From Dick Morris

>> Thursday, September 30, 2010

--Dick Morris,, September 28, 2010

Thanks to the leadership of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, the Democratic Party is facing the biggest defeat in midterm elections in the past 110 years, perhaps surpassing the modern record of a 74-seat gain set in 1922. They will also lose control of the Senate.

Republicans are now leading in 54 Democratic House districts. In 19 more, the incumbent congressman is under 50 percent and his GOP challenger is within five points. That makes 73 seats where victory is within easy grasp for the Republican Party. The only reason the list is not longer is that there are 160 Democratic House districts that were considered so strongly blue that there is no recent polling available.

There is no Democratic message. President Obama is heralding education -- an issue never mentioned on the campaign trail. Secretary of State Clinton is trying to restart the peace talks in the Middle East. Attorney General Holder is re-evaluating online national-security taps. And a hundred Democrats are scrambling about on their own trying to get reelected!

The Democratic campaigns they are waging are formulaic. They make no attempt to defend the administration, but run away from it where possible. They never mention the words stimulus, healthcare reform, card-check, GM takeover or cap-and-trade.

Instead, they are running almost exclusively negative ads. They base their campaigns on tax liens, failed marriages, DWIs and the like. Where there is a paucity of dirt, they resort to three prefab negatives: that their opponent favors a 23 percent national sales tax, that he wants to privatize Social Security and that he is shipping jobs overseas.

The Republican answers are simple. Republicans want a 23 percent value-added tax (VAT) only as part of eliminating the income tax. Some Republicans do back letting people under 55 divert one-third of their FICA taxes to approved investment alternatives, and most voters agree with them. But, on the campaign trail, simply saying -- accurately -- that "I oppose any change at all in Social Security for our seniors" takes care of it. And Republicans rebut the jobs overseas charge by citing how the incumbent backed cash-for-clunkers, where 40 percent of the cars bought were foreign; the TARP bailout, which paid billions to overseas banks; and the GM bailout, where two-thirds of the jobs were overseas.

It is a pathetic defense, easily pierced and defeated.

Now the field of battle will increasingly shift. The marginal Democrats -- the freshmen and sophomores -- are mostly gone. The seats of Southern conservative Democrats largely already lost. Now the combat shifts to the previously safe seats occupied by many in the House leadership, including, perhaps, the seats of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.).

This new attack will force the Democrats to spend their resources defending their base and make it even easier to pick off marginal members. And while Republican resources shift to the previously solidly Democratic districts, eager donors anxious to develop relationships with the new Republican majority will fill their shoes.

In the Senate, Republicans lead in eight Democratic seats: North Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Illinois. In Nevada, the ninth, Harry Reid has been stuck at 44 percent of the vote since Aug. 1, when his Social Security/Medicare attack was rebutted. He is dead in the water. His negatives flood the airwaves but are not working, and the ads run by Karl Rove's American Crossroads have him pinned down.

For the 10th seat, the GOP has five options: New York, where Joe DioGuardi is only one point behind Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the latest published poll; California, where Sen. Barbara Boxer is stubbornly below 50; Washington state, where the lead has seesawed back and forth between Dino Rossi and Sen. Patty Murray; Connecticut, where Linda McMahon has closed to 50-45; and Delaware, where Christine O'Donnell may yet come back and has closed the gap to nine points.

And where is Obama while all this is happening? Proposing new initiatives on education!


Received in Email...

>> Monday, September 27, 2010

A Charade of Mass Proportions
A historical perspective of the social security nightmare

--Joel Bowman, The Daily Reckoning

"The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall."

- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 B.C.

What rhymes with Cicero? Not much. But if, as the saying goes, history itself rhymes, today's welfare-warfare state has plenty worth holding up against the soft, fading light of that long-fallen empire: Corrupt politicians...predatory bankers...ruinous military misadventures to faraway lands...a gluttonous citizenry feeding at the trough of public monies and, of course, the insidious, ridiculous illusion that any single participant could have made one jot of difference to the great charade as it unfolded before their very eyes.

The charade to which we refer is the very same phenomenon the Roman poet Juvenal referred to as "bread and circuses" in the tenth of his Satires. It is the superficial appeasement of the masses by the political class who, seeking to prevent massive uprising and revolt against their rule, dole out meager alms in the form of mass distraction. The success of this grand dupe depends on, and excels because of, the widespread assumption that the political class is working for the benefit of their employers, the taxpaying populace, rather than, as is the stark, impassionate reality, their merely effecting to do so. Nothing, not a sunrise at midnight, not a man immortal, could be further from reality. Far from serving their masters on bended knee, elected officials behave more like dogs than public servants, entirely dependent on their keepers for food and forever assuming they will be around with a doggy bag to clean up their mess.

"Government," as Frédéric Bastiat, writing some 1,800 years after Juvenal, expressed it, "is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

And so we come to better understand our own predicament today. When a lending institution lends too much and is repaid too little, the poisoned olive branch of government extends. When a profligate spender - with sufficient influence in the public sphere, mind you - falters under the weight of its own obligations, the state appears with a bottomless cup. Multi-trillion dollar bailouts, and more still to come. Schemes, scams and stratagems that, we are told, are all for our own good. From the floor of Congress to the evening news, a trumpet calls all "men and women of reason" to fight against "total collapse of our system" lead us back from the "edge of the abyss."

Bread and circuses...

What then, when the Treasury is spent and the Fed's arsenal deployed? When debts sold off to once willing foreigners inevitably come due? When the children to whom this legacy of larceny is left realize the hand they were dealt and demand, with clenched fists of their own, a fair and equal opportunity, the chance to ruin or succeed based on their own generation's cowardice or courage? What comes after the determined destruction of the nation's currency...again?

Nowhere is Bastiat's observation better reflected than when the looking glass is held up to Social Security. The ruse, sold to American's under the same old banners, fraught with "safety net" misnomers and "falling through the cracks" platitudes, is up. On September 30, this Thursday, six years ahead of schedule, the "fund" officially goes into the red. What will they tell us next? What price must we pay in order that the grand charade is allowed to go on? What story must we now swallow?

Don't fret, Fellow Reckoner. They'll surely think of something. And that's precisely the problem.

Personal Note:
The problems we face today are not solely the responsibility of the Democrats; Republicans too have learned to eat at the trough with equal fervor and glutinous abandon. But the problem would not have existed (in this current form at least) were it not for Democrats-- Wilson, Roosevelt... the depression lasting far longer than it needed thanks to democratic, liberal intervention in the economic collapse of the 1930s. The irony in today's democratic economic mantra, however, is the fact that the first depression lasted as long as it did because of Democratic intervention, and now blaming Republicans for this collapse (even though it was Democratic tom-foolery in the housing market), they resort to the same failed interventions of the 1930s, thus ensuring that THIS economic disaster will last far longer than it would otherwise-- assuming no wasteful Democratic spending. That's right, while braying about the failed policies of the previous administration, they are themselves presently guilty of revisiting the failed policies of 'previous administrations' seventy years ago.

The hypocrisy on the left is stunning. As is its lack of long-term memory and its inability to learn from its past mistakes. On November 2nd, God willing, The People will put a leash on Congress, and force THAT dog to heel... as it should be.

Now, who was it that said Social Security was still solvent? Can it truly be that only a Democrat has a grasp on truth? the ability to understand the numbers? and take nothing a politician says at face value?

As children, many of us were told that were we ever in trouble or lost we could go to a police officer or anyone in a uniform and all would be well... we would be safe. And yet we see, more and more as each year passes, just how human-- and not wholly trustworthy --ALL men and women are, even and especially those in uniform. We can't always trust someone simply because they wear a badge, or a uniform. Why then do we trust, near implicitly, the word of our pet politicians? The ones who have US on the leash, rather than the other way around?

Here's my final question. Why is it, knowing our own failures and inability to be wholly and reliably honest to all and at all times, take the word of politicians, mere mortal men, without question? I say, only a fool trusts the word of any man without question. Everything everyone says has motive. No one tells the truth all the time. 'Everybody's got something to hide, 'cept for me and my monkey.' [Bonus points]

And there's a lot of monkeys in Washington right this minute slinging shit everywhere. Unruly whores and sluts to their own careers. It's going to take a lot of time and effort to clean their shit up and get back to doing The People's work.


"Is this my new reality?"

>> Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Yes, Ma'am, it is. Get used to it. You voted for hope and change, but you, like the rest of us, have been shafted. Obama was the beneficiary of hope (electorally); hope that he can managed to fundamentally change America (rather than restore her to her former glory), while we were left with the resultant change. It's almost as if this president is forcing America to undergo a sex-change operation... to fundamentally change its face and character. To make unnatural that which was at its inception, natural.


This Guy Is Perfect!

>> Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Keep an eye on U.S. Representative Duncan D. Hunter (R) Cal. The presidential election of 2012 isn't so far off. Hunter embodies true Conservative principles.

His father, Duncan Lee Hunter, represented California's 52nd district in Congress for 16 years, and unsuccessfully campaigned for president in 2008. He was my personal choice for President then.

Now, his son has succeeded him in the House of Representatives, and he, like his father, also represents true conservative principles.

Below is a list of Rep. Duncan D Hunter's principles:

1. Repeal the Obama/Pelosi healthcare takeover and replace it with common-sense, free-market reforms that will force health insurance companies to be accountable and transparent while, at the same time, increasing the quality and access of healthcare in America and reducing costs.

2. Maintain a strong national security policy that funds the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps at appropriate levels and doesn’t cut defense spending during wartime for the first time in American history. President Obama’s attempt to cut our military must be stopped. Islamofascism must be defeated.

3. Border Security that includes a COMPLETELY secure southern and northern border. Border security is national security. NO AMNESTY for those here illegally.

4. Real Economic Growth that comes from a vibrant private sector. Fight the Obama/Pelosi takeover of every industry in the United States. Implement reform that will incentivize hard working Americans and entrepreneurs to create jobs. Bring manufacturing BACK from China and India to the United States.

5. Tax cuts and fiscal responsibility are the keys to economic recovery and job growth. The American people are overtaxed and the government spends too much. We must have a balanced budget and every federal agency needs to be cut dramatically except for infrastructure and national defense.

6. Energy independence. The only way to free ourselves from terrorist despots who negotiate international policy using oil prices is to keep working on alternative energy while at the same time following an “all of the above” approach. We must build more oil refineries, build nuclear facilities, and drill.

7. Individual liberty and personal responsibility >are the cornerstones of our great nation. The federal government’s role should be limited to protecting and defending our God given freedoms.

I have no political influence, but if I did, I would start a grassroots movement to elect Duncan D. Hunter President in 2012.


"Hope & Change" Masquerading as Bald-Faced Lies

>> Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Remember this?


I make under $30k a year. Next year, after the Bush tax cuts have expired my tax liability will rise (as an average) $756 dollars. Divide that number by the number of paychecks I'll receive (26), and that's a gross loss of 29 dollars each paycheck. Doesn't sound like a lot does it? I should be the patriotic trooper and happily accept this increase, and be thankful for a government that cares about me. Right?

I'd rather a government that balanced its budget like I must do. I'd rather my government stop promising me boons it has neither right nor guarantee to make. I'd rather my government care about the things it's constitutionally bound to care about. And nothing more.

Don't promise me Social Security; not when you're making me and every other taxpayer bleed to support it in the now, for no promise of return for ourselves in the future. In other words, stop stabbing my eyes out while promising to provide me a seeing-eye dog 20 years down the road. Stop promising me "free" health care while raking my wallet (and my broke ass) over the coals. Stop calling me a racist for defending my border against invaders. Give me a government that knows its place and stays there. Give me politicians that recognize that their duty is to the constitution first, and to me second-- their own political and financial ambitions only after these first two are met.

"But," you say, "the evil rich will pay their fair share!" How is a tax INCREASE of $101,587 fair? Is it fair because they can AFFORD to pay that much? Or is it a genuinely equitable increase? The top 1% of income earners already pay 39% of all income taxes, which is a 2% increase from 2000, BEFORE Bush took office. The so-called rich paid MORE in income taxes under Bush than under Clinton. So, basically, all you stupid folk calling for the rich to pay their fair share, to do away with the Bush tax "cuts" really want the rich to go back to pre-Bush, lower tax rates while the rest of us in the middle and lower classes pay more to make up the short fall? You people are sick.

I don't pretend to understand all the math in this [I'm certain the new host of tax increases levied by Obama and Co. will play a substantial role]. I've looked at the tax documents and various reports from both liberal and conservative perspectives and the numbers are the same- the only difference is interpretation or, rather, the spin. The numbers don't change, but the spin does. But the simple truth is, I will lose, as an average, approximately 30 dollars gross from each paycheck. My most recent raise, by the way, only netted me a 28 dollar increase each paycheck.

Where's MY hope and change? On the lying lips of men like president Barack Obama.


Hypocrisy Comes Easy to the Intellectually Dishonest

>> Monday, September 13, 2010

... and the plainly stupid.

Should Rep John Boehner quit smoking if he becomes speaker? Who the hell is Bob Schieffer to ask such a question of Boehner, when Obama, the messiah himself, smokes? Is this a sleight of hand attack of Rep. Boehner? If it is it reeks of hypocrisy, cloaked in stupidity. No, you say? Then why bring it up at all? What? It's somehow shameful for the Speaker to smoke, but the president can puff to his heart's (and arteries) content?

If you folks on the left think this is a reasonable question/attack, you're all bonafide idiots.

Personal Note: I don't smoke. Never have. While I do think it looks ugly and displays a lack of both finesse and self-esteem (not to mention intelligence), it is nonetheless a personal choice that everyone is entitled to enjoy, so long as I don't have to smell it in places I have no choice but to be. That said, Obama smokes! And yes, I think it looks bad, but where does the left get off asking about Boehner's plainly bad decision to smoke, while the messiah himself smokes? Is this the best the left can do in the final weeks leading up to the midterms?


Obama Most Destructive President


Nine Short Years Later

>> Saturday, September 11, 2010

"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it." ~ Michel de Montaigne

I didn't need to post the preceding video. The images of that fateful day are indelibly etched into Americas collective mind. And yet...

We never thought it would come to this.

Nine years ago today, on September 11, 2001, A group of fanatical Muslim terrorists attacked America, and the entire country came together in solidarity.

We mourned together. We prayed together. We comforted each other. We stood together in defiance against America's enemies. We vowed vengeance together.

Every United States Representative and Senator in Washington gathered together on the steps of the Capitol, stood side by side, Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, and, together, sang "God Bless America".

We were a nation united.

And now. nine short years later, our nation is divided. We are divided over race. We are divided over religion. We are divided over ideology.

What the hell happened?

The religion whose adherents attacked us is now reviled by some, adored by others.

To be fair, most Muslims would have never attacked us. Most American Muslims are law abiding citizens, and wouldn't think of harming another individual.

This act of terrorism was carried out by a small group of fanatical extremists, certainly in no way representative of the whole of Islam.

So, just as there is no logical reason why all Muslims should be hated, there is no reason why all Muslims should be loved and respected.

But now, nine years later, we find, among the Liberals, an inexplicable and illogical love of all things Islam.

I fear this new found Liberal love affair with Islam is symptomatic of a phenomena author Shelby Steele labeled "White Guilt". While trying to be fair, some people are drifting too far in the other direction.

I liken this phenomena to the father who is asked to umpire his own son's little league baseball game. He wants to be fair to both teams, and not show favoritism to his son's team. Invariably, a situation will come up sometime during the game where he will have to make a close call, and he will rule in the opposing teams favor, sub-consciously, just to prevent any possibility of showing bias to his son's team.

Now, there is a whole new sub-culture of Liberal Americans who love all Muslims, regardless of their level of extreme fanaticism. All Muslims good. All Americans and Jews bad. Regardless of whether this is an accurate statement, it certainly appears to be their mindset.

At the same time, there is another sub-culture of Americans who hate all Muslims because of the fact that there still exist in this world, fanatical extremist Muslims who truly want to murder every non-Muslim on Earth. Their mindset appears to be, "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim".

Neither of these two extremes are accurate. The truth of Islam is somewhere in the middle.

But, America is nevertheless divided.

Nine short years ago, we never thought it ever would come to this.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine


Activist Action

>> Thursday, September 9, 2010

In a bold display of judicial activism, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips has declared the miltary's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is unConstitutional. Actually, I should be more clear. It wasn't actually the military's policy, it was Bill Clinton's, suggested when he lacked the spine to take a real stand on the question of whether or not the military has the sole duty to determine what is best for the military. The military's policy is much more plain and direct: homosexuals need not apply.

With this ruling, provided the hag has the right to even make such a declaration regarding the military, recruiters will now be able to question a candidate's sexuality and expect an honest answer. I would imagine the court martial, if found to be lying, should be a tad more severe.

The UCMJ prohibits homosexuals from the military. This issue was never clearly adressed with the implementation of "don't ask, don't tell". It didn't trump the code. It merely allowed for a way to get around it. In either case, a homo could enlist and serve, if service to the country really was a priority, as opposed to service as an open homosexual. ALL enlisted personnel are required to abide by the code. But, as in every other area of life, the homos demand special privileges. That part of the code that pertains to them specifically must be purged to satisfy THEIR demands and desires, which, of course, take precedence over all else, including the military's determinations regard what constitutes military readiness and unit cohesion. How dare the military make such determinations without first consulting with the homo lobby!!!

"In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services."

How the hell would she know? Unless of course she means the direct and deleterious effect is a result of having to accept homos without knowing who is one while hoping that one doesn't cause problems should one "out" himself at an inoportune time.

"The Log Cabin Republicans said more than 13,500 service members have been fired since 1994.

"This decision will change the lives of many individuals who only wanted to serve their country bravely," said the group's attorney, Dan Woods."

It will only change the lives of those who will only serve their country if it's on their terms, not the military's. They don't deserve to wear the uniform if they're unwilling to give of themselves in the manner expected by the military and its UCMJ.

Woods said that Obama claimed that "DADT" weakens national security. How the hell would Barry know? He doesn't give a rat's ass about the military and he hasn't a clue about national security.

I am so sick of the selfishness of this community and the spineless enabling of those who refuse to stand up to their self-centered demands.


Hillary For President 2012 ???

This is, perhaps, the only way the Republican candidate can lose the 2012 presidential race (judging strictly from this present political climate).

From Dick Morris, an interesting scenario...

Hillary's First Shot
--Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, September 9, 2010

Has the Democratic Presidential Primary of 2012 started already? Is Hillary Clinton beginning to position herself for a challenge to her boss? Yesterday, Hillary fired what may have been the first shot:

She said:

"I think that our rising debt level poses a national security threat and it poses a national security threat in two ways: it undermines our capacity to act in our own interests and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable. And it also sends a message of weakness, internationally."

The contrast with her husband's presidency is implicit: He balanced the budget and reduced the debt to the point where Wall Street fretted that there would be no more federal debt instruments to buy, leaving them without a safe place of park their money.

Hillary does nothing -- nothing -- without forethought. She plans every word, particularly when the words are critical of her president. By framing the "debt level" as a "national security threat," she gives herself jurisdiction over budget policy and makes her comments about it appropriate for a Secretary of State. And by criticizing the debt level which her president has amassed, she sets up the basis for a fiscal/economic critique of his presidency.

Remember that between the time George Washington took the oath of office and the day that Obama took the same oath, the federal government amassed $9 trillion of debt. And, in the nineteen months since then, it has piled up $3.5 trillion more! Debt is Obama's big negative, the concomitant of his big spending stimulus package. Now he has Hillary Clinton criticizing it and, by implication, him.

Will Hillary run? She might. The scenario would go like this:

Step One: Obama loses both houses of Congress by record margins, throwing the Democratic Party into shock. Disbelief yields to recrimination and the party leaders begin to turn on their president.

Step Two: The popular repudiation of their president leads Democrats to question Obama's leadership and his ratings plunge. Without a base of Democratic approval, President Obama's ratings sink below 40% down into the low 30s.

Step Three: As it becomes clear that the Democrats will lose the election of 2012, more and more party leaders and the rank and file demand new leadership and look to Hillary to turn things around.

Who know is she will really run. She doesn't know. She can't know until she sees how low Obama falls. But remember this: If she does run, her candidacy started yesterday.


Any comment on plausibility?


We need a little levity here...


"Radical" Christians burning Qurans on 9/11

>> Wednesday, September 8, 2010

UPDATE: 4:00pm Thursday, 9-9-10
It appears Pastor Jones has seen the light. Quran Barbecue canceled.

Take a moment to read the following from Al Jazeera.... it's short and sweet.

Quran burning 'to go ahead'

[Pastor Terry Jones'] Quran-burning idea attracted wider attention. It drew rebukes from Muslim nations and at home as an emotional debate was taking shape over the proposed Islamic centre near the so-called Ground Zero site of the 2001 attacks in New York.

His actions likely would be protected by the US constitution's right to free speech.

The US Supreme Court has made clear that speech deemed offensive to many people, even the majority of people, cannot be suppressed by the government unless it is clearly directed to intimidate someone or amounts to an incitement to violence, legal experts have said.

Note what I highlighted... considering this comes from Al Jazeera which likely doesn't have the firmest grasp of the rights granted all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed in our Constitution, but considering the Left in this country; their stark deviation from the truths set forth in those founding documents, well, it wouldn't surprise me if many on the Left DO think Jones' right to free speech should be forcibly abridged. Note also my highlighting of the phrase "so-called" as if the site of Ground Zero is somehow in question.

As to whether or not Pastor Jones has the right to do what he intends... on 9/11 no less?

On this, I'd answer the same as Obama did on the Ground Zero mosque. This church certainly has the right to burn any amount of Qurans they wish, but what about the wisdom of doing so? The Quran isn't holy. It doesn't contain the word of character of God between its covers (a simple statement of truth), but doing so would certainly incite violence (in the REAL world the violent have little need of provocation) around the world. To that certainty there's General Petraeus' concern that it will endanger American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I contend that their lives are already in danger by the simple fact of being there.

From a purely spiritual point of view, the Quran embodies the evil tenets of an equally evil religion, and evil should be excised from the body of all mankind-- God himself will do it in time. He's said as much in HIS word. I'm not worried so much about what Muslims will do to Americans in America... the radicals are not going to forego any ongoing plans for murder and mayhem on American soil simply because we shut down this pastor and his decision to be "disrespectful" to the disrespectful religion of Islam. Given the opportunity they're going to snuff out as many innocent lives as they can... as they've planned.

What the pastor is choosing to do is not, in any way I can think of, something a believer in Jesus Christ shouldn't do... in context. Naturally, it's harder to attract Muslims to Christ if you go about pissing on everything they deem holy, but again, the Bible clearly says to come out from among them, and touch not the unclean thing... and Islam is most assuredly unclean.

So, I think it comes down to prudence. This pastor and his congregation certainly have the constitutional right to burn Qurans, but is it the prudent thing to do considering a Christians focus in ministry is to show the lost the love of Christ and witness to his holy redemptive power. A power, I might add, that every other religion on the face of the earth is devoid of.

But I can hear the hypocrites wailing, even as I close this out:

"How disrespectful of these radical Christians!"

And these are the same folk who tell us the Ground Zero mosque is not at all disrespectful to the families of the lost, and this nation as a whole.

Personally, though I have absolutely NO respect for Islam, it seems only prudent to me to avoid burning any Qurans at all, on ANY day. The focus for Christians is to win the lost to Christ. And without any doubt, there is no such thing as a Muslim NOT on his or her way to hell. Christ offers the only hope of redemption. Win them to Christ and they will piss (figuratively speaking) on their own past religion. But do it for them, and you'll only alienate them, and make it more difficult to change HEARTS (first and foremost) and minds.


The same people decrying this pastor's decision to burn Qurans are the same people who said nothing when the US Government burned Bibles confiscated by US troops in Afghanistan. Islam wants the west to be tolerant of her, yet she's thoroughly intolerant of the west. Go figure.

Feel free to discuss....


Monica Crowley: A Nation of Howard Beales

If you missed the O'Reilly Factor last night you missed Monica Crowley's "Talking Points Memo." It's a powerful refutation of the Left's jackbooted march to America's very own Reichstag moment. All I have to add is, if you're an American who believes in the America our Constitution describes you need to get to your polling place on November 2nd and vote against any Democrat on your ticket, no matter how good he's been for your district. The surest way to check this president's march to the proverbial gas chambers is to cut his power-base off at the knees.


Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by 2009

Back to TOP