis, what is interesting to the American public is what does this bill do for them and their families."

Actually, what is interesting to us is what this bill will do to us and our families. We already know thanks to examples like Canada and Great Britain. That is why the majority of us are against socializing our health care. But the Dems seem to be completely oblivious to our position.

More:

Here the Democrats betray their contempt for the supposed simple-mindedness and short-sightedness of the American public. They also convey their vision of the American people living under the big government liberalism: We are to be passive consumers of government action, who accept what is done for us and to us in light of our perceived narrow short-term self-interest. We are not to think of ourselves as self-governing citizens with a stake in the process of constitutional self-government and a concern for the good of the whole.

Yep. That is exactly how the Democrats think. They think they know more about our needs from sitting in their taxpayer-financed luxury offices in Washington D.C. than we know about our needs from living out here in the real world.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

What Democrats Think Of The American People
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
March 16, 2010

And the Politico article on-line here:

Dems: Time To 'Rip The Band Aid Off'
Patrick O'Connor
Politico
March 12, 2010

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against Self-Executing Rule In 2005

2010-03-16T10:42:00.004-04:00

This is basically an extension of my post from yesterday:

Democrats Change The Rules, Set To Trash The Constitution
84rules
March 15, 2010

Not only is Pelosi & Company set to usurp the Constitution in order to ram a Socialized Health Care bill that a majority of Americans do not want down our collective throats, but they were also "friends of the court" in a case back in 2005 when they challenged a piece of GOP legislation that focused on raising the debt limit.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists.

And their argument went thus:

"Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may "become[] a Law," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, "(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

"Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA" or "Act"), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

"Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders' signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses."

Note the words in italics. That is the issue here. According to the above argument, it is not constitutional for the House and Senate to pass two different versions of the same legislation and then just arbitrarily choose which version shall become law.

Oh, and who also filed amicus briefs on this case? Read on:

Nancy Pelosi
Henry Waxman
Louise Slaughter

Also note that the Dems were against raising the debt limit 5 years ago while today they are spending our great-grand-children's future.

Democrat, thy name is Chutzpuh!

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against GOP's Self-Executing Rule In 2005
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
March 16, 2010

Obama Administration: Hydrocarbon-Deniers

2010-03-15T09:41:00.004-04:00

There's a new term for you: Hydrocarbon-Deniers. Those are people who think that we can magically walk away from fossil fuels and everything will be a-okay and all Americans will have good jobs as a result.

That is, until reality kicks in and we see what really happens. The truth is that oil and other fossil fuels are what we need to get our economy back on track. Why the Obama Administration and other leftists are stuck in some fantasy world, I can't even begin to guess.

Investor's Business Daily notes the following:

With an economy struggling to regain sound footing, Chu advocated a starvation diet devoid of additional fossil fuels that are to remain under the ground and seabed. Instead, he supports 53% more funding for wind research and a 22% jump for solar research.

Subsidizing alternative energy fits the classic definition of insanity. Despite huge subsidies, it has proved to be neither cost-effective nor a reliable, significant contributor to our national power grid. Yet we keep subsidizing it, expecting a different result.

"Oil is an ideal transportation fuel, so it will be with us for decades," Chu conceded, even as the administration forbids us from getting more of it here, creating energy jobs, lowering energy costs and cutting our trade deficit. Instead we'll rely increasingly on foreign and often unfriendly suppliers.

How much more money are we going to waste a) researching energy sources that won't fulfill our needs and b) buying oil from Islamic nations so those governments can turn around and give that money to terrorist groups to attack us?

If the left keeps getting its way, we will waste that money forever.

More:

Equally unimpressed with Chu's presentation was another speaker. "Gas is more than a bridge fuel," said James Mulva, CEO of Houston-based ConocoPhillips, noting that huge gas discoveries in recent years in North America in shale and other unconventional rock formations could provide more than a century of supply. "It is part of the long-term energy solution."

"We must overcome the opposition of the 'hydrocarbon deniers,'" Mulva said, playing off Al Gore's term for climate-change skeptics. Hydrocarbon deniers, he said, are those who "believe that renewable energy will quickly and easily replace hydrocarbons and cure all that ails us."

The headline above a story in the New York Times read, "Oil Execs Chortle as Obama Admin Promotes Renewables." Except that it's not funny; it's tragic. To leave vast stores of domestic energy untapped while Americans are looking for cheap energy and jobs is irresponsible. Unfortunately, this administration has no long-term energy solution, other than hoping for a lot of cloudless and windy days.

But the Obama Administration is set to put a 3 year ban in place for offshore drilling. Such bans will only serve to keep the cost of energy high and the prospect of economic recovery low.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Chortling At Chu
IBD Editorial
March 15, 2010

Democrats Change The Rules, Preparing To Trash The Constitution (Slaughter Solution)

2010-03-15T08:10:00.004-04:00

How many times did we Conservatives warn about this during the 2008 election cycle and how many times were we ignored? The Democrats are radicals who want to force the failure of European-style socialism on the United States.

The Dems are now going to try forcing Obamacare through the legislative process using a trick known as the Slaughter Solution that is clearly unconstitutional, but they don't seem to care.

From U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader John Boehner's Blog:

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House.

This is referencing a Congress Daily story that states:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Essentially, The Dems want to "bundle" the Senate bill in with the corrections bill. No debate on the Senate bill will take place in the House at all.

This is the most brazen usurpation of our Constitution in the history of the United States. We Conservatives knew the Democrats were more than capable of pulling tricks like this, but few, if any, seemed to listen to us.

Is anyone listening now?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” To Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without A Vote
Dave Schnittger
Rep. John Boehner's Blog
March 10, 2010's

Virginia's 10th District Congressional Election - Help Get Jim Trautz On The Ballot

2010-03-05T12:40:00.003-05:00

We need signatures to get Jim Trautz on the ballot for this year's Congressional elections.

If you are a resident of the 10th District, you can help make this happen by contacting the following:

ctrautz@jimtrautz.com

Remember, signing the petition does not mean you endorse the candidate. It only means you believe the candidate should be put on the ballot for the upcoming election.

To get your signature on the petition, you may go on-line here:

Signatures Needed
JimTrautz.com

Can Gays And Lesbians Drop Their "In Your Face" Politics Long Enough For Military Service?

2010-03-05T09:06:00.007-05:00

That is the question that needs to be asked and answered before any serious debate can take place on this issue. Without answering this question, lifting the gay ban in the military will be opening the door to major unrest and frivolous complaints from gay and lesbian activists who may serve in the military.

The reason I say "frivolous" is because I saw quite a few complaints from feminists in the military that turned out to be bogus "gotchas." The really sad part about this is that the truth didn't come out until several careers had already been ruined.

Remember "Tailhook 91" and the bogus charges that Paula Coughlin made in 1991? How many careers were ruined before the truth about what really happened and how Coughlin was a willing participant came out? How much damage was done before someone realized that Coughlin admitted to her fellow Tailhookers that they had made her "see God?" How long did it take before the public was made aware of the fact that Coughlin had fingered people who weren't even at Tailhook?

Therein lies the problem. What happens if some gay or lesbian goes into the military and has a radical political agenda? How long before some false charge of "homophobia" is made and a fabricated scandal ensues which destroys one or more careers? What are the safeguards against this?

TAILHOOK 91 is a prime example of how one person making false accusations can have a major negative impact on the military and its combat effectiveness.

Lt. Col. Oliver North notes the following:

But the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgendered community, which worked so hard to elect Mr. Obama, wasn’t feeling the love. The President wouldn’t let them out of the closet, they argued, and their patience was wearing thin. POTUS had to give them reason to stay in the fold.

The payoff came in his State of the Union Address, when Mr. Obama went off on another frolic and diversion in declaring, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

No, it is because of how they act and how they are trying to force their agenda on America whether it be through secret classes (i.e. telling children not to inform their parents) to school children or by pulling a Coughlin on the U.S. Military.

More:

Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey informed the Senate Armed Services Committee he has “serious concerns” about repealing the law in the midst of war. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness,” Casey testified.

A somewhat softer note was sounded by Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz, who said, “This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation.”

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, testified that he endorsed a “study” of the issue because “only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, not someone else’s.” He also resisted a “freeze” on discharges for homosexual behavior, citing duty to “the families that support the force.”

The straightest shooting of all was done by General James Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on February 24, he said, “Unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics...and ask...do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective.” Then he reloaded.

After observing that proponents of repeal have failed to produce any evidence that openly homosexual individuals serving in uniform will improve combat readiness, Conway unequivocally stated: “At this point...my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is.”

Just going forward on someone's political whim is not the way to do it. It is true that gays are allowed to serve in militaries like Great Britain and Isreal, but it is also true that in both cases, gays are counseled to keep it low profile.

Are U.S. gays and lesbians willing to do the same thing? Given the militancy of the gay and lesbian political movement, my first inclination is to answer "no." Anyone who has been forced to take a required "diversity" class from an employer knows why.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Not So Fast
Lt. Col. Oliver North
Human Events
March 5, 2010

Do You Agree With Barack Obama's Statement Of December 20, 2005?

2010-03-05T08:44:00.007-05:00

I agree with this:

“The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.”

The problem is that Obama and other Democrats have flip-flopped and don't agree with their own statements anymore. I guess being a hypocrite is easier than maintaining consistent standards for everyone.

Obama's Chicago Politics: Selling Judgeships To Buy Health Care Votes?

2010-03-04T15:25:00.005-05:00

You would think that with all that has gone wrong for Obama over the past year and after all the revelations of corruption in his cabinet and "czar" appointments that Obama would be more careful about things like appointing the brother of an undecided House Dem to the bench on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

From John McCormack of the Weekly Standard:

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

You can find out who the ten Dems are here:

Chuck Todd Twitter

Now, Scott Matheson may be very qualified to be a judge, but the timing of this appointment couldn't have been any worse, even if Obama had tried to make it worse.

More:

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress.

Very suspicious looking. I guess you can take the boy out of Chicago, but you can't take the gangster-style Chicago politics out of the Community Organizer.

Given all that has happened with appointees like Bill Richardson, Tim Geithner and other corruption tainted players, this looks (on the surface) like another "pay to play" scheme.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Now Selling Judgeships For Health Care Votes?
John McCormack
The Weekly Standard
March 4, 2010

Al Gore Should Be Stripped Of His Nobel Prize

2010-03-04T08:02:00.004-05:00

This article pulls no punches and leaves no question as to what is being said.

Basically, it is a call for Al Gore to be stripped of his Nobel Prize which was largely based on politics and junk science. But, the author actually goes further and recommends an investigation into Gore's actions and influence peddling.

From the article:

With recent events such as the blizzards and record cold weather taking place not only in the U.S. but the world, the admittance by Phil Jones, a climate scientist, that the world has been in a cooling trend for over the past ten years, and no concrete scientific evidence, only computer generated models of future climate scenarios to prove it by, the time has come to strip Albert Arnold Gore of his Nobel Prize on the grounds that it was awarded to a man who knew nothing at all about anything remotely related to climate and weather and had his own financial gains in mind rather than the good of the world when he accepted it.

It gets even better:

Al Gore is a hypocrite to his own idealism when it comes to his lifestyle of using more energy resources than perhaps anyone in the world. If he were sincere about his own cause, this fact would not be an issue as he would see to it that he lived within the means of his own Global Warming Doctrine of saving as much energy as possible.

...

If anything Gore should be sued by every business entity affected by his flawed theory and brought up on charges of fraud and conspiracy for such lies.

...

With the prospect of making billions from investments in green energy, Al Gore and his so-called scientists and researchers, which amount to a group of business individuals with similar investment goals, continue to lie to the public in hopes that some form of legislation will be enacted to further their cause of acquiring billions of dollars from a duped public.

...

Such GW legislation would have dire consequences for both citizens and businesses here in the U.S. as we are in the worst economic shape since the Great Depression.

...

This country simply cannot afford any more taxes, higher utility bills, and overall cost of living rise associated with the false claims of Global Warming.

If anyone thinks this country could get along with a permanent unemployment rate of 45%, everything costing three times as much as it does now, lower wages and virtually no industry, you're out of your mind. We are barely able to keep the wolf from blowing the house down now as it is.

And the parting shot:

These individuals such as Al Gore and his band of investors have the devastation of the American way of life in mind and their own financial gains are top priority.

And therein lies the truth about all the lead activists who make bogus claims about Global Warming. It's all about how much money they can make by defrauding the public.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Al Gore Should Be Stripped Of Nobel Prize
Tony Elliot
Cypress Times
March 4, 2010

The Great Hoax Of The 21st Century (Global Warming)

2010-03-03T08:21:00.005-05:00

This comes from Patrick Buchanan over at Human Events Online. Given the revelations that British and Australian Media outlets have exposed concerning things like the Univeristy of East Anglia email scandal and the fact that IPCC insiders knew that their Himalayan glacier reports were false, Global Warming is shaping up to be the scientific hoax of the 21st Century.

Oh, and let's not forget the actions of Dr. James Hansen:

Dr. James Hansen: Unethically Manipulating The Data (Global Warming Junk Science)

Dr. James Hansen Admits The True Goal Of Global Warming Alarmists: Socialist Redistribution Of Wealth

Dr. James Hansen Gets It Wrong Again

Buchanan briefly describes the biggest hoaxes of the 20th Century (i.e. Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man) before looking into the newest scientific hoax to date:

But if Piltdown Man and his American cousin Nebraska Man were the hoaxes of the 20th century, global warming is the great hoax of the 21st. In a matter of months, what have we learned:

-- In its 2007 report claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are melting, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on a 1999 news story in a popular science journal, based on one interview with a little-known Indian scientist who said this was pure "speculation," not supported by any research. The IPCC also misreported the supposed date of the glaciers' meltdown as 2035. The Indian had suggested 2350.

-- The IPCC report that global warming is going to kill 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields 50 percent has been found to be alarmist propaganda.

-- The IPCC 2007 report declared 55 percent of Holland to be below sea level, an exaggeration of over 100 percent.

-- While endless keening is heard over the Arctic ice cap, we hear almost nothing of the 2009 report of the British Antarctica Survey that the sea ice cap of Antarctica has been expanding by 100,000 square kilometers a decade for 30 years. That translates into 3,800 square miles of new Antarctic ice every year.

-- Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009 hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the warmers said this validated their theory.

You can't have it both ways.

-- The Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, which provides the scientific backup for the IPCC, apparently threw out the basic data on which it based claims of a rise in global temperatures for the century. And a hacker into its e-mail files found CRU "scientists" had squelched the publication of dissenting views.

Yep. This is what people on the left call "science." To them, "science" is that which agrees with their political philosophy and encompasses nothing that goes counter to their political philosophy. Hence the massive fraud.

You can access the complete essay on-line here:

Hoax Of The Century
Pat Buchanan
Human Events Online
March 2, 2010

Jim Trautz For Congress (Virginia - 10)

2010-03-02T14:45:00.006-05:00

Well, I am certainly going to do my part to get the RINOs out of Congress. Here in Northern Virginia, we haven't had much of a chance to do that with Frank Wolf (R-VA) because there haven't been any true Conservatives to challenge him lately ... until now.

Jim Trautz is a Conservative and I am wholly endorsing him for this November's elections.

From Jim's Platform:

Simply put, our representatives have the responsibility to be good stewards of OUR money. Of course, the Federal Government does have a need for a budget, and funds do need to be allocated, but only on those things that are necessary, legal & ethical, Constitutional, and are the will of the people. That said, I can find no constitutional basis for wealth redistribution, bailouts, TARP bills, stimulus packages, or anything of the sort, and I will aggressively oppose any such legislation as a member of Congress. I believe that no one person or group should benefit more than another.

...

Leaders lead people – and true leadership requires more than just “playing it safe.” I believe that true leaders do more than simply support a cause – true leaders will be at the tip of the spear for those causes that are near and dear to the hearts of their constituents. They’ll do so without reservation or regard for their own personal gain, not because it’s a “good political move,” but because it’s the right thing to do, because they believe their cause to be just, and because the people they represent look to them for leadership. Leaders lead people – not just when the cameras are on, not just when there’s a political advantage to be gained, and not just at election time, but whenever and wherever they’re called to do so.

...

All too often, our representatives forget the idea of accountability. They work for us, they’re elected by us, and they’re accountable to us. Bottom line, they answer to us. I believe that every person has the right to expect a clear and concise understanding of where their Representative stands on the issues of the day, and that he has a responsibility to report his position on those issues, regardless of party affiliation or political ideology.

Jim Trautz is also a 912 Candidate and believes the following:

America Is Good.
I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
The government works for the people. The people do not answer to the government, the government answers to the people.

You can access more information about Jim Trautz on-line here:

Jim Trautz 2010

I hope the people of Virginia's 10th District will join me in supporting a true Conservative candidate.

The New Tax Rebellion Has Begun

2010-03-01T13:03:00.005-05:00

So, how have you benefitted from the 67,500 word document known as the U.S. Tax Code? Probably not at all. In fact, just having a job and living here in the U.S. means that it has touched you in multiple negative ways although you may not have realized it. Do you think that the prices you pay for goods and services are not artificially inflated by that tax code? If so, you think wrong.

But there is good news coming from middle America. People everywhere are starting to wake up to the fact that our tax code is destructive to everyday taxpayers while only being beneficial to Congress and a few wealthy people who have enough money to make Congress listen to them. That's why the current rebellion is underway. If you wish to become one of the rebels, just go to the following website:

On-Line Tax Revolt

Here is what Micheal Reagan has to say:

Tea Party patriots, FairTaxers, Flat Taxers, and most Americans of every political persuasion understand that the federal tax system fuels unchecked government spending, hides the cost of government from the American taxpayer and has become corrupted into indecipherability by Congressional profits and power. Citizens are coming together from across the political spectrum and across the nation to wake Washington up to the voice of the American people.

Citizens are rejecting the idea that huge government borrowing and debt has been secured by pledging the future earnings of generations of Americans not yet born.

That is where Obama, Pelosi and Reid made their mistake and where charlatans like Jim Webb and Mark Warner exposed themselves for what they really are: Socialists who think nothing of stealing the futures of our children and grandchildren.

I do not recall one single person during the last election cycle who said that they wanted to pass along trillions of dollars worth of debt to succeeding generations. But somewhere in there, the Dems have convinced themselves that this is what they heard.

This November, we need to send a message back to D.C. that our children and granchildren are worht fighting for, and if Congress won't fight for them, then we will replace our Representatives and Senators with people who will.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Next American Tax Rebbellion Has Begun
Michael Reagan
TownHall.com
March 1, 2010

Obama To Break Pledge Of Not Increasing Taxes On Incomes Of Less Than $250,000/yr

2010-02-23T10:05:00.001-05:00

Well, it's good to be back among the ranks of the employed. Now that I have an income again, I can devote just a little more time to helping the world stay informed about key issues we are facing.

Many of us knew that Barack Obama had absolutely no intention of keeping many of his campaign promises. Instead of allowing the health care debate to be made public over C-SPAN, he and his Democrat followers instead chose to hold their own meetings behind closed doors and completely shut out the Republicans. He promised that he would veto any bill that contained earmarks but instead has signed legislation that overall contains over 9,000 earmarks.

So, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that Obama is now poised to break a campaign promise he made on September 8, 2008:

“And I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase—not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

It is becoming clear that Obama made this grandiose claim in an effort to get votes by painting himself as some sort of anti-tax candidate. Well, now that he got the votes, he's singing a completely different tune:

According to Terrence Jeffrey at Cybercast News Service:

[T]he new health care plan released in summary form yesterday by the White House specifically calls for increasing the Medicare payroll tax on “households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.”

Unless President Obama is prepared to say that the only type of “family” that qualifies as a “family” under his tax pledge is one that is formed around a "married couple filing jointly" than his new health care proposal violates his 2008 tax pledge on its face. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, makes clear that the “head of household” tax filing status is for “unmarried” taxpayers. A definition of the term “head of household” on the IRS Web site says: “Generally, you may claim head of household filing status on your tax return only if you are unmarried and pay more than 50% of the costs of keeping up a home for yourself and your dependent(s) or other qualifying individuals.”

That seems to be the mantra of the Democrats: Tax anything that can be taxed in order to pay for the irresponsible spending the Democrats have engaged in over the past year.

It's true that Republicans went on a spending binge when they were in power, but the Democrats have far outstripped anything that Republicans have done since 1994. The republicans were bad, but the Democrats are infinitely worse.

More:

The White House posted the president’s tax increase proposal as part of the summary of the new health-care reform bill he is proposing.

“Under current law, workers who earn a salary pay a flat tax of 1.45 percent of their wages to support the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, but those who have substantial unearned income do not, raising issues of fairness,” says the summary of Title IX of the president’s proposal. “The Act will include an additional 0.9 percentage point Hospital Insurance tax for households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. In addition, it would add a 2.9 percent tax for such high-income households to unearned income including interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents (excluding income from active participation in S corporations).”

There it is. Clear and concise. Obama had no intention of keeping his "no tax increases" on anyone under $250,000/yr pledge.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Breaking His Pledge? Obama Calls For Increasing Payroll Taxes On ‘Households’ Earning Less Than $250,000 Per Year
Terrence Jeffrey
Cybercast News Service
February 23, 2010