"You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." -Gov. Sarah Palin-

"The media are not above the daily test of any free institution." -Barry M. Goldwater-

"America's first interest must be to punish our enemies, then, if possible, please our friends." -Zell Miller-

"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." -President Thomas Jefferson-

"Don't get stuck on stupid!" -Lt. Gen. Russel Honore-

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." -Isaiah 5:20-

Petition For The FairTax

GOP Bloggers Blog Directory & Search engine Blog Sweet Blog Directory

Directory of Politics Blogs My Zimbio

Righty Blogs Of Virginia

Coalition For A Conservative Majority

A REASON TO TRY available from Barnes & Noble
A REASON TO TRY available from Borders
A REASON TO TRY available from Books-A-Million
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks New Zealand
A REASON TO TRY available from SeekBooks Australia
A REASON TO TRY available from Chapters.indigo.ca Canada's Online Bookstore
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon.com
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon UK
A REASON TO TRY available from Amazon Canada

Friday, January 30, 2009

Obama Breaks Another Promise

Obama Bans Earmarks From Stimulus Package
January 6, 2009

Well, it didn't take long for Obama to break that promise. Or maybe he forgot to tell the Dems who control Congress that pork was banned. Here is a listing of what this pork-laden, useless spending bill contains:

- $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.

- $2 billion to help subsidize child care.

- $400 million for research into the junk science of global warming.

- $2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere, another junk science project.

- $650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.

- $600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.

- $75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.

- $21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.

- $2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

- $335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

- $44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.

- $32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.

- $87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states. This earmark amounts to the first installment of a Socialized Health Care system just like the disasters that have a hold of Canada and Great Britain.

- $53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.

- $13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.

- $20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.

- $10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition.

- $20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.

Not to mention the potential $5 billion for ACORN to commit more voter-fraud.

The ACORN Slush Fund: An Example Of Dems Paying Back The Street Thugs

The current spending bill (mis-named as a "stimulus" package) went through the House of Representatives along party lines. Not one single Republican voted for it. Not one. But, eleven Democrats voted agaqinst it it.

It's a good thing that the Republicans acted in unison on this. That means that the Dems will completely own this bill and whatever results from its passage.

One of those results is handing billions of taxpayer's dollars to the voter fraud organization known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN.

We already know how ACORN routinely engages in voter fraud schemes in order to get leftist candidates (Democrats) elected.

ACORN Voter Fraud Uncovered In Michigan

ACORN Submits Faked Voter Registration Forms

ACORN Voter Fraud Is Widespread

Even More ACORN Voter Fraud

ACORN Tries To Register Mickey Mouse

More Voter Fraud From ACORN

But, they have other activities to keep themselves occupied with as well.

Writing for Town Hall, Michelle Malkin has the following:

ACORN, you may recall, is the left-wing activist group with longtime ties to community organizer-turned-President Barack Obama. The nonprofit, which now takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers after four decades on the public teat, has a history of engaging in voter fraud, corporate shakedowns, partisan bullying and pro-illegal immigration lobbying. The Democrats' stimulus proposals could make the group -- and its lesser known but even more radical ideological allies -- eligible for upward of $5 billion in new public cash.

Talk about subsidizing failure. These are the same activists that helped sow the seeds of the subprime meltdown. They aggressively played the race card and pressured banks to loosen standards, throw out down payments and lend to some of the nation's riskiest borrowers. Now, these mobs protest across the country, disrupt foreclosure auctions, threaten bank executives and accuse lenders of, yep, racism for lending to those riskiest of borrowers.

Talk about Orwellian logic. First, ACORN helps to apply pressure to banks to make bad loans and then accuses the bank of racism for making such loans. This is what the Dems in Congress want to subsidize with billions of your dollars?


Under the stimulus bill, as nonprofit watchdog Matthew Vadum points out, the middlemen would be eliminated -- "making it easier to get Uncle Sam's largess directly into the hands of the same people who run ACORN's various vote fraud and extortion rackets." Moreover, Vadum reports, "the legislative package provides these funds without the usual prohibition on using government money for lobbying or political activities."

So, the Dems don't want ACORN to be under the same lobbying rules as everyone else. Didn't Barack Obama campaign on restricting lobbyist access to the legislative process? Why is he breaking that promise with ACORN?

Next in line for the stimulus windfall is the Massachusetts-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA). Founder Bruce Marks proudly calls himself a "bank terrorist." As I reported last spring, Marks threatened to march into the neighborhoods of bank executives and bully their children. He's done it for years, all under the guise of "social justice" and "neighborhood stabilization."

Marks' agenda is blatantly political and personally lucrative. NACA -- with dozens of offices across the country -- has a no down payment, no closing costs, low interest rate policy for low-income minority borrowers and takes a hefty fee for each transaction. NACA loan applicants are then required to attend workshops that indoctrinate them in the group's protest thuggery.

Nazi Brown Shirts. That's all these people are. They do not deserve to stick their snouts in the public trough, especially when so many Americans are lacking basic necessities. The Dems seem to be okay with denying those necessities while handing monetary payouts to political allies.

This pork spending bill needs to be stopped. The Republicans in the House were right to all vote "Nay."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Stimulus Slush Fund For Housing Entitlement Thugs
Michelle Malkin
January 30, 2009

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Tony Blankley Exposes The Arrogant Hypocrisy Of The Leftist Media And Its Dem Supporters

Look for many differences between the previous eight years and the next four years. Of course, you already knew to do that. But look at what issues are going to be tackled differently and why.

One of those issues is censorship and the manner in which Old Media deals with the Chief Executive. Tony Blankley's new book, American Grit, contains a chapter about just this and it would be a good idea to look into it further.

Writing for Town Hall, Brent Bozell takes us on a guided tour of that chapter and what it means:

He reminds us that during the Bush years, "the media blissfully endangered America's safety for the pleasure of striking a blow at a president it despised. ... Even when there's no allegation of wrongdoing, it seems that many newspapers today take a perverse pride in revealing U.S. intelligence secrets."

It's these repeated actions by papers like the New York Times exposing and destroying our anti-terrorist programs (and in the case of the Los Angeles Times, tattling about how our government encouraged defectors from Iran's nuclear program) that cries out for censorship, Blankley argues. It's not enough to hope these newspapers will now cooperate with the Obama administration when it wants them to keep its actions secret.

In other words, leftist publications like the New York Times had absolutely no problem with endangering Americans by revealing our secrets when it would be an embarrassment to President Bush to do so, but they will help President Obama by keeping his darkest secrets safe.


Blankley trenchantly recounts left-wing hacks like CNN's Jack Cafferty and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter finding the seeds of a "full-blown dictatorship" in the Bush White House, and snarling Joe Conason claiming Bush was headed toward an "authoritarian peril." Blankley dismisses these claims for showing "an embarrassing ignorance of the history of executive authority."

There were numerous shrill cries from the leftist media that the Bush Administration was engaging in some sort of censorship of the news. But it never happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. In fact, the evidence argues the opposite.

But what is real censorship? Let's take a look at the Presidents whom Barack Obama idolizes and see what their records on censorship were:

President Lincoln shut down dozens of newspapers and imprisoned their editors. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act banned "uttering, printing, writing or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language about the United States government or the military." At least 75 periodicals were banned by the postmaster general. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover the power to censor all news or communications entering or leaving America. Blankley notes FDR repeatedly asked his attorney general, Francis Biddle, "When are you going to indict the seditionists?"

Let's see, Lincoln, FDR and Wilson. Yep, Barack Obama holds those three in high regard. Think the leftists at the NYT will report on this? Probably not.

But was there any kind of censorship during the Bush years?

By contrast, during those allegedly dictatorial Bush years, our national newspapers proudly published op-eds by founders and supporters of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Dictatorial censorship? Hardly. It was the working of a Free Press and President Bush allowed it to happen despite the shrill claims from the left and pathetic attempts at re-writing history.

What is Obama's view on this?

President Obama has already signaled that it isn't Hamas chieftains he wants to silence, but conservative talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

Who do these leftists think they are kidding? Obama and his followers are clearly on the path of allowing America's enemies every chance to stand up and speak while simultaneously trying to censor private American citizens.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Tony Blankley's Untimely Cry
Brent Bozell III
January 28, 2009

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Obama Bad-Mouths The United States On Muslim Television

I don't recall anywhere in the Presidential Oath of Office where it says the President should speak ill of America and Americans. But that is exactly what Obama has done.

In his first formal television interview, given on a Muslim cable channel, Obama insulted the American people and trashed the United States. And he didn't even have the courage to do it here on American soil.

From the Associated Press:

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama said. "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

The interview complemented the new administration's first efforts to reach out to Arab leaders in the region, who have been wary at best of U.S. efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama said he felt it important to "get engaged right away" in the Mideast and had directed Mitchell to talk to "all the major parties involved." His administration would craft an approach after that, he said in the interview.

"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama told the interviewer.

No! The United States starts by taking our own interests into account first while the Islamics start by launching terrorist attacks to kill innocent people. President Obama needs to remember that we Americans do not like being trashed by our own leaders! And we certainly don't like our leaders bad-mouthing us to those who have sworn to kill us as infidels!

Does Obama really believe that showing this kind of weakness to the terrorists is going to make them start liking us? If he does, he is going to get a rude awakening. It will encourage more attacks agains the U.S. and now that Obama has gutted our security infrastructure, such attacks are going to be even more devastating.

What about all those Muslim schools in Saudi Arabia that teaches hatred of the Jews and all things non-Muslim? Did Obama not get the briefing about them?

What about all the terrorist attacks launched against U.S. interests over the years? Does Obama really want to forgive a group of people who will not accept forgiveness nor accept any peace that they themselves have not dictated?

And what about Israel? If Obama has such a low opinion of America and Americans, what does he think about Israel?

The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally, and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that Israel has hard choices to make and that his administration would press harder for it to do so.

"We cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people," he said.

Really? You mean that Hamas isn't going to achieve peace by launching rockets at Israeli civilians? Why hasn't Obama taken that message to Hamas? It seems that Obama is going to follow the failed policy of Bill Clinton and resurrect the Camp David Accords in which Israel gives up everything, the Palestinians gain everything and then the terrorists launch new attacks against Israel.

Barack Obama is turning out to be the most ignorant President in the history of the United States! And he has only been in office for one week!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Gives First TV Interview To Arabic Network
Associated Press via Fax News
January 27, 2009

Monday, January 26, 2009

Nancy Pelosi Takes A Page From Nazi Propaganda: Wants To Reduce Costs Through Contraception

The white-supremicist Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) would be so proud of Nancy Pelosi! Pelosi invokes "reduced costs to the states" as a reason for spending millions on birth control. (Never mind the fact that birth control is already inexpensively available at any corner drug store and taught about in public school sex-ed classes.) Exactly who is Pelosi targetting with her statements?

Well, basically, she was saying that fewer children meant more resources for everyone else!

Here is what she said on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

You know, certain people throughout history made similar statements about such things. Here is one:

"Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty or clothe the naked. -Joesph Goebbels, 1938

Goebbels certainly wanted to "reduce costs to the state" with his statement.

Others in the Nazi hierarchy went even further. Fritz Bernotat believed in the indiscriminate killing of "useless eaters."

The above may be in the extreme, but Pelosi has certainly taken a step in that direction. I wonder whom Pelosi would think the "uselss eaters" would be? Which children does she believe are being born to the "wrong people?"

Pelosi's quotes are a step in a direction that a certain government in Central Europe took back in the 1930's. The journey that government undertook did not end well for the world.

James Pethokoukis, in a blog entry for U.S. News and World Report, excerpts the book Empty Cradle by Phil Longman. Here is the quote:

Population aging also depresses the growth of government revenues. Population growth is a major source of economic growth: more people create more demand for the products capitalists sell, and more supply of the labor capitalists buy. Economists may be able to construct models of how economies could grow amid a shrinking population, but in the real world, it has never happened. A nation's GDP is literally the sum of its labor force times average output per worker. Thus a decline in the number of workers implies a decline in an economy's growth potential. When the size of the work force falls, economic growth can occur only if productivity increases enough to compensate.

I thought the Democrats believed that our children were our greatest long-term investment. Apparently, only certain children are worthy of that investment and the potential parents of the others should simply relinquish their reproductive rights.

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

Pelosi: Contraception Is Good Stimulus For The Economy
James Pethokoukis
U.S. News & World Report
January 26, 2009

UPDATE: It looks like Pelosi is in the same company as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's health care advisor (and brother to Rahm) who wants to ration care so that the very old and very young are the least likely to get treatment.

Stimulus Chicanery: Democrats Suppress The Truth About The Stimulus Package

The current economic stimulus plan being considered by Congressional Democrats was brought under fire last week by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. This week, the CBO (even though it is controlled by Democrats) has been brought under fire by the Democrats. Apparently, Congressional leaders were hard pressed to explain how monies that weren't to be spent until 2011 would help the economy "now."

From the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed:

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.

And the red Congressional faces must be very red indeed, because CBO's analysis has since vanished into thin air after having been posted early last week on the Appropriations Committee Web site.

Interesting that as soon as the truths uncovered by this report were published and re-broadcast by certain media, the Democrats shut it down. They didn't want the truth to come out. But what is that truth?

Read on:

The problem is that the money for this spending boom has to come from somewhere, which means it is removed from the private sector as higher taxes or borrowing. For every $1 the government "injects," it must take $1 away from someone else -- either in taxes or by issuing a bond. In either case this leaves $1 less available for private investment or consumption. Mr. Barro wrote about this way back in 1974 in his classic article, "Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?", in the Journal of Political Economy. Larry Summers and Paul Krugman must have missed it.

And taking money away from the private sector means no economic growth. Taking too much money away from the private sector means a shrinking economy.


A similar analysis applies to the tax cuts that are part of President Obama's proposal. In contrast to the spending, at least the tax cuts will take effect immediately. But the problem is that Mr. Obama wants them to be temporary, which means taxpayers realize they will see no permanent increase in their after-tax incomes. Not being fools, Americans may either save or spend the money but they aren't likely to change their behavior in ways that will spur growth. For Exhibit A, consider the failure of last February's tax rebate stimulus, which was a bipartisan production of George W. Bush and Mr. Summers, who is now advising Mr. Obama.

To be genuinely stimulating, tax cuts need to be immediate, permanent and on the "margin," meaning that they apply to the next dollar of income that an individual or business earns. This was the principle behind the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, as well as the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, which finally took full effect on January 1, 1983.

We can point to many examples throughout history where tax cuts allowed for an expansion of the economy. Tax increases lead at best to stagnation, or at worst, depression.

What would tax cuts do for an economic stimulus? This:

The revenue cost of eliminating the corporate tax wouldn't be any more than their proposed $355 billion in new spending, and we guarantee its "multiplier" effects on growth would be far greater. Research by Mr. Obama's own White House chief economist, Christina Romer, has shown that every $1 in tax cuts can increase output by as much as $3.

So why not go with tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

The spending portion of the stimulus, in short, isn't really about the economy. It's about promoting long-time Democratic policy goals, such as subsidizing health care for the middle class and promoting alternative energy. The "stimulus" is merely the mother of all political excuses to pack as much of this spending agenda as possible into a single bill when Mr. Obama is at his political zenith.

Apart from the inevitable waste, the Democrats are taking a big political gamble here. Congress and Mr. Obama are promoting this stimulus as the key to economic revival. Americans who know nothing about multipliers or neo-Keynesians expect it to work. The Federal Reserve is pushing trillions of dollars of monetary stimulus into the economy, and perhaps that along with a better bank rescue strategy will make the difference. But if spring and then summer arrive, and the economy is still in recession, Americans are going to start asking what they bought for that $355 billion.

The Democrats have decreed that the CBO re-work the numbers and make them more palatable to the American people. But the original report was based on more honesty than the re-worked report would be.

It amounts to nothing more than political chicanery that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will end up paying for.

Welcome to George Orwell's 1984.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Stimulus Time Machine
Wall Street Journal
January 26, 2009

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Obama's Radical Pro-Abortion Agenda Makes Doug Kmiec A Useful Idiot

Doug Kmiec's name is going to come up over and over and over again during the next few months. Most notably because he somehow convinced himself and his followers that Barack Obama and the Democrats would make good on a promise to make abortion as rare as possible. Unfortunately, the actions of Obama and the applause he recieved from his fellow leftists shows that Kmiec and his ilk had simply been used to get votes and are now best described as "useful idiots."

Sound harsh? I don't think so. No more harsh than the Dems who so snidely sang "Hey, hey, goodbye" to President Bush at the inauguration of Obama. No, no more harsh than that.

Anyway, Obama's first act of slapping Kmiec in the face was accomplished yesterday when he overturned the Mexico City Policy that forbade the use of federal funds for abortions overseas. Now, money that could be used to help Americans is being sent overseas to end the lives of unborn children and we taxpayers get to pay for it.

Above: Democrats applaud the policy of making U.S. taxpayers foot the bill so that foreign women can kill their unborn babies.

From Tom Strode of the Baptist Press:

Obama ordered the repeal of what has been dubbed the Mexico City Policy. The rule has prohibited international family planning organizations from receiving federal funds unless they agree not to perform or counsel for abortion or lobby in order to liberalize the pro-life policies of foreign governments.


Southern Baptist ethics leader Richard Land and other pro-life advocates decried Obama's order.

"President Obama was the most radically pro-choice candidate of a major party in American history and pledged to Planned Parenthood that he would never back down on this issue," Land said. "Unfortunately, his executive order overturning the Mexico City Policy may just be the first step in his fulfillment of that campaign pledge to his radical pro-abortion supporters.

"With his action today, American taxpayers' money once again will be used in part to fund abortions that end the lives of our fellow human beings in other countries," he said.

And Doug Kmiec convinced millions of pro-life Catholics that this wouldn't happen, that Obama and the Dems would respect their pro-life positions.

Doug, you are most definitely a useful idiot.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Rescinds Pro-Life Funding Policy
Tom Strode
Baptist Press
January 23, 2009

Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama And The Coming Collapse Of National Security

Dissident Dingo over at Resistance Day blog has penned a terrific essay about Barack Obama's weakness on national security and what it will mean to us over the next four years.

Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama will be tested on the national security front. The tests will not come only from the Islamic terrorists either. Russia, North Korea, Iran and the Chinese all smell weakness. They see an inexperienced, un-tested and immature President who seems to believe that the power of his personality will be enough to keep our enemies under control. He believes that the entire world is no different than the American media who love him.

He is wrong, of course, but will he realize this when the test comes?


Obama will be tested and he will handle it badly. Biden knows this and his comments were a plea for the media to stay in the tank and support him…no matter what. Remember, Obama is “too big to fail”. Obama is "historic". We cannot let the first affirmative action President be a mediocre one can we?

As conservatives, we take the defense of our country seriously. National security is serious business and failure, in this day and age, means a lot of dead Americans. That is why we don’t vote for the likes of Obama. We do not vote for leftists who view national security (and all other Constitutional functions of government) as a waste of time and resources that should be used for liberal, unconstitutional functions of government.


Wasn't it the misguided former Democrat Senator John Edwards who called the War on Terror a “bumper sticker”?

No, John. “Hope” is a bumper sticker. The War on Terror was President Bush’s response to an ideology that has the declared objective of wiping us out. And they’re still out there. They’re weaker and they enjoy far less support from countries that they could once count on when the Clinton Administration was napping. But, they’re still committed.

This essay is very powerful and telling. I hope that all members of the Republican National Committee read it and that the GOP takes it heart in 2010.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

National Security And The Coming Barackalypse

Dissdent Dingo
Resistance Day Blog
January 23, 2009

Not By Word But By Action: Obama Declares The Terrorists Have Won

No, you didn't misread the headline. Barack Obama has effectively given the terrorists what they wanted: rest, respite and a chance to regroup. Obama has ordered that all anti-terrorism policies, the same policies that kept the United States safe from attack for the past seven years, be halted.

I have no doubt that terrorists all over the world are rejoicing at the opportunity Obama is giving them to rearm and plan new attacks without any hindrances on them.

Writing for the Washington Post, Dana Priest has this to say:

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.


Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

And the interesting thing about those interrogations was that Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid knew about them back in 2002 but never said a word. They waited until it was politically profitable for them to speak out which means they didn't really care about the methods used, they only cared about how to grab more political power as a result of them.


As the CIA recruited young case officers, polygraphers and medical personnel to work on interrogation teams, the agency's leaders asked its allies in Thailand and Eastern Europe to set up secret prisons where people such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh could be held in isolation and subjected to extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, waterboarding and sexual humiliation. These tactics are not permitted under military rules or the Geneva Conventions.

Neither is killing innocent civilians in the pursuit of the fanatical religious cause of Islam. That is why they are called terrorists. They are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Anyone care to guess why Dana Priest and the Washington Post deliberately misled their readers like that?

Obama has seriously deluded himself and his followers into thinking that the terrorists are going to be swayed by the relaxing of our security measures. Islamic thinking says that when one shows weakness, one should be attacked even more rigorously. Obama should know this having attended a Muslim school when he was a teenager. The weakness he is showing the terrorists will come back to haunt us, even moreso than September 11, 2001.

We, the people, should be ready to hold Obama accountable when that terrible day comes.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Bush's 'War On Terror' Comes To A Sudden End
Dana Priest
Washington Post
January 23, 2009

And read about what happens when terrorists are freed. This show's why Obama and his followers are completely delusional about ending the anti-terroism policies. The terrorists are not going to stop trying to attack us just because we start being nice to them:

Ex-Gitmo Detainee Joins Al-Qaida In Yemen
January 23, 2009

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism

Well, we voted for change. The question is, will the change be good or bad?

I'm betting bad. Just as Jimmy Carter had a liberal Democrat Congress to tinker with the economy, so does Barack Obama, only moreso. But, the Dems today are much further to the left than the Dems of the 70's. Back in the 70's, the Dems actually cared about the well-being of America while today's Dems care more for forcing their socialist agenda on a population that will regret it.

Just look at Europe. Depsite their touting themselves as being "enlightened" and better than the rest of the world (i.e. the United States) their collective economy is in a permanent state of shambles and their societies are deteriorating at the hands of leftists in conjunction with immigrants who refuse to assimilate. High unemployement, high taxes and low quality services. That is what they offer.

Socialism is and always will be a disaster.

And now, we have voted for just that type of disaster to happen here.

Writing for Town Hall, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have this to say about Barack Obama's policies:

[W]e enter his administration as free enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom or Sweden -- a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

This will all be part and parcel to Obama's New Deal which will be every bit as disastrous as FDR's, whose policies made the Great Depression last at least ten years longer than it should have. Here is a recap of how well it went:

[H]is New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933 when he took office to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment rose to 17 percent in 1938 and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent.

First, Obama will ensure that he can buy votes for the next election as follows:

In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever expanding welfare checks from the government.

That wonderful Florida voter named Peggy the Moocher must certainly be licking her chops right now at the premise that she can be as lazy as she wants to be while other hard-working Americans support her.

Here are some other aspects of Obama's New Deal:

With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. ... Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity since the only people who would have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using TARP funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders -- the government, not private investors.

And what about Health Care? Obama and the socialist Dems will seek to force a Nationalized rationed health care system like the disasters that cover Canada and the United Kingdom.

Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that currently serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And as government imposes ever more draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question so the government will impose health care rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral).

Even more scary is how Obama plans to get an even larger share of the vote by buying off illegal immigrants with amnesty:

He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote.

Is this the "change" you voted for? Have more of your money confiscated and then have it redistributed among illegals and other moochers? Have your quality health care replaced by sub-standard nationalized health care?

If so, you will reap what you sow. If not, you'll have a good, long, hard four years during which you may consider the results of the previous four years.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
January 21, 2009

Robert Bork Predicts Liberal Policies Will Endanger Catholic Freedoms

If Doug Kmiec has any credibility left, it will be gone soon. His support of Barack Obama has helped to bring Roman Catholics to a turning point in American History. A century ago, Irish Catholics were mis-treated more because of their faith rather than their ethnicity. With the election of Barack Obama and the leftist policies he and the liberal Dems are embracing, it's starting to look like Catholics are once again going to be looked down upon, only this time by the entire Federal government.

Judge Robert Bork gave an interview to Cybercast News Service, excerpts of which were published by the Catholic News Agency, in which he made several very dire predictions. Among those are a conflict of government policies versus freedom of religion.

From the interview:

"Everything is up for debate these days. I can’t think of anything that isn’t," he said.

"You are going to get Catholic hospitals that are going to be required as a matter of law to perform abortions," he claimed.

This is just one issue. If the Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA) is passed and signed into law, it will require Catholic hospitals to go against their own religious beliefs and kill unborn children.

But, Judge Bork did mention that there was a way around this.

Asked whether there was a freedom of conscience clause anywhere in the Constitution that might prohibit the U.S. government from compelling a religious hospital to perform abortions, he replied:

"Well, the free exercise of religion clause might fulfill that role."

He agreed with the CNS interviewer, Editor in Chief Terry Jeffrey, that such coercion forces someone to act against their religion and could be construed as a violation of the right to free exercise of religion.

That may be the one good thing to come out of an Obama Administration. It will force liberals and other leftists to acknowledge that little known clause in the U.S. Constitution regarding the freedom of religion: "nor prohibit the free practice thereof."

When asked what is happening to America, Judge Bork responded:

Judge Bork said he also thought that America is “now going down a path towards kind of a happy-go-lucky nihilism.”

“A lot of people are nihilists,” he continued. “They don’t think about religion. They don’t think about ultimate questions. They go along. They worry about consumer goods, comfort, and so forth.

“As a matter of fact, the abortion question is largely a question about convenience. If you look at the polls about why people have abortions, 90 percent of it has nothing to do with medical conditions. It’s convenience. And that’s I think an example of the secularization of an issue that ought to have a religious dimension.”

When asked whether a nihilistic society can remain “happy-go-lucky” for long, Judge Bork replied:

“I don’t know. I guess we are going to find out.”

Yep. Abortion is simply a way of casting off responsibility for acting irresponsibly. Leftists in America want us to pay for erasing someone else's irresponsibility. I say let those responsible pay for it themselves.

Doug Kmiec and Melinda Henneberger better get their pens ready. If the Democrats spurn the pro-lifers who put them into power and pass FOCA, several million voters will feel betrayed. Kmiec and Henneberger will have become the major dupes in that betrayal.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Jurist Predicts ‘Terrible Conflict’ Will Endanger U.S. Catholics’ Religious Freedom
Catholic News Agency
January 21, 2009

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Racial Bigotry Alive And Well Under President Obama

In spite of promises to the contrary, Barack Obama has not left the racial hatred of Jeremiah Wright behind. Instead, he invited it back under a different name: Joseph Lowery.

Rev. Lowery invoked race in a derogatory way after Obama was sworn in. According to the Associated Press:

After the first black president had been sworn in, Rev. Joseph Lowery' ended his benediction with a rhyme familiar to black churchgoers:

"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around..."


"... and when white will embrace what is right."

Of course, the implication of such a statement is that all white people are racist. It took less than one hour for Obama to abandon his "post-racial" promise.

Nothing like a president who judges by color of skin, eh?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

AP Describes Black Minister's Mockery Of Whites As Not Right As 'Note Of Racial Caution'
Tim Graham
January 20, 2009

An Appropriate Photo-Spoof For Today

Monday, January 19, 2009

Bush Finally Does Something About Wrongly Convicted Border Agents

It isn't perfect and still doesn't rid me of the feeling that Compean and Ramos were wrongly convicted and being held as political prisoners, but it is a start.

President Bush commuted the sentances of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Their prison terms will end on March 20 of this year.

Deb Riechmann has this:

Ramos and Compean became a rallying point among conservatives and on talk shows where their supporters called them heroes. Nearly the entire bipartisan congressional delegation from Texas and other lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle pleaded with Bush to grant them clemency.

Why did all of this happen? Read on:

Compean and Ramos, were convicted of shooting admitted drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the buttocks as he fled across the Rio Grande, away from an abandoned van load of marijuana. The border agents argued during their trials that they believed the smuggler was armed and that they shot him in self defense. The prosecutor in the case said there was no evidence linking the smuggler to the van of marijuana.

The "prosecutor" in this case is Johnny Sutton. In order to ensure that Ramos and Compean were convocted, Sutton issued a Humanitarian Visa to Davila in exchange for immunity and his testimony against the border agents. Davila went on to use the Visa to continue his efforts at smuggling drugs into the United States. Further, Sutton held back evidence that at least three jurors said would have caused them to change their votes.

That makes Johhny Sutton possibly the most ignorant prosecutor of all time.

Compean and Ramos got railroaded and President Bush knew it.

This should have been a full pardon. We will still work for a full pardon but won't be expecting it from Barack Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Commutes Sentences Of Former US Border Agents
Deb Riechmann
Associated Press via Yahoo News
January 19, 2009

Tell Your Senators To Oppose S. 181, The Lily Ledbetter Act

On January 15, 2009, the Senate voted 74 to 23 to proceed with the Lily Ledbetter Act. I documented this and one other destructive piece of legislation in a previous blog entry here:

Gender Equity Frivoulous Lawsuits Will Once Again Jam Our Legal System
January 8, 2009

The Democrats in Congress are hell-bent on inflicting this wasteful, destructive legislation on us once again. The Lily Ledbetter Act opens the door wide for all kinds of lawsuits since the language of the bill permits anyone to be a vicitm of discrimination.

Remember back in the late 80's when our court system was so jammed with frivolous lawsuits that hardened criminals were being set free simply because there was no space on the court dockets to try their cases and they were being held too long while waiting for a "speedy, public trial?" Well, the Lily Ledbetter Act and its companion, the Paycheck Fairness Act, are threatening to bring us back to those days.

According to Eagle Forum:

Please note that S. 181 is different than the House passed version of the Lilly Ledbetter bill, H.R. 11. S. 181 is worse. Not only will it overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (2007), which upheld the timely filing of claims of alleged pay discrimination, S. 181 would also expand the class of potential plaintiffs to anyone "affected by" discrimination. A plausible reading of this language means a spouse or heir who receives pension checks and was not a victim of discrimination would have standing to file a lawsuit.

This is a dangerous addition to an already destructive bill. At a time when more than 11 million Americans are unemployed, the highest unemployment rate in sixteen years, these bills would expose large and small companies to vast new liabilities extending back decades. What our economy needs now is for businesses to hire more workers in America, but they are not going to do that if it means exposing themselves to expensive and frivolous litigation. The only things these two bills will stimulate are more litigation and a further exodus of jobs out of the United States.

The big concern here is that businesses will be more reluctant to hire workers, especially women or members of any other group that may try to take advantage of the poorly worded provisions of the Lily Ledbetter Act. I wouldn't blame any business that did so.

Further, these two pieces of legislation would only serve to make some lawyers rich at the expense of the American consumer who would ultimately foot the bill for these frivolous lawsuits.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas has proposed an alternative piece of legislation. It is S. 166, the Title VII Fairness Act.

Please contact your Senators and ask them to oppose S. 181 and support S. 166.

You can reach your Senators on-line here:

Congressional Email Directory

And the Eagle Forum entry on-line here:

Senate To Vote On S. 181
Eagle Forum
January 19, 2008

Friday, January 16, 2009

Doug Kmiec Whines: Catholic Bloggers Are "Tormenting" Him

One of the hallmarks of a good person is integrity. Integrity means admitting that one is wrong whenever one is clearly wrong. I'm sure that most people have integrity in their private lives but when they go public or are made public by other circumstances, the first thing they lose is their integrity.

Unfortunately, Doug Kmiec is one of those people. He made himself public as a pro-life Catholic who offered his support for the extremely pro-abortion Barack Obama and actively campaigned for other pro-life Catholics to join him in his endorsement. Kmiec had somehow convinced himself that Obama and the Democrats in general would respect the pro-life views of himself and those who rallied to his call.

Then, when the hard truth hit, Kmiec was discredited and basically made to look like a fool who blindly led his flock astray. I documented a part of this in my previous blog entry:

Voter's Remorse: Did Pro-Life Catholics (Especially Douglas Kmiec) Get Punked By Obama?
November 28, 2008

I thought my own posting on the issue was very civil and thoughtful, especialy since it was based on an article by Kmiec's peer journalist, Melinda Henneberger, who wrote the following article for Slate:

Lose-Lose On Abortion
Melinda Henneberger
November 24, 2008

So, why am I bringing all of this up again?

Because Doug Kmiec is whining about how he is being mistreated by the "right-wing Catholic blogosphere." Actually, what has happened is that there has been a backlash against his support for the most pro-abortion President of all time.

Instead of admitting that he led himself and his followers astray, Kmiec has chosen to abandon his integrity and make himself out to be some sort of victim. He claims that he has been on the recieving end of "missiles of hate" and "ad hominem invectives." Personally, I invite everyone to read my previous blog entry posted above so that they can see that 84rules did nothing of the kind.

The Catholic News Agency has more on this story:

Brian Saint-Paul, editor of Crisis Magazine and InsideCatholic.com, was highly critical of Kmiec’s endorsement of President-elect Obama. He responded to Kmiec’s essay in a Tuesday e-mail to CNA.

"While I strongly disagreed with Dr. Kmiec's support for Barack Obama, I have also been sorry to see the personal abuse he's received from fellow Catholics as a result," he wrote. "If those in the Church can't disagree without resorting to playground insults, we're a sad example to the rest of the world."

"Having said that, I hope Dr. Kmiec doesn't use the immaturity of some of his critics as a reason to avoid the more legitimate concerns of others. There is a conversation that needs to take place here, and it will require thick skins all around."

That is where Kmiec lost his integrity. I have no doubt that he did recieve some purile hate-mail, but to generalize it to include everyone who has been critical of him shows his victim mentality.


Thomas Peters, who runs the blog “American Papist,” was critical of Kmiec’s comments.

"Blog culture is not homogenous. Kmiec ought to be specific when he says he is being attacked by ‘the blogosphere.’ It's like saying ‘the press’ is attacking you, and then proceeding to only mention things said by the National Enquirer," he told CNA in a Tuesday e-mail.

And that is the whole point here. Kmiec is responding to his critics by offering broad-brush accusations with very little, if any, evidence behind them.


"He has attempted to move the debate away from the original argument in question (specifically Obama's record on life issues) into the realm of the character assassination he feels he has been subjected to."

"Kmiec constantly points out the vitriolic or silly criticisms he has received, while almost wholly ignoring the substantive disagreements that many prominent members of the pro-life movement have raised in response to his arguments. It shouldn't be surprising that he fares well when he matches himself up against this army of straw men, or in this case, these nameless, faceless ‘bloggers’."

What Kmiec is missing is the reason this whole thing started to begin with. Mark Shea clears that up very nicely:

He suggested that Kmiec received singular criticism because of his unique position.

"It's not like there was a huge field of one-time pro-life Catholic leaders who suddenly turned about and started making excuses for Obama's pro-abortion zeal," Shea told CNA. "He was one of the most prominent alleged pro-life Catholic voices out there banging the drum for Obama, a man who has pledged to sign the single most destructive act of pro-abortion legislation in American history. What did he expect?"

Yes, what did he expect? Did Kmiec expect that all pro-life Catholics would be as blind to him as he himself was to Barack Obama?

And finally, the parting shot by Shea:

"I'm not interested in hearing Kmiec moan about how mean people from the bottom of the barrel were to him," Shea told CNA. "I'm interested in hearing his responses to the very intelligent critiques of his position that were offered by a number of very respectable and honorable Catholics."

If Kmiec would like to reclaim his integrity, he would listen to what Mark Shea said.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Catholic Bloggers Respond To Kmiec Criticism
Catholic News Agency
January 14, 2009

Transcript Of President Bush's Farewell Address

Given on January 16, 2008, at 8:01 p.m. EST:

Fellow citizens: For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President. The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence -- a time set apart. Tonight, with a thankful heart, I have asked for a final opportunity to share some thoughts on the journey that we have traveled together, and the future of our nation.

Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose history reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-Elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.

Tonight I am filled with gratitude -- to Vice President Cheney and members of my administration; to Laura, who brought joy to this house and love to my life; to our wonderful daughters, Barbara and Jenna; to my parents, whose examples have provided strength for a lifetime. And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me. I thank you for the prayers that have lifted my spirits. And I thank you for the countless acts of courage, generosity, and grace that I have witnessed these past eight years.

This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house -- September the 11th, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock. I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon, and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son's police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.

As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.

Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists' movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them. Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.

There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil night and day to keep us safe -- law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

Our nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger. I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. And America owes you a debt of gratitude. And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander-in-Chief.

The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God, and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.

This is the belief that gave birth to our nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens. When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism. So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity. We're standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to dying patients -- to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic born alone in liberty is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.

For eight years, we've also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home. Across our country, students are rising to meet higher standards in public schools. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing peace of mind to seniors and the disabled. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes. The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs. Vulnerable human life is better protected. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled. America's air and water and lands are measurably cleaner. And the federal bench includes wise new members like Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy. These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted. All Americans are in this together. And together, with determination and hard work, we will restore our economy to the path of growth. We will show the world once again the resilience of America's free enterprise system.

Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I've always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.

The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course.

While our nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient, and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.

At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.

As we address these challenges -- and others we cannot foresee tonight -- America must maintain our moral clarity. I've often spoken to you about good and evil, and this has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two of them there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense -- and to advance the cause of peace.

President Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past." As I leave the house he occupied two centuries ago, I share that optimism. America is a young country, full of vitality, constantly growing and renewing itself. And even in the toughest times, we lift our eyes to the broad horizon ahead.

I have confidence in the promise of America because I know the character of our people. This is a nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a nation where citizens show calm in times of danger, and compassion in the face of suffering. We see examples of America's character all around us. And Laura and I have invited some of them to join us in the White House this evening.

We see America's character in Dr. Tony Recasner, a principal who opened a new charter school from the ruins of Hurricane Katrina. We see it in Julio Medina, a former inmate who leads a faith-based program to help prisoners returning to society. We've seen it in Staff Sergeant Aubrey McDade, who charged into an ambush in Iraq and rescued three of his fellow Marines.

We see America's character in Bill Krissoff -- a surgeon from California. His son, Nathan -- a Marine -- gave his life in Iraq. When I met Dr. Krissoff and his family, he delivered some surprising news: He told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in honor of his son. This good man was 60 years old -- 18 years above the age limit. But his petition for a waiver was granted, and for the past year he has trained in battlefield medicine. Lieutenant Commander Krissoff could not be here tonight, because he will soon deploy to Iraq, where he will help save America's wounded warriors -- and uphold the legacy of his fallen son.

In citizens like these, we see the best of our country - resilient and hopeful, caring and strong. These virtues give me an unshakable faith in America. We have faced danger and trial, and there's more ahead. But with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great nation will never tire, never falter, and never fail.

It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your President. There have been good days and tough days. But every day I have been inspired by the greatness of our country, and uplifted by the goodness of our people. I have been blessed to represent this nation we love. And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other - citizen of the United States of America.

And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next President. And may God bless you and our wonderful country. Thank you.

History will see beyond the irrationality of the Bush Derangement Syndrome that has gripped the Democrats and Old Media. President Bush had his faults and made his mistakes just like every other President, but he was the right man, in the right place at the right time when it came to defending our nation.

The Republican's Alternative Stimulus Plan

Have you heard about the alternative plan the Republicans are offering for an economic stimulus package? Probably not given that the Dems are refusing to allow the minority party to offer alternative legislation or even hold alternative hearings on the issues and also because the MSM is cheerleading the Dems. Republicans are not even allowed to bring in witnesses to any hearings.

Such is the change that Barack Obama has brought to Washington D.C. Make a power grab and then claim that freedom has somehow increased.

Congressional Republicans have an alternative economic stimulus package that actually might spur economic growth. The Club For Growth analyzed it and came up with the following:

President-Elect Obama’s stimulus plan and the latest stimulus proposal released by Rep. Charlie Rangel contain very few pro-growth elements, if any at all. Both bills place an overwhelming emphasis on spending programs that will siphon money out of the private sector and will add to the country’s ballooning debt, but are unlikely to stimulate real economic growth.

Instead, Congress should consider the Republican Study Committee’s plan with its emphasis on reducing America’s debt, lowering the tax burden on American families and businesses, and creating an incentive for businesses to grow and invest in the economy. The RSC’s plan does this by offering:

  • Across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates
  • Repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax
  • A reduction in the corporate tax rate
  • Ending the capital gains tax on inflation
  • Full and immediate expensing of business equipment
  • A one percent reduction in government spending

But the Dems will never consider this wise proposal for two reasons: 1) It is a true pro-growth policy that actually has a chance of working and 2) It puts power into the hands of the people rather than concentrating more power in the government.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Club For Growth Applauds RSC’s Alternative Stimulus Plan
Club for Growth
January 15, 2009

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Scientists Continue To Debunk "Consensus" in 2008: Global Warming Skeptics On The Rise

You know, when you ignore a very important issue simply because you do not agree with the politics of those driving it, that issue will come back to bite you in the rear-end.

Such is the case with those who embrace the idea that there is "concensus" among scientists that Global Warming is going to kill all of mankind and leave us drowning in a world that resembles a ridiculously bad Kevin Costner movie. They will ignore the issue that science is discovering new evidence that climate change is natural. You will see very little of the AGW debate broadcast over the main networks or CNN for the simple fact that the data is turning against Al Gore and all of his disciples and a leftist-leaning media does not want such information getting out. As such, the issue is starting to come back and bite them in the rear.

There is no concensus and the science isn't even close to being settled. But right now, the majority of legitimate scientists (i.e. those scientists who are not on someone's political payroll) are leaning towards the idea tha climate change is natural and we humans cannot do anything about it nor should we even try.

From Media Newswire:

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

Athropogenic Global Warming theory has met quite a few failures in its predictions. So many, in fact, that it can no longer be consider a valid theory as it has a failure rate of well over 50%.


In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC.']

The tables are turning as the world learns more about the truth of climate change. Pretty soon, people like Al Gore and those who blindly follow him are going to look more and more foolish, if it's even possible for them to look more foolish at this point.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Scientists Continue To Debunk "Consensus" In 2008
Media Newswire
January 15, 2009

Promote The FairTax Now!

Here are two ways you can help to get HR25, the FairTax Act, passed.

First, you can encourage the Republicans to rebuild the party around the FairTax by going here:

Tell Republicans To Rebuild Their Party Around The FairTax

You can also ask the incoming administration to endorse the FairTax by going here:

Let Everyone Know The FairTax Is The Bold New Idea This Country Needs
White House 2

In The Federalist #21, Alexander Hamilton argued for the Federal Government to have the power to levy taxes.

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING in the three last numbers taken a summary review of the principal circumstances and events which have depicted the genius and fate of other confederate governments, I shall now proceed in the enumeration of the most important of those defects which have hitherto disappointed our hopes from the system established among ourselves. To form a safe and satisfactory judgment of the proper remedy, it is absolutely necessary that we should be well acquainted with the extent and malignity of the disease.

. . . There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.

But, neither Mr. Hamilton nor any of the Founding Fathers ever imagined the beast that would be created a little more than a century later.

Origins of the Income Tax

The federal income tax was established in 1913. It actually required an amendment to the United States Constitution to make it legal. Why? Our Founding Fathers believed that taxing individuals on their private income was economic folly. They were right. The absence of an income tax, a tax on productivity, allowed our economy to grow and individuals to prosper for 124 years.

The original income tax legislation affected only individuals earning $4,000 or more per year, at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans earned far less. The 16th Amendment was eventually ratified and added to the Constitution, and a national income tax was born.

That 16th Amendment was simply worded, the tax return consisted of only one page, and the entire tax code itself consisted of only 14 pages. No one could have imagined the vast impact it would have on the lives of their children, grandchildren, and future generations of Americans.

Since then, the federal income tax system has become so complex that it requires tens of millions of Americans to seek professional help to comply with it, not to mention the enormous, expensive federal bureaucracy required to enforce and administer the tax. The Internal Revenue Service employs more investigative agents than the FBI and the CIA combined, and with 144,000 employees, employs more people than all but the 36 largest corporations in the United States.

In addition to the $10 billion needed to operate the IRS, at least $265 billion (that is $900 for every man, woman, and child in this country) must be added to account for the cost of complying with the tax code. Massive amounts of our national wealth are consumed merely by measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our annual income.

There have been many efforts at tax reform over the past twenty years, but all of them failed to produce the desired results. Here are three end-goals that any tax reform plan must have in order to be viable:

1) The plan must remove from the IRS any power to intrude on the private lives of American citizens.
2) The plan must remove from the K Street lobbyists any power to influence Congressional votes.
3) The plan must not allow hidden taxes to be passed along to the consumer at any time.

There is only one tax reform plan that addresses all three of these end-goals:

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax -- administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Americans take home their whole paychecks.

Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

The prebate makes the FairTax progressive.

To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.

With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service. If you choose to buy used goods − used car, used home, used appliances − you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. The FairTax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or their compliance costs, which drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay.

Did you know that income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more of all retail prices? It’s true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.

Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries’ value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.

The FairTax strategy is revenue neutrality: Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.

The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Tax criminals don’t make criminals out of honest taxpayers.

Today, the IRS will admit to 16 percent noncompliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax does tax this -- criminals love to flash that cash at retail -- while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance -- from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers -- also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

Can you decipher the current code? Find out! The following link goes to the Table of Contents of our current tax code (26 USC). Not the full code, just the Table of Contents:

Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) (Warning! If you are on a 56k modem, it would not be a good idea to click this link unless you plan on waiting a while just to view this Table of Contents!)

That's some list, is it not? 9,833 sections long! You could read the novel War And Peace by Leo Tolstoy before getting through 26 USC.

So, what should we do about it? There really is only one answer. Scrap the entire system and rebuild it from the ground up. I support the FairTax to replace our current tax system. You can get additional information, including research papers prepared by economists from the nation's leading colleges and universities, by visiting the following website:

Americans For Fair Taxation

Obama 'Embarrassed' By Geithner's Tax Problems, Highlights Hypocritical Double Standard Of The Democrats

The only place I've found this story is on Fox News and the Internet. I don't recall it ever being discussed in CNN or any of the left-leaning news networks.

Timothy Geithner evaded paying $34,000 in taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund and it has now come to light that he employed a housekeeper who did not maintain proper immigration papers. And yet, the leftist-leaning President-elect claims that it isn't such a big deal.

Was it not such a big deal when Linda Chavez had to withdraw her cabinet appointment when it came to light that she was employing an illegal alien? Clearly, we can see the double standards held by those who reside on the political left.

From Fox News:

President-elect Barack Obama labeled the tax problems of his choice for Treasury chief an embarrassment Wednesday, but said Timothy Geithner's "innocent mistake" shouldn't bar him from the post leading urgent efforts to revive the economy.


Senators' reactions suggested they viewed his missteps more as embarrassing mistakes than as disqualifying misdeeds.

Again, the question must be asked: "Would they have this same attitude were the nominee appointed by a Republican President?"

I think we can safely say that the answer to that last question is: "No."

This whole sorry episode is a clear example of how the Obama administration will conducting itself over the next four years. They will think themsleves above the law and come up with every justification for excusing themselves while simultaneously screwing the American people with disastrous socialist policies.

Buckle up, folks! Timothy Geithner's case is just the first hill of the roller-coaster ride.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama 'Embarrassed' By Geithner's Tax Problems
Fox News
January 14, 2009

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

A Result Of Leftist Policies: Californians Flee For A Better Life

When people are unable to vote for the change they need at the ballot box, they will vote with their feet, that is, they will move to another area where they feel they can better achieve their personal goals and dreams.

What could be going on that people are doing this? Lots of things and all of them bad.

The state of California is experiencing a situation in which people are voting with their feet. For the fourth fiscal year in a row, California has experienced a net loss in population thorugh interstate migration.

According to Michael Blood of the Associated Press:

Mike Reilly spent his lifetime chasing the California dream. This year he's going to look for it in Colorado.

With a house purchase near Denver in the works, the 38-year-old engineering contractor plans to move his family 1,200 miles away from his home state's lemon groves, sunshine and beaches. For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.

Is there something left of the California dream?

"If you are a Hollywood actor," Reilly says, "but not for us."

Nobody wants to live in an area where more of their hard-earned money gets confiscated by the government or where their children must attend schools that put politics above education or where illegal aliens drive down the average worker's wages with a willingness to work for less.

California is typical of what happens when tax-and-spend Democrats have control of the legislative process. The economy in the Golden State is shrinking due to many factors, not the least of which is that the state government keeps levying higher taxes. The net effect of the high taxes is that wages and salaries have gone down while the cost of living has gone up. People don't want to live under those conditions if they don't have to.


Why are so many looking for an exit?

Among other things: California's unemployment rate hit 8.4 percent in November, the third-highest in the nation, and it is expected to get worse. A record 236,000 foreclosures are projected for 2008, more than the prior nine years combined, according to research firm MDA DataQuick. Personal income was about flat last year.

With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates. A multibillion-dollar plan to remake downtown Los Angeles has stalled, and office vacancy rates there and in San Diego and San Jose surpass the 10.2 percent national average.

Median housing prices have nose-dived one-third from a 2006 peak, but many homes are still out of reach for middle-class families. Some small towns are on the brink of bankruptcy. Normally recession-proof Hollywood has been hit by layoffs.

"You see wages go down and the cost of living go up," Reilly says. His property taxes will be $1,300 in Colorado, down from $4,300 on his three-bedroom house in Nipomo, about 80 miles up the coast from Santa Barbara.

That's a pretty serious drop in property tax rate and a major reason why so many people are trying to leave the state.

Oh, and the state with the second highest loss in population? New York, another Democrat run tax-and-spend state.

Take a good look at California, folks. It is a preview of what the entire United States will be facing as the socialist-leaning Barack Obama and the socialist-leaning Democrat controlled Congress enact their leftist policies on us all.

If California is an accurate indicator, Obama and Company will be leading us into the Second Great Depression.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Exodus: Californians Flee For A Better Life
Michael Blood
Associated Press via The Morning Call
January 13, 2009