American Descent

Another Obama Historic Footnote...

2012-02-14T09:33:00.003-06:00

"Profligate Spender in Chief"

The Cost of Obama
by Jeffrey H. Anderson, The Weekly Standard

"Deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion... Per year, deficits under Bush averaged $425 billion. Per year, deficits under Obama (according to his own numbers) will average $1.293 trillion — or more than three times as much... this has truly been a historic presidency — more profligate than any other by far."

Obama's "State" of the Union

2012-01-23T11:07:00.001-06:00

From the Washington Times...

The truly dismal state of the union
by Joseph Curl

There is one person — one American among the 300 million of us — who is not to blame for the state of the union. Everyone else, each of you, in some small or large way, bears some share of the blame, but not this guy. Not one little bit.

This guy is Barack Obama. He is not the least bit to blame for the dismal state of the U.S. economy. George W. Bush is, for sure, and that evil Dick Cheney, oh, no doubt. House Speaker John A. Boehner — evil, too — is, of course, to blame. But guess what? So is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and every Democrat in the House and Senate.

Now, President Truman made it very clear: The buck stops with him. No passing the buck for that guy. But Mr. Obama blames everyone but himself. Mr. Bush, he says, left the nation in a ditch, a deep ditch, and he’s been digging out since he took office. And Congress? Those guys are just plain awful, he says. So mean. Wah, they won’t do anything I want done! Mr. Obama feels so sure about it that he’s basing his re-election campaign on bashing Capitol Hill.

But with the president delivering his State of the Union speech to Congress Tuesday night, let’s pause here to take as hard look at the real state of America, by the numbers, using only cold, hard facts.

You can read Curl's entire opinion here.

One commenter had this to say..."[Obama] may be at fault, but we are to blame."

I couldn't agree more. What's worse, in my opinion, is the complete and utter hypocrisy of the left, especially media, who for eight years blasted Bush at every opportunity, yet bends over backward--"don't ask, don't tell" style--in their efforts to not blame Obama for anything. Is it appalling to watch these so-called "journalists," the so-called "watch-dogs" of government and self-avowed intellectuals, fawn over Obama, and reeking of bias.

These leftists can preside over their bastardized "independent" media if they choose, but we can choose to not to believe a thing they say (I'm not saying we shouldn't watch; it's important to know what the enemy is up to), because this is still America. Not the one that was given us by our founder, but the one we have allowed others to reshape. There is no constitutional provision whereby we must accept this; no law on any book that declares we have to let others redefine for us the nature, form and function, nor principles of this once proud republic.If the left wishes to live in a socialist society they should move to Europe. If they want to make this nation into a fascist society, I say "Fight." And I denounce anyone as a traitor who says government should control every aspect of our lives and economy.

There is no good reason to reelect Barack Obama... except in the minds of those who do not like the America into which they were born.

We used to say, "America's got it's share of problems, but we're still the freest nation on the planet." Well, I'm not so sure of that anymore. But reelect Obama and we're done. End of story.

And maybe it has to be that way. God, after all, is not dead. He hasn't been on vacation. Nor has He taken His eye off what's been happening down here for a single second. America IS on the decline, and, quite frankly, I don't see any way any of us, let alone a republican president, can stop it. I am not, however, going to throw in the towel. As the above commenter also stated:

We must join together, rise and FIGHT for liberty, as our forbears did, or it will perish from the Earth.

I would rather see a limited period of suffering and sacrifice in order to restore Constitutional government and prosperity than generations of slavery in a world that no longer knows freedom.

I would rather die as an old man in a free and prosperous America, but

I would die on my feet, for I will NOT live on my knees!

'I will not live on my knees'..... To government, no. To God, yes.

DEMOCRATS ARE TANKING!

2012-01-06T10:40:00.000-06:00

DEMOCRATS ARE TANKING! DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!

Obama's Contempt, Reid's & the Left's Hypocrisy

2012-01-05T16:30:00.000-06:00

Playing Politics with the Constitution and the Law
--by Roger Pilon, January 5, 2012

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Did Obama have the authority to make the Cordray and the NLRB appointments, since the Senate is technically not in recess? And will the president’s shift from bipartisan conciliator to partisan agitator pay off? My response:

All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever.

Yesterday, Professors John Yoo and Richard Epstein, writing separately, made it crystal clear that the president, under Article II, section 2, may make temporary recess appointments, but only when the Senate is in recess. Add in Article I, section 5, and it’s plain that the Senate is presently not in recess, just as it wasn’t under Senate Democrats when George W. Bush wanted to make recess appointments. The difference here is that Bush respected those constitutional provisions while Obama — never a constitutional law professor but only a part-time instructor – ignores them as politically inconvenient. Attempts by Obama’s apologists to say the Senate is not in session are pure sophistry and, in the case of Harry Reid, rank hypocrisy, as this morning’s Wall Street Journal brings out.

But clear beyond the slightest doubt is the language of the statute (itself unconstitutional on any number of grounds not relevant here). As my colleague Mark Calabria wrote yesterday, “authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is ‘confirmed by the Senate.’ A recess appointment, even if it were constitutional, is not a Senate confirmation. There is simply no wiggle room in that language that gives Cordray any authority, as litigation will soon make plain.

So what is this? It’s politics — Chicago politics, plain and simple. If any doubt remained, three years into his presidency, that Obama is a master demagogue, with class warfare as his central tool, this incident should dispel it.

Where are all those outraged democrats who lambasted President Bush for supposed evils and disregards for the Constitution, and the rule of law, now? Oh, that's right! Leaning back on their hypocritical backsides praising the lawless actions of THEIR president! You folks on the left want to blast senate republicans because they thwart confirmation of Obama's nominees? What hypocrites! Democrats have done the same.

I have never been more angry at a sitting president in my entire adult life than I have been with president Obama. I cannot wait to see this man leave the White House! Four more years of this man and we may not even have a country left recognizable by constitutional standards! It's obvious that Obama views the constitution with contempt, and is in violation of his oath of office.

According to Mark Levin, Wednesday, January 4th...

"The president now considers it a political virtue, that he's doing precisely what he criticized Bush for doing; making laws as he goes along. Now Obama says, 'I refuse to take no for an answer... When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.'

"Ladies and gentlemen, that is a forthright statement of a dictator."

Right. If Obama can't get what he wants legally, he'll ignore the Constitution and do it anyway, like the sovereign he believes he is.

Then there's this from Arnold Ahlert at the Canadian Free Press...

“When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.” — President Barack Obama

While I always identify the speaker of a quote, it is especially necessary this time. Why? Because if you remove the president’s name from the statement, it becomes really easy to imagine any number of other people making it. For example, plug in Chinese president Hu Jintao, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, or Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Is there any doubt that any of these men would we more than willing to act, if they saw an “obligation” to do so, without the messy necessity of dealing with their respective legislative bodies?

Remember when, right after the 2010 election, a lot of the media were wondering if Barack Obama was going to “move to the center” or practice the politics of “triangulation” that got Bill Clinton re-elected? Such musings are a testament to the self-inflicted blindness that affects far too many people who get paid to see through such nonsense.

When this man was running in 2008, I implored Americans to understand that this country was divided by many issues, but first and foremost among those issues was a simple reality: there are those Americans who add up the plusses and minuses of the American experience and come to the conclusion that this country, warts and all, is still the best nation of earth — and the last, best hope of mankind. Then there are those Americans who engage in the same calculations and conclude that we are at best, just another country, and at worst, the nexus of all that is wrong in the world.

Bewitched by the monumental load known as hope and change, Americans put the latter group in charge of running the nation. They were so bewitched that even when the president, five days before the election, proclaimed he was only that far away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” a majority of voters elected a man with the deadliest combination of inexperience, radical ideology and unbridled hubris this nation has ever endured. And just for good measure, they gave him an unassailable majority in Congress including, for a brief time, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

[...]

One more year of this man thumbing his nose at the Constitution whenever it suits him will be damaging enough. Five more years? The 2012 election may come down to retiring Mr. Obama — or the Constitution.

That's what this blog has been about from the very beginning... questioning the impact of an Obama presidency on the future of the United States of America. The question repeated over and over these last three years has been exactly Ahlert's... In 2012, will we retire Mr. Obama, or the Constitution?

The truly amazing aspect of all this is Media's complete lack of coverage of Obama's repeated constitutional 'missteps' -- and I'm being generous. Media has outright failed in it's self-ascribed duty to be the watchdog of the American people against government tyranny. They have failed. All one needs to do to confirm this is check the ratings of MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC News to understand that the American people have abandoned the Pravda networks, because, in their eyes, Mainstream Media has failed main street.

These failed propaganda outlets can mock Fox news all they want, but Fox's ratings are what they are because the American people, by and large, recognize that Fox is 'fair and balanced' in their reporting of the news-- much of their commentary shows are fair and balanced as well. The minority of news viewers who insist the Pravda networks are superior in balance and accuracy are deluded sufferers of wishful thinking... because the ratings say otherwise. People desire truth, and they'll invariably flock to wherever the greatest truth can be found.

The point, however, is that America is failing fast, and I don't mean economically or in global stature (although these things are occurring as well). America is failing constitutionally. If and when that happens she will cease to the nation of our birth... that Lady will have died. If and when that day ever comes, we may as well be living in Venezuela for all our votes and say in government will matter. We will be plantation slaves to our political masters.

Some more reading for you...

The Lawless Obama Regime
Here's What America Will Look Like If Obama Wins
This Power Grab's a Sign of Weakness
Obama Thumbs Nose at Constitution on 'Recess Appointments'
Cordray's Recess Appointment Sure Doesn't Look Constitutional to Me
Earning Their Hatred

That last piece perfectly illustrates the deranged support this president receives from the American Prava. ZERO constitutional justification is offered to legitimize Obama's actions in his appointments... the Senate was NOT in recess-- if you'll remember, the Senate did the same to Bush to prevent him from making recess appointments. Bush was not willing to thwart the Constitution, but Obama, acting like the king he believes he is, has no such qualms contravening what he views as a "charter of negative rights", the very 'charter' he swore to support and defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic. An oath he is in violation of, and not for the first time.

'Earning their hatred' appears to be the only reason for the article itself. The author's own reasoning-- to earn the heretofore unjustified hatred of his [the president's] detractors --is the only justification he offers, and the only justification leftists nationwide need to support their lawless president. The Left, it has been shown over and over and over again, does not care about constitutionality, or saving constitutional America. They care about 'fundamentally transforming America' into a welfare state, where everyone is dependent upon the state for its daily sustenance. That, readers, is not America... it's Cuba, its communist Russia... but it's certainly not America.

From Familial Pride to Disdain? In Under Two Years?

2011-12-29T14:41:00.000-06:00

March 2010...

Yesterday, December 28, 2010...

WOLF: In Obama he trusts
Why our president fails

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf - The Washington Times

There’s something profoundly tragic about the failed presidency of Barack Obama. He was supposed to be a new kind of president, a man who embodied hope and would transcend petty politics and even race. Instead, we’re left with a downgraded America that is stagnating under the weight of its bloated government. As tragic as that alone is, even this is but a mere symptom of Mr. Obama’s larger fundamental failure: He simply does not trust the Americans who entrusted him with the presidency.

Most presidents, we believe, ascend to the Oval Office, but for the 44th president, the reverse seems true. Whatever majesty the White House can muster must rise to the grandiosity of Barack Obama. “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” said the man who writes autobiographies and later would claim to control the rise of the oceans.

As recently as this month, the food-stamp president of 13 million unemployed Americans declared himself the fourth-most-accomplished president in the history of the United States, eclipsing, in his own mind, President Reagan and even our nation’s father, George Washington. That in only three years. Barack the Magnificent won’t allow trivialities like $15 trillion debts or historic national credit downgrades dissuade him.
Mr. Obama may care deeply for America, but he believes in only one thing: Barack Obama. And you are not Barack Obama.

Where once the American flag was hailed universally as the ultimate symbol of freedom, we who live under it have slowly but surely surrendered our liberties to an insatiable government. Consider our decline in just the past two generations. Our grandfathers, who stood against evil and shed their blood to stop it, never would have tolerated their own government becoming so totalitarian that it would dictate to them what car they should drive, what (if any) health insurance they should choose or even what light bulb they should buy.
Has our generation been worthy of earlier Americans’ sacrifices? Or have we surrendered their hard-fought victories in return for false promises of a big-government utopia that never materializes? Look no further than the politicians we elect. We have chosen as our president a man who believes we are unworthy, not of the previous generations’ sacrifices, but rather unworthy of freedom itself.

The sum total of Mr. Obama’s political philosophy, the unifying theme of his presidency, amounts to this: You cannot be trusted to live as a free American.

President Obama’s first major legislative action, the failed $787 stimulus, revealed his fundamental distrust of free Americans. A president who actually trusts his people would stand aside as they freely chose how to invest their capital and their labor. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, simply doesn’t believe you are smart enough to know what’s best for you. He commandeered nearly $1 trillion dollars from the taxpayers and redirected it as he saw fit. That he squandered billions on crony boondoggles such as the Solyndra solar-panel company or laughable efforts to measure the malt-liquor habits of Buffalonians and the like is evidence merely of his incompetence. That he trusted only himself to allocate taxpayers’ money in the first place - even if he had had the capacity to do so brilliantly - is evidence of a much larger offense: This president distrusts his subjects.

Obamacare is a modern-day monument to government arrogance. So untrustworthy are Americans that they cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether to purchase health insurance or, if so, how much. Likewise, physicians are too untrustworthy to provide you with care without first consulting the government’s “best practices” guidelines. Obamacare would solve both.

Untrustworthy bankers would become angelic under the restrictions of Dodd-Frank. Untrustworthy bloggers would fall in line under the Stop Online Piracy Act. Untrustworthy manufacturers would create the only jobs worth having under the dictates of the National Labor Relations Board. And untrustworthy energy consumers would act responsibly only under the restrictions of “cap and trade” or at least a dictatorial Environmental Protection Agency.

For statists like Mr. Obama, no matter how bloated our government has become, America is forever just one legislative act away from utopia, if only those untrustworthy Americans would just get in line. The man who ran on hope has instead embraced a tragic pessimism that views all free Americans with disdain as either incompetent rubes in need of his salvation or unrighteous villains in need of his rules. Either way, Mr. Obama embraces a command-and-control government and rejects American freedom.

Mr. Obama’s distrust of Americans is his fatal flaw, and Republicans would be wise to exploit it fully. The GOP should resist the temptation simply to become a cleverer version of autocrats who pull the same powerful levers of government but in different directions. Instead, they should become the party that embraces liberty.

If the 2012 election is between Republicans and Democrats or even between conservatives and liberals, Republicans might win. But if the election is instead between a bloated, ineffectual government that distrusts its subjects and Americans who still yearn to breathe free, Republicans will win. Only then will voters have a dramatic choice between a party that trusts Americans to be free and a party that does not.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is a radiologist and President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.

Priceless Expression...

2011-11-23T13:17:00.001-06:00

Below is an exchange between Alaskan Rep. Don Young (R), and historian Douglas Brinkley. The exchange itself is a prime example of the conceit and sense of self-importance many of us 'little folk' feel our representatives have of themselves. The following statement by Rep. Young is illustrative...

"I can call you anything I want while you sit in that chair... you just be quiet."

Nothing particularly priceless about this exchange, except, perhaps, Dr. Brinkley's fearless return. What's TRULY priceless is the expression on the cute blonde behind the congressman.

Of course, Liberals are not the sole possessors of arrogance and conceit-- the name 'Obama' comes quickly to mind...

...but the woman's eyes? Priceless!

You go, Dr. Brinkley! He DOESN'T own you! We DO pay that man's salary! He DOES work for us!

-----

Now. To clarify my own position. I'm in agreement with Rep. Young. We SHOULD be drilling in ANWR. Dr. Brinkley, however, had every right to stand up to Rep. Young's treatment of him.

Here's a link to a longer edit of the exchange, for those interested in context.

Finally Smelling the Coffee

2011-11-21T11:45:00.001-06:00

Obama's most ardent supporter trumpeting a conservative position on the anointed one? Is hell freezing over?

In Addition...

From The National Journal:

Former Democratic Pollsters:
Obama Should Abandon Run for Second Term
by Michael Catalini

President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday's Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.

“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.

Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.

“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.

Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign.

This is not the first time Caddell and Schoen have made this argument. They wrote in November 2010 in The Washington Post that they “do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed.”

The Most Dangerous Woman in America

2011-11-08T14:04:00.000-06:00

[Link to the full article is to your right]

I remember an episode of Family Affair wherein Jody was struggling with the "new math." I remember that time and had difficulty too. I also took economics in high school-- a mandatory course requirement then. But nothing of what I learned then, seemingly, is understood today. The Keynesian Model is fundamentally flawed, yet everyone with access to policy-makers in Washington, who accepts the Keynesian Model, is granted an imprimatur-ish status in the development of our national fiscal policy.

Bad as our economy now is, it didn't get where it is without the guidance of both parties. Washington DC is more than just a seat of our federal government, it is also the seat of power of the Washington establishment, which has nothing to do with parties and everything to do with keeping the wheels turning in Washington no matter who is in power-- parties rise and fall, but the establishment is eternal, so to speak. Control may pass from one party to another, but the policy wonks never leave, and Washington today, no matter who controls the reins, is decidedly bent toward Liberalism in all its quirks, misconceptions and flaws. And nowhere, today, are those flaws and misconceptions more pronounced than in the managing of our economy:

Because the Keynesian Model is both a sham and a failure.

Anyone wishing to understand the way economies really work-- if government could only take its hand out of the mix --and how capitalism... unrestrained capitalism... could fix the mess we're in need only read The Case For Legalizing Capitalism by Kel Kelly. It's so simple even a neolithic-minded Liberal cave-dweller can understand it... and it's a free download.

But to the most dangerous woman in America, Christina Romer. From the article referenced above:

In a recent New York Times editorial entitled, “Dear Ben: It’s Time for Your Volcker Moment,” Romer publicly tries to goad Ben Bernanke into doing MORE to fight the great contraction.

It’s not enough that Mr. Bernanke has expanded the money supply by an amount never before seen in the history of the world. It’s not enough that he’s nearly exhausted every policy tool at his disposal. It’s not enough that global confidence in the dollar is fading rapidly.

Romer wants Bernanke to take things to the next level.

Say one thing for the Keynesian deranged, they are consistent... consistently wrong.. and unable to fight the urge to double down. If it were Christina's own money and livelihood I'd say let her hit rock bottom, then she can seek help from a gambler anonymous support group. But it's our livelihood she and the rest of her liberal 'cadre of the deranged' are playing with.

In her editorial, Romer draws comparisons to past economic difficulties and expresses admiration for those who employed extreme tactics to deal with them. She praises FDR for abandoning the gold standard and allowing the dollar to depreciate.

She also erroneously recounts economic history, suggesting that Roosevelt’s actions led to “the most impressive [economic] swing the country has ever seen from horrible contraction to rapid growth.”

Swing? That’s a bit revisionist. The Great Depression languished for years. And years. Perhaps if we’re speaking in terms of a geological timeline in which millions of years are a drop in the bucket, the recovery could be characterized as a rapid ‘swing’.

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty understands that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did BECAUSE of FDR and government interference in the economy. Now history is in the process of repeating, unrecognized by the those who esteem themselves as the best and the brightest, and now advising the Obama administration on how best to solve our debt crisis. In effect, doubling down on stupid.

In Romer’s world, paper is wealth. And hey, why should she believe anything else? She’s been in academia and politics for her entire life. She’s never actually had to DO anything and has been free to live inside a consequence-free Keynesian bubble throughout her entire career.

The scary thing, though, is that this woman has VIP access to the halls of power in Washington DC. She advises the decision makers who set policies affecting hundreds of millions… even billions of people. And she has no clue how the world actually works. This is incredibly destructive for the rest of us.

This blog has, from the very beginning been an attempt to fight, as meagerly as we knew how, what we knew was coming from the moment we learned Obama had won the White House. But I've come to learn a thing or two in the last three years... specifically, that people tend more often to cling to their tropes and paradigms than allow them to be modified or altogether cast aside in favor of clearer, truer understandings. If anything, they double down on stupid. And when it's Washington that does it, we all suffer.

You can only blame your predecessor for so long. You can only continue down a failing path for so long before the economy wrecks peoples lives and those people begin to get resentful.

I honestly don't see how Obama could possibly get reelected, but stranger things have happened and, I've come to understand, people tend to get the kind of leaders they deserve. Now, as to what that says about the American people, I'll leave that to someone else. Suffice it to say, however, that the longer we allow the genuinely uneducated and 'ignorant-to-real-world-truths' individuals decide economic policy (among other things) we deserve whatever they cram down our throats.

After all, we allowed them to wipe their collective asses with the Constitution, so we shouldn't be surprised that our country is now in a world of hurt; the kind from which there is no real avoiding the coming shit-storm of consequences. It won't matter if a Republican wins next November, that shit-storm is coming regardless-- the only caveat being, how long that storm will last compared to the policies currently administered by the Obama White House.

Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...

2011-11-04T11:42:00.000-05:00

Sovereign Man
Notes from the Field

Date: November 4, 2011
Reporting From: Taipei, Taiwan

Late in the evening on November 4, 1605, an English soldier named Guy Fawkes took up his position deep in the cellars beneath the House of Lords in London's Westminster Palace. He was armed with 36 barrels of gunpowder and intended to blow up the building, taking King James and most Members of Parliament with it.

Fawkes was discovered hours later, just after midnight on the 5th. He was captured, interrogated, and tortured, ultimately revealing details of his co-conspirators in what became known as the Gunpowder Plot.

History never let it go. To this day, the 5th of November is still commemorated, officially as a celebration of the government's triumph over its domestic enemies.

[As an etymological note, the word 'guy' is actually derived from Guy Fawkes; it was originally intended as a term of derision but by the 20th century evolved to its current meaning of any male.]

As you can imagine, the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot was anything but comfortable in England. The country became an all-out police state-- arrests, interrogations, and inquisitions were all commonplace as the government attempted to smoke out its enemies.

Four centuries later, not much has changed.

Earlier this week, the federal government arrested a quartet of elderly men as old as 73 on terrorism charges. Like Fawkes, they are charged with plotting attacks on politicians and government buildings.

US Attorney Sally Quillan Yates said that the case is a reminder that "we must also remain vigilant in protecting our country from citizens within our own borders who threaten our safety and security."

In a COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTER (naturally), major hotel chains in the United States began rolling out the 'If you see something, say something' Homeland Security ads across all of their properties.

As of yesterday, US-based Marriott, Sheraton, Holiday Inn, and Hilton hotels will subject their guests to short videos on the hotel welcome monitors. In this particular video, Johnny DoGood calls the police because he sees... wait for it... a man standing next to a taxi.

Meanwhile, Tennessee recently became the first to implement Homeland Security's VIPR program statewide, essentially placing ass-grabbing TSA agents at various checkpoints along the state's freeways.

And in just two-months' time, you can look forward to the FBI rolling out a nationwide facial recognition program. This, after FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that the bureau would make greater use of rules which allow agents to surveil Americans, even if they have absolutely no ties to terrorism.

This police state is the ultimate slippery slope. Once you start fondling people at airports, you might as well take over the train stations... at which point you might as well do the bus stations too. And highways. Shopping malls. Sports stadiums. Grocery stores. And of course, schools... can't forget the kids.

This only gets worse with time. Soon, any semblance of civil liberty has succumbed to Lingchi, the Chinese torture of 'death by a thousand cuts'.

It's understandable that people are angry and demanding change. Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators thought they could change the system through violence. They were wrong.

And even if violent revolution does create change, it usually works out poorly. Russia got Lenin and Stalin after their revolution, France got Robespierre's Reign of Terror... followed by Napoleon's military dictatorship.

Others are deluded into thinking they can change the system in the voting booth... and with one year to go until the 2012 showdown, there are certainly a lot of people pinning their hopes on this idea. Most forget how surprised they are when, in election after election, their guy turns out to be just as bad as the old guy.

George Carlin once said, "When I hear a person talking about political solutions, I know I am not listening to a serious person." He was right. Politics creates problems, not solutions.

In fact, as Rousseau outlined in his Social Contract, the very nature of government requires that people sacrifice some personal freedoms in exchange for certain conveniences. But more and more, the costs in freedom are rising, and the conveniences become rather... inconvenient.

Truthfully, elections are simply clever parlor tricks anyhow, designed to make people think they are in control. They're not. The only thing we can actually control is what we do ourselves.

Governments are like primitive cannibals feasting on a great treasure trove of sheeple. You can't force them out, and you can't vote them out. But you can sure as hell starve them out. When enough people pick up and leave, essentially voting with their feet, it accelerates the system crash.

This is the only way to truly change the system.

Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com

-----------------

An interesting perspective. But if elections are merely shams... why bother going to polls?

I think you all know that answer to that one. But the point is we ARE, more and more each day, evolving into a police state. And anyone who says it's for the better, is sadly deluded.

Received In Email: Populism as a Negative

2011-11-03T15:06:00.000-05:00

I receive in email every few days or so articles from the Patriot Post. This one, I believe, is a must read, and so I've posted it here in full, including the pictures. You can find the original here, and subscribe yourself. The original article has numerous links which I did not add here. Check out the original if you're interested.

One particular comment at the site is posted below this article, and it speaks to what a lot of us on the right are thinking... "why bother?"

Populist Socialism on the Rise
The "99 Percent" are really the "35 Percent" but their cadres are growing

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

--John Adams, 1787

The populist message of the Occupy Movement, the agelessly adolescent class warriors who make up Barack Hussein Obama's Red October Uprising, now has the support of some 35 percent of Americans, mostly urbanites.

The Occupiers have now infested cities from coast to coast, including Oakland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, and Boston. Their mantra is simple (by necessity): "We are the 99 Percent, and we're all victims of the 1 Percent." By any objective standard, the 99 Percent are not the brightest bunch, and they really represent the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are irrevocably dependent upon government subsides, and pay no income tax. Thus, this 20 percent has no vested interest in the cost of government and is predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others' incomes rather than work for their own. The underlying assumption is that it's easier to confiscate wealth than create it.

This "entitled" 20 percent combines with the 10 percent of American labor who are collectivists and another 5 percent who are perpetual malcontents to thus form Barack Hussein Obama's entrenched socialist constituency of Useful Idiots.

The intellectually challenged Occupy morons have built their movement around the errant assertion that if the assets of the 1 Percent were entirely redistributed, everyone would live happily ever after. Unfortunately, what the 35 Percenters really want, "redistributive justice" as Obama calls it, would require the redistribution of income from the other 65 percent of Americans families who live on earned income, so that everyone could be equally impoverished.

Of course, there's a problem with liquidating the assets of the 1 percent (comprised of more celebs and pro athletes than Wall Street bankers), or even the top 25 percent of the so-called rich: Most of their assets are on paper, and the rest of that "wealth" is in the form of small businesses and real property that support the jobs of tens of millions of Americans who actually work for a living -- and take pride in their occupations.

Thus, liquidation would result in the collapse of the entire economy, leaving everyone under the same statist tyranny as Obama's 35 Percenters -- equally miserable, equally dependent upon the government, and that much closer to Obama's mandate to implement Democratic Socialism.

Fact is, socialist economies always fail. In the inimitable words of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, "Socialist governments ... always run out of other people's money. They then start to nationalize everything."

Of course, socialists never let reality intrude upon their classist fantasies of universal equality and happiness. Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

If you have any doubt about the socialist motives of the Occupy Movement, consider this proclamation from my daily American Communist Party communiqué (yes, I subscribe to certain leftist publications, so, yes, I know my enemy): "We Are the 99%! The AFL-CIO has taken another step to embrace the Occupy Movement by creating their own We Are the 99% website. Also, CPUSA Chair Sam Webb has an article on the movement at the People's World: 'Occupy: embrace the new, build the movement.'"

Next, I suggest you review the official list of Occupy supporters, including Marxists, Nationalists, Fascists and even Islamists. What a sorry lot for a supporting cast.

Given all this, it's not surprising that the Occupiers' highest-profile support emanates from Obama himself, who says, "People are frustrated and the [Occupy] protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works. ... I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. ... The American people understand that not everybody's been following the rules. These days, a lot of folks doing the right thing are not rewarded. A lot of folks who are not doing the right thing are rewarded."

As to the Occupy Movement's momentum, Obama says their agenda "will express itself until 2012 and beyond until people feel they are getting back to old-fashioned American values. That's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond."

By "old-fashioned" we suspect he's merely re-warming some propaganda from one of the most notable of 20th-century socialists, that inheritance welfare liberal Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was FDR, after all, who channeled Karl Marx when he proclaimed, "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

Roosevelt issued a collectivist "bill of rights" in which he said that the government should ensure "the right to a useful and remunerative job ... the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation ... the right of every family to a decent home ... the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health ... the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age ... the right to a good education."

For his part, Obama has been clear in his collectivist rhetoric: "[T]he wealthiest Americans have made out like bandits. ... It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Our nation is at a critical juncture, and the adversaries of Liberty are well funded. However, a great national debate about the proper role of government is underway. The Patriot Post, since its inception, has been plowing the fields and sowing the seed for this Great Awakening. Our goal is to ensure that the movement remains, first and foremost, about the restoration of constitutional integrity, and to support its momentum.

----

In Comments, from SubVet....

Who is John Galt?

Hopefully, there are many of us in the "Contributing Class" who are making preparations to simply walk away from this expanding nonsense.

The idea of a simple life up in the mountains somewhere is becoming more appealing as each day goes by. Why should I bother to work so hard to earn fiat currency that the government takes most of to redistribute to those that choose to do nothing?

Besides, the coming collapse is inevitable at this point and why not start learning how to exist comfortably in what, as the many dystopian novels of the near-future are depicting, is nearly certain to be realized?

Why not indeed?

Because despite what the Left wants us to believe, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

A Question to Consider

2011-11-02T10:10:00.000-05:00

What right does a leech have to the life blood of another creature?

Imagine

2011-10-27T07:56:00.001-05:00

"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man." ~ Bertrand Russell

Over at fellow blogger Marshall Art's place, a comment thread is steadily growing over what would seem to most reasonable, logical people to be a logical, common sense measure that would insure only eligible, legally registered voters would, in fact, be able to vote in elections.

Art (and I agree) has posited that a simple and nearly effortless requirement of presenting a legal photo ID would help prevent voter fraud.

Apparently, some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate and/or discourage those legal voters who want to vote from doing so.

I say "apparently" because the whole thing seems rather cut and dried to me. I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.

Incidentally, recently I noticed a television ad for Wal-Mart which states that shoppers are no longer required to show proof that some other retail outlet in town is offering items at lower prices than Walmart in order to get Wal-Mart to "match the price". Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.

Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.

No proof is required.

Apparently, Wal-Mart doesn't consider the possibility that some unscrupulous shoppers might actually lie about lower prices just to get a lower price from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employees are expected to simply take the shopper's word for it. If one doesn't see a potential disaster in that practice, one would have to be incredibly naive.

This is the exact same reason that not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is a horrifically bad idea.

Perhaps, in the 1950's we could be safe in assuming we could trust someone's word, but that era has long since passed.

Admittedly, it's unfortunate that we have regressed to the point that we can no longer trust our neighbors, and I wish it were not so, but the fact is, we can't. And, that is why we need to require proof of eligibility.

My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud. I find this thinking naive at best, and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can trust people, especially people who have a vested interest in pivotal issues that directly affect election outcomes, to refrain from attempting voter fraud, is unbelievably naive.

So, I offer this example of why requiring proof of voter eligibility is crucial to preventing voter fraud:

Hey, we're eligible. I promise!

Imagine I'm an illegal alien, and imagine I have been following the "illegal immigration debate" and I want full amnesty for my 1,000 or so brothers, sisters, mothers, mothers-in-law, fathers, fathers-in-law, uncles, aunts, cousins, and my friends and their friends so they can enter this country and take advantage of all those free hand-outs that the legal U.S. Citizens pay for with their taxes extracted from their hard earned money.

And, imagine me (as an illegal alien) being able to vote for every politician who has promised to grant amnesty to anyone who wants to immigrate to this country regardless of criminal history and/or highly contagious medical conditions, etc, because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.

So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends, who share the same vested interest in the outcome of the election as I do, have effectively defeated the candidate who would have enforced the immigration laws, and installed a pro-illegal alien candidate in office.

Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?

It is my opinion that unbridled and unchecked amnesty for illegal aliens would quickly cause the degeneration of this country into third world status. Not to mention the drug cartels and Islamic Jihad terrorists flowing unstopped into our country, and wreaking their own brand of havoc.

All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.

Can anyone think of an easier way to accomplish this task?

On Second Thought... I Like Robin Hood's Example

2011-10-25T15:11:00.001-05:00

He stole from the rich and gave to the poor, right? In a sense, true... but in actuality Robin Hood and his band of merry men stole from corrupt government officials and clergy. which makes me question, yet again, the quality of education in this country. The Occupy Wall Street crowd are calling for a 'Robin Hood Tax,' on bankers, financiers, and the über rich; i.e., Capitalists, and, believe it or not, the Pope himself is throwing his weight behind that call.

Obviously then the biggest problem with all this is that the OWS crowd AND the pope have it all wrong. Robin Hood didn't steal from capitalists... he didn't steal from crofters, brewers, millers, etc. He stole from nobility which, you might as well say, governed the country, and that rather poorly.

If you steal from capitalists, the capitalists will simply hide their monies and refuse to invest in more innovation, and decide to just sit on what they have. Why be a producer if the government is simply going to steal it?

The lack of critical thought in leftist media and the OWS, in this regard, is astounding. OWS has misplaced their ire, and leftist media (government controlled) are egging them on, anything to divert attention to the truth, that it is government which is to blame for our present woes. OWS and has fallen over its own ignorance and can't get up. On top of which economic ignoramuses like our current president and his 'economic team,' have bungled what was already a fragile economy to begin with. OWS should be protesting in front of the White House and Congress... not Wall Street. But then OWS doesn't want accountability in government, they want handouts, and they want Capitalists to fess up with their fruit of their labor. Wall Street didn't create these 'bubbles'... government-- namely, the Fed --did.

Do you want to solve the problem of market 'bubbles' and instability? I can assure, the president is incapable of doing it, no matter how many bills he threatens and cajoles republicans to pass-- democrats don't want his bill either! But do you really want to solve the problem of market bubbles and instability? How about these suggestions just for starters...

Eliminate the Fed. It is because of the Fed that bubbles exist at all
Return to some sort of standard for the dollar. Yes, it'll hurt for a while, but before Nixon took us off the gold standard our currency was stable
Remove as much regulation and government oversight as possible on business. We need to see lawmakers seizing on the floor of congress, and retching on their fine silk suits before saying 'enough is enough'
Begin tapping and extracting our own resources of oil and natural gas; this will create hundreds of thousands of jobs
Eliminate the death tax
Bring corporate taxes down to 10-15%
Reduce the capital gains tax to zero for a period of years

These alone won't get us out of the mess we're in, anytime soon. It's going to get much worse before it gets better no matter how deep we cut government out of free enterprise, and the taxpayer's wallets, but at least this way there is hope of saving the country. What I mean by that is, should America lose it's reserve currency status, America will lose more than government, or any number of empty political promises can ever hope to correct. America, as a preeminent nation, as a leader in the world, will be relegated to 2nd class nation.

America will cease to be great if we lose our reserve currency status. Think things are tough now? Prices on just about everything will increase 25-40%, almost overnight. Without the ability to continue to print money to buy ourselves out of crises after crises (as we're doing now), the cost of just about everything will skyrocket. You think there's unrest now? Imagine what will happen when average Americans have to choose between eating and paying their mortgage, or basic utilities, or gas for their vehicles. Riots on Wall Street? No, riots on Main Street.

If America loses it's reserve currency status, there will be a run on the banks. And the government, in an effort to save what it can will close all markets, and banks. Pensions and social security checks will likely stop as well. What happens when the government food stamp program stops? Riots on Main Street? No, riots on YOUR street. Desperate people resorting to desperate acts. And law enforcement unable to be everywhere at once. Government may even impose martial law. Think it can't happen? You're a fool if you think so.

In light of this, therefore, I propose a Robin Hood Tax on the American government... by kicking it's sorry ass out of the economy altogether (where it has no business being), and forcing it (at gunpoint if necessary) to live within its means. by doing this we just may... may, mind you... save this country from economic destruction in the process, and save untold lives.

It's time for another revolution in this country. Everyone else seems to be throwing their own 'tea parties'... perhaps it's time we had a real tea party of our own, here and now, before our government literally kills tens of thousands of Americans through their reckless fiscal policies that will, if left unchecked, doom thousands of Americans to the loss of the very basic of services; without which most Americans wouldn't know how to survive.

Don't let the government kill you! Join Robin's merry band of men today and together we can bring down the evil Price John (government) and that dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham (the Fed). By doing so we just may be able to save the kingdom for our long absent King Richard....... wherever and whoever he turns out to be.

NATO & Obama: Making the Middleast LESS Safe

2011-10-24T16:12:00.000-05:00

While Dem's, and the Left in general, boast and thump their chests over Obama's "victory" in Libya, the new provisionary government is implementing Sharia Law. We didn't know who the rebels were before we became their partner in the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, but we do now. This wasn't Saddam Hussein receiving his just punishment after a lengthy and fair (as fair as one could expect) trial. No. This was the former leader of the nation gunned down in the street. Shades of Nicolai Ceausescu anyone? But Gaddafi wasn't even accorded the show trial Ceausescu was.

Obama. I hate to say it (though I've said it over and over again), is the worst excuse for a U.S. President in in living memory-- not even Carter was this bad. Yet in spite of this, almost everyone on the Left is touting his foreign policy successes... but what successes? Apologizing to the world, with every official visit to every rogue or friendly nation he arrogantly sets foot in, for being the object of their hatred and despisement. These nations, according to Obama, some run by dictators, are better in his eyes, than the nation he purports to lead. He leads from behind! we've heard it said, but what kind of victory did he win in Libya, beside a cowardly one?

In short, what Obama has achieved in 'leading from behind' in Libya is the advancement of Sharia law on the world stage. Thank you, Mr. President.Welcome, women of Libya, to the 9th century.

Our president has publicly snubbed, humiliated, and thrown under the bus, our greatest ally in the middleast; namely, Israel. But he has coddled, befriended, and apologized to the Arab nations, Israel's enemies. And this new turn of events in Libya? the implementation of Sharia? This makes the middleast less safe. Especially Israel. Where have all the shoulder fired missiles gone to? Some have made their way to Gaza. How? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Libya borders Egypt, Egypt borders Gaza, Gaza fires missiles in Israel on a daily basis.

Tunis has fallen... revolution... who knows what form of government will eventually be installed.

Egypt has fallen... revolution... we know, at least, that the Muslim Brotherhood is more sympathetic to Sharia, than to anything else. The Muslim Brotherhood has already made menacing overtures toward Israel, and is supplying Gaza.

Libya has fallen... Civil War... we don't even know who the rebels are, but we do know they're implementing elements of Sharia.

All of this makes the middleast less safe (despite these players being African nations). Syria is experiencing unrest. As is Jordan. Yemen. Iraq. Algeria. While there is nothing to say these nations would not have seen turmoil, revolution, and civil war had Obama been a stronger leader, but neither is there any evidence to suggest his weakness didn't embolden these nations... Obama's speech in Cairo was a fine example of appeasement, abasement, acquiescence... and incitement. He said to Mubarak... you must leave! to Gaddafi... you must go! but nothing to Syria's Hafez al-Assad. He had the nerve to chastise Israel, but hadn't the stones to give Syria the same.

He' a coward. And the poorest excuse for a president in American history. November 6, 2012 can't come soon enough.

Why Liberalism Must Be Defeated in the Classroom

2011-10-11T15:43:00.001-05:00

...ONE reason, at least... Economics.

"Mainstream economists and the financial press are usually Keynesian. This means that they like to hide the true cause of economic problems. Their explanations, therefore, are ones that try to show how the tail can wag the dog. But these fallacious explanations have been around so long and are so widely taught that most people who do not know real economics -- including most of these same Keynesians -- easily believe these improbable explanations."

Kel Kelly,
Author of, The Case for Legalizing Capitalism
[downloadable as a PDF file]

Because most Americans under 35 don't understand the basics of economics-- it's ignorance by design. Education, therefore, needs to be reformed and true sciences taught. Ask yourself why the U.S. is ranked 25th in Mathematics world-wide, and 17th in Science.(December 2010)

Here's a question to consider: keeping with the theme of one of my more recent posts, Is it within a fascist state's best interest to keep it's populace ignorant of how the world really works?

I believe that answer is, Yes. Why else has this nation spent so much time and money rearing generations of poorly educated children? Children grow into taxpayers, and an ignorant tax-base is more easily managed than an enlightened one.

How is the hubris of today's educators any different than Galileo's persecutors? Aside from the religious angle? None whatsoever. Today's educators are entrenched in philosophies that, for the most part, are doing more harm than good. Which is why liberalism- for that is the culprit in the sad state of enlightenment in this country -must be defeated in the classroom first, if we're ever to defeat it in the public square.

The answer to all this mayhem is a better educated populace, and less interference in public management by government. In short: we need to kill the fascist state, and restore the republic. When 47% of America pays no personal income tax, when government expects it's populace to accept the ridiculous notion that increased spending will reduce deficits... and half the population believes it! ...something is terribly wrong in academia.

Remember that final scene in Animal Farm? We're already there.

It's time to drag the pigs away from the table, and make bacon.

Laissez Faire ... there's your jobs bills, folks.

It's called free enterprise...

Capitalism made legal once more.

Learning to Levitate Above a World of Bad Ideas

2011-10-11T08:50:00.004-05:00

"These right-wingers hate government so much," bellowed the Rev. Sharpton, "that they don't want any government at all!"

Our mother smirked and jabbed an accusing finger at us. We'd reluctantly sat at the dinner table, something we usually try to avoid during our visits because MSNBC is always blaring in our mother's household at dinnertime.

We hadn't realized that right-wingers had become quite so anarchist as the Rev. Sharpton had just declared.

The Rev. Al had just gotten through talking to Barney Frank about what Americans really want from their government.

"They want jobs," he said. "The want infrastructure. They want government programs."

Barney Frank enthusiastically agreed. I'm sure the millions upon millions viewing the exchange that evening agreed as well. Add to that another hundred million more throughout the land...

The thrust is that when all else fails, we just need the government to do the spending. The government knows best where to invest. The government is wiser and more far-seeing than the fickle markets. Just ask the Soviets!

Mind you, the government has no money of its own...only that which it takes, on pain of imprisonment, from its subjects who make their money in the private sector.

The government has no way of measuring demand or success. Its motives are political, not market-driven. The very polls and votes that inform it come from a demos eager to decide how other peoples' money ought to be spent....And that decision is usually for the "rich" to pay for everyone else.

In today's feature article, we call upon the spirit of Murray N. Rothbard to provide an explanation of why the public sector should not be considered on equal footing with the private sector.

Gary Gibson, Whiskey & Gunpowder
October 5, 2011

We have heard a great deal of the “public sector,” and solemn discussions abound through the land on whether or not the public sector should be increased vis-a-vis the “private sector.” The very terminology is redolent of pure science, and indeed, it emerges from the supposedly scientific, if rather grubby, world of “national income statistics.” But the concept is hardly wertfrei; in fact, it is fraught with grave and questionable implications.

In the first place, we may ask, “public sector” of what? Of something called the “national product.” But note the hidden assumptions: that the national product is something like a pie, consisting of several “sectors,” and that these sectors, public and private alike, are added to make the product of the economy as a whole. In this way, the assumption is smuggled into the analysis that the public and private sectors are equally productive, equally important and on an equal footing altogether, and that “our” deciding on the proportions of public to private sector is about as innocuous as any individual’s decision on whether to eat cake or ice cream. The State is considered to be an amiable service agency, somewhat akin to the corner grocer, or rather, to the neighborhood lodge, in which “we” get together to decide how much “our government” should do for (or to) us. Even those neoclassical economists who tend to favor the free market and free society often regard the State as a generally inefficient, but still amiable, organ of social service, mechanically registering “our” values and decisions.

One would not think it difficult for scholars and laymen alike to grasp the fact that government is not like the Rotarians or the Elks, that it differs profoundly from all other organs and institutions in society, namely, that it lives and acquires its revenues by coercion and not by voluntary payment. The late Joseph Schumpeter was never more astute than when he wrote, “The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind.”

Apart from the public sector, what constitutes the productivity of the “private sector” of the economy? The productivity of the private sector does not stem from the fact that people are rushing around doing “something,” anything, with their resources; it consists in the fact that they are using these resources to satisfy the needs and desires of the consumers. Businessmen and other producers direct their energies, on the free market, to producing those products that will be most rewarded by the consumers, and the sale of these products may, therefore, roughly “measure” the importance that the consumers place upon them. If millions of people bend their energies to producing horses-and-buggies, they will, in this day and age, not be able to sell them, and hence, the productivity of their output will be virtually zero. On the other hand, if a few million dollars are spent in a given year on Product X, then statisticians may well judge that these millions constitute the productive output of the X-part of the “private sector” of the economy.

One of the most important features of our economic resources is their scarcity: land, labor and capital-goods factors are all scarce, and may all be put to various possible uses. The free market uses them “productively” because the producers are guided, on the market, to produce what the consumers most need: automobiles, for example, rather than buggies. Therefore, while the statistics of the total output of the private sector seem to be a mere adding of numbers, or counting units of output, the measures of output actually involve the important qualitative decision of considering as “product” what the consumers are willing to buy. A million automobiles, sold on the market, are productive because the consumers so considered them; a million buggies, remaining unsold, would not have been “product” because the consumers would have passed them by.

Suppose now that into this idyll of free exchange enters the long arm of government. The government, for some reasons of its own, decides to ban automobiles altogether (perhaps because the many tailfins offend the aesthetic sensibilities of the rulers) and to compel the auto companies to produce the equivalent in buggies instead. Under such a strict regimen, the consumers would be, in a sense, compelled to purchase buggies, because no cars would be permitted. However, in this case, the statistician would surely be purblind if he blithely and simply recorded the buggies as being just as “productive” as the previous automobiles. To call them equally productive would be a mockery; in fact, given plausible conditions, the “national product” totals might not even show a statistical decline, when they had actually fallen drastically.

And yet the highly touted “public sector” is in even worse straits than the buggies of our hypothetical example. For most of the resources consumed by the maw of government have not even been seen, much less used, by the consumers, who were at least allowed to ride in their buggies. In the private sector, a firm’s productivity is gauged by how much the consumers voluntarily spend on its product. But in the public sector, the government’s “productivity” is measured — mirabile dictu — by how much it spends! Early in their construction of national-product statistics, the statisticians were confronted with the fact that the government, unique among individuals and firms, could not have its activities gauged by the voluntary payments of the public — because there were little or none of such payments. Assuming, without any proof, that government must be as productive as anything else, they then settled upon its expenditures as a gauge of its productivity. In this way, not only are government expenditures just as useful as private, but all the government needs to do in order to increase its “productivity” is to add a large chunk to its bureaucracy. Hire more bureaucrats and see the productivity of the public sector rise! Here, indeed, is an easy and happy form of social magic for our bemused citizens.

The truth is exactly the reverse of the common assumptions. Far from adding cozily to the private sector, the public sector can only feed off the private sector; it necessarily lives parasitically upon the private economy. But this means that the productive resources of society — far from satisfying the wants of consumers — are now directed, by compulsion, away from these wants and needs. The consumers are deliberately thwarted, and the resources of the economy diverted from them to those activities desired by the parasitic bureaucracy and politicians. In many cases, the private consumers obtain nothing at all, except perhaps propaganda beamed to them at their own expense. In other cases, the consumers receive something far down on their list of priorities — like the buggies of our example. In either case, it becomes evident that the “public sector” is actually anti-productive — that it subtracts from, rather than adds to, the private sector of the economy. For the public sector lives by continuous attack on the very criterion that is used to gauge productivity: the voluntary purchases of consumers.

We may gauge the fiscal impact of government on the private sector by subtracting government expenditures from the national product. For government payments to its own bureaucracy are hardly additions to production; and government absorption of economic resources takes them out of the productive sphere. This gauge, of course, is only fiscal; it does not begin to measure the anti-productive impact of various government regulations, which cripple production and exchange in other ways than absorbing resources. It also does not dispose of numerous other fallacies of the national product statistics. But at least it removes such common myths as the idea that the productive output of the American economy increased during World War II. Subtract the government deficit instead of add it, and we see that the real productivity of the economy declined, as we would rationally expect during a war.

But how is it that only government agencies clamor for more money and denounce the citizens for reluctance to supply more? Why do we never have the private-enterprise equivalents of traffic jams (which occur on government streets), mismanaged schools, water shortages and so on? The reason is that private firms acquire the money that they deserve from two sources: voluntary payment for the services by consumers, and voluntary investment by investors in expectation of consumer demand.

If there is an increased demand for a privately owned good, consumers pay more for the product, and investors invest more in its supply, thus, “clearing the market” to everyone’s satisfaction. If there is an increased demand for a publicly owned good (water, streets, subway and so on), all we hear is annoyance at the consumer for wasting precious resources, coupled with annoyance at the taxpayer for balking at a higher tax load.

Enterprise makes it its business to court the consumer and to satisfy his most urgent demands; government agencies denounce the consumer as a troublesome user of their resources. Only a government, for example, would look fondly upon the prohibition of private cars as a “solution” for the problem of congested streets. Government’s numerous “free” services, moreover, create permanent excess demand over supply and therefore permanent “shortages” of the product. Government, in short, acquiring its revenue by coerced confiscation rather than by voluntary investment and consumption, is not and cannot be run like a business. Its inherent gross inefficiencies, the impossibility for it to clear the market, will insure its being a mare’s nest of trouble on the economic scene.

In former times, the inherent mismanagement of government was generally considered a good argument for keeping as many things as possible out of government hands. After all, when one has invested in a losing proposition, one tries to refrain from pouring good money after bad.

Most economists have two basic arguments on behalf of the public sector, which we may only consider very briefly here. One is the problem of “external benefits.” A and B often benefit, it is held, if they can force C into doing something. Much can be said in criticism of this doctrine, but suffice it to say here that any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a fourth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment.

The second argument is more substantial: Stripped of technical jargon, it states that some essential services simply cannot be supplied by the private sphere, and that, therefore, government supply of these services is necessary. And yet every single one of the services supplied by government has been, in the past, successfully furnished by private enterprise. The bland assertion that private citizens cannot possibly supply these goods is never bolstered, in the works of these economists, by any proof whatsoever. How is it, for example, that economists, so often given to pragmatic or utilitarian solutions, do not call for social “experiments” in this direction? Why must political experiments always be in the direction of more government? Why not give the free market a county or even a state or two, and see what it can accomplish?

Regards,

Murray N. Rothbard

We're All fascists Now

2011-10-07T17:02:00.003-05:00

How Fascism Kills the American Dream
Whiskey & Gunpowder
October 7, 2011

President Barack "Infrastructure Jobs" Obama is mad as hell. Says the prez...

"I think it's fair to say that I have gone out of my way in every instance -- sometimes at my own political peril and to the frustration of Democrats -- to work with Republicans to find common ground to move this country forward.

"Each time, what we've seen is games-playing, a preference to try to score political points, rather than actually get something done on the part of the other side."

According to The Associated Press, President Obama "challenged Republicans...to explain to the American people why they oppose his plan to create jobs and rebuild U.S. highways, bridges and schools as an ‘insurance policy' against a return to recession."
Ahem. Allow us to quote our friend Lew Rockwell by way of answering...

"There was stimulus one and stimulus two, both of which are so discredited that stimulus three will have to adopt a new name. Let's call it the American Jobs Act.

"With a prime-time speech, Obama argued in favor of this program with some of the most asinine economic analysis I've ever heard. He mused about how is it that people are unemployed at a time when schools, bridges and infrastructure need repairing. He ordered that supply and demand come together to match up needed work with jobs.

"Hello? The schools, bridges and infrastructure that Obama refers to are all built and maintained by the state. That's why they are falling apart. And the reason that people don't have jobs is because the state has made it too expensive to hire them. It's not complicated. To sit around and dream of other scenarios is no different from wishing that water flowed uphill or that rocks would float in the air. It amounts to a denial of reality.

"Still, Obama went on, invoking the old fascistic longing for national greatness. ‘Building a world-class transportation system,' he said, ‘is part of what made us an economic superpower.' Then he asked, ‘We're going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads?"

"Well, the answer to that question is yes. And you know what? It doesn't hurt a single American for a person in China to travel on a faster railroad than we do. To claim otherwise is an incitement to nationalist hysteria.

"As for the rest of this program, Obama promised yet another long list of spending projects. Let's just mention the reality: No government in the history of the world has spent as much, borrowed as much and created as much fake money as the United States. If the United States doesn't qualify as a fascist state in this sense, no government ever has.

"None of this would be possible but for the role of the Federal Reserve, the great lender to the world. This institution is absolutely critical to U.S. fiscal policy. There is no way that the national debt could increase at a rate of $4 billion per day without this institution.

"Under a gold standard, all of this maniacal spending would come to an end. And if U.S. debt were priced on the market with a default premium, we would be looking at a rating far less than A+."

Lew has a way of getting to the heart of the problem. It's the central bank monopolizing and debasing the money supply. It's the assumption that government interference in the economy is a good thing...and that the government knows where best to spend the money it either steals, borrows or, essentially, creates when it borrows from the central bank.

In today's feature article, Lew Rockwell shows us how close these poisonous assumptions have come to killing off the American Dream. Keep reading for more, and then stay tuned for the Parting Shot to see what you can do to make sure the Dream doesn't end for you...

Whiskey & Gunpowder
by Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.
October 7, 2011
Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.

Fascism Kills the American Dream

Everyone knows that the term fascist is a pejorative, often used to describe any political position a speaker doesn't like. There isn't anyone around who is willing to stand up and say, "I'm a fascist; I think fascism is a great social and economic system."

But I submit that if they were honest, the vast majority of politicians, intellectuals and political activists would have to say just that.

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.

This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just in America. It's true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is hardly noticed anymore.

It is true that fascism has no overarching theoretical apparatus. There is no grand theorist like Marx. That makes it no less real and distinct as a social, economic and political system. Fascism also thrives as a distinct style of social and economic management. And it is as much or more of a threat to civilization than full-blown socialism.

This is because its traits are so much a part of life -- and have been for so long -- that they are nearly invisible to us.

If fascism is invisible to us, it is truly the silent killer. It fastens a huge, violent, lumbering state on the free market that drains its capital and productivity like a deadly parasite on a host. This is why the fascist state has been called the vampire economy. It sucks the economic life out of a nation and brings about a slow death of a once-thriving economy.

Let me just provide a recent example.

The Decline

The papers last week were filled with the first sets of data from the 2010 U.S. Census. The headline story concerned the huge increase in the poverty rate. It is the largest increase in 20 years, and now up to 15%.

But most people hear this and dismiss it, probably for good reason. The poor in this country are not poor by any historical standard. They have cell phones, cable TV, cars, lots of food and plenty of disposable income. What's more, there is no such thing as a fixed class called the poor. People come and go, depending on age and life circumstances. Plus, in American politics, when you hear kvetching about the poor, everyone knows what you're supposed to do: Hand the government your wallet.

Buried in the report is another fact that has much more profound significance. It concerns median household income in real terms.

What the data have revealed is devastating. Since 1999, median household income has fallen 7.1%. Since 1989, median family income is largely flat. And since 1973 and the end of the gold standard, it has hardly risen at all. The great wealth-generating machine that was once America is failing.

No longer can one generation expect to live a better life than the previous one. The fascist economic model has killed what was once called the American Dream. And the truth is, of course, even worse than the statistic reveals. You have to consider how many incomes exist within a single household to make up the total income. After World War II, the single-income family became the norm. Then the money was destroyed, and American savings were wiped out, and the capital base of the economy was devastated.

It was at this point that households began to struggle to stay above water. The year 1985 was the turning point. This was the year that it became more common than not for a household to have two incomes, rather than one. Mothers entered the work force to keep family income floating.

The intellectuals cheered this trend, as if it represented liberation, shouting hosannas that all women everywhere are now added to the tax rolls as valuable contributors to the state's coffers. The real cause is the rise of fiat money that depreciated the currency, robbed savings and shoved people into the work force as taxpayers.

This story is not told in the data alone. You have to look at the demographics to discover it.

This huge demographic shift, essentially, bought the American household another 20 years of seeming prosperity, though it is hard to call it that, since there was no longer any choice about the matter. If you wanted to keep living the dream, the household could no longer get by on a single income.

But this huge shift was merely an escape hatch. It bought 20 years of slight increases before the income trend flattened again. Over the last decade, we are back to falling. Today, median family income is only slightly above where it was when Nixon wrecked the dollar, put on price and wage controls, created the EPA and the whole apparatus of the parasitic welfare-warfare state came to be entrenched and made universal.

Yes, this is fascism, and we are paying the price. The dream is being destroyed.

The talk in Washington about reform, whether from Democrats or Republicans, is like a bad joke. They talk of small changes, small cuts, commissions they will establish, curbs they will make in 10 years. It is all white noise. None of this will fix the problem. Not even close.

The problem is more fundamental. It is the quality of the money. It is the very existence of 10,000 regulatory agencies. It is the whole assumption that you have to pay the state for the privilege to work. It is the presumption that the government must manage every aspect of the capitalist economic order. In short, it is the total state that is the problem, and the suffering and decline will continue so long as the total state exists.

Regards,

Lew Rockwell

Assassination of the U.S. Constitution

2011-10-03T17:15:00.001-05:00

I don't say he didn't deserve to die... we all do, and toward that end we are all traveling... but, whether you like it or not, Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen denied due process... assassinated by his government.

If the U.S. government can force its citizens to buy a product it does not want or face fines and penalties, then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law. If the U.S. government can target and obliterate any specific individual via hellfire missile (or by any means), then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law.

I do not lament the passing of al-Awlaki, but I do lament the passing of America.

It is the height of hypocrisy for an administration to criticize its predecessors for violating the constitution in the defense of this nation after the events of 9/11, and then violate the very same document by telling every American it has to buy medical insurance of face financial penalties... by trying, convicting, and executing an American citizen without due process.

I used to fear someone would target and kill our president; that would be a great disaster for this nation. But now I see that my fear was misplaced. I should have feared for America.

Obama Election Scenario Update

2011-09-30T08:47:00.000-05:00

Seems that Dick Morris and I have been thinking along the same lines.

In my opinion, the very BEST thing Obama could do for his legacy at this point would be to bow out of the 2012 race while promising to focus like a laser on getting the economy moving again through TRUE bipartisanship efforts. However, by doing so now or in the future rather than when he had the opportunity during his infamous Joint-Session Jobs Bill speech, the impact will be greatly diminished. Had Obama done what Dick Morris and I have suggested he needs to do during that Joint-Session of Congress, he would have endeared himself to many people across the political spectrum and softened some of the harsh criticism he will likely receive throughout America's future history.

Questions to Consider

2011-09-27T11:41:00.000-05:00

But I have to present it...

No one gets rich without the blood, sweat and taxes of ALL Americans?

If I make a million dollars day-trading.... I have no factory, no product ships over any highway... and thieves like Warren tell me that government has a right to expect and insist I "pay it forward"? To who? The poor? Did the poor help me make my trades? Did they tell me when I should sell or buy? Did they offer stock tips? At present government is entitled to 15% capital gains tax on long terms trades... on money that has already been taxed once! That percentage jumps considerably higher for short term (of which day-trading is) capital gains. Even at that, the question still remains to be answered by ANY Republican candidate, 'how much of every dollar I earn should I be allowed to keep?'

Ideologues like Elizabeth Warren will say: 'you can have whatever is left after all the underachievers, moochers, and government spendthrifts and wastrels, are appeased.

48% of wage earners pay no federal income tax at all (after IRS refunds); many of that 48% get more back than what they paid in via EITC. What happens when that number breaks the 50% threshold? A permanent underclass dependent upon government handouts and a permanent party power-structure in Washington... Freedom in American will be, effectively, dead. Our Republic will be finished.

As it stands now 86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes. What happens when the top 55% of wage earners are paying ALL federal income taxes? Refer to the previous paragraph: the republic will be dead. American will be dead.

When is a rich person's "fair share" paid in full? When 50 cents of every dollar is going to the government (including income, capital gains, state, city, & local taxes)? 60 cents? 70 cents? 80 cents? 90 cents out of every dollar? How much of one's labor is considered inviolable to government forfeiture?

And just who is rich?

Elizabeth Warren is the worst kind of thief. She doesn't steal to satisfy a personal need, she steals to make herself feel good about helping those she deems 'downtrodden.'

She wants you to give her money so she can steal from you when she wins.

Well, we have enough of those in Washington already.

What's wrong with Senate politics...

2011-09-14T10:42:00.000-05:00

This:

Did you hear it? No? Check out her website.What does it say at the top in big bold letters?

Elizabeth Warren... for Massachusetts

That's right: FOR Massachusetts. Not America.

Is she's asking AMERICANS to support her bid to, ostensibly, represent the interests of Massachusetts? No! Hell, no! Does she wants to represent the interests of ALL Americans? No!

If she wants to represent the people of Massachusetts she should be running for a house district seat, this way she could represent the people of her district. But she's running for the senate, where, according to her own words, she'll represent the interests of her ideological constituency over those of her state. She wants your support, your money, whether you live in Massachusetts or not. And that is what's wrong with Senate politics. That's what's wrong with the 17th Amendment.

I have no doubt she means well, in her own democratically twisted way, but the senate has been corrupted by the 17th amendment, which should be repealed. Let senators return to the days when they were appointed by their state governors and represented the interests of their state... not the entire nation, and only one faction of the electorate at that.

2012 Obama Campaign Scenarios

2011-09-13T15:24:00.001-05:00

While pondering the present state of the 2012 General Election cycle, I have developed several interesting scenarios concerning Barack Obama that are perfectly capable of occurring. In the present environment of both a highly energized GOP and a frustrated and fearful left-wing Democrat electorate, it is easy to imagine one of these scenarios actually taking place.

First, as President Obama's approval rating continues to fall amidst a growing unease with his leadership abilities, it's not hard to imagine him announcing another nationally televised speech when he admits he has no answers to our ongoing economic situation and informs America that he will not be seeking re-election to a second term. In fact, if his numbers do not improve by the end of 2011, it's likely the very best thing he could do for his legacy. By announcing his decision not to run for a second term and vowing to dedicate his remaining time in office to working with Congress to find real fixes to America's problems, Obama could leave office still admired by his followers and even forgiven by his political enemies. I must admit, I was somewhat expecting this very thing to occur last Thursday night during the Joint Session, so please...take that into consideration as I unveil these scenarios.

Secondly, because of his obvious narcissistic tendencies, Obama could continue pretending to be POTUS while actually the Panderer-in-Chief, lose the general respectably, and have to live with his failed presidency and infamous legacy.

Third - if his numbers continue to fall, Obama could face a landslide loss in the General Election. This should, of course, be an unthinkable thing to say in the wake of the Democrat punditry proclaiming as well as celebrating the death of the GOP during the aftermath of the '08 General Election. And this leads to my fourth scenario -one which is very possible.

Like every other perpetrator of political assassination against a sitting US President or prominent political figure in America's history, some left-winger, most assuredly a Democrat, will take it on his/her self to eliminate a doomed Obama candidacy with a well-placed shot to his brain. Remember, it was a Democrat who shot Lincoln, a left-wing anarchist who murdered McKinley, a communist who fired the magic bullet into Kennedy's cranium, a palestinian activist who took out Robert Kennedy, a Democrat racist who ended MLK's life, a left-wing Manson family-member who tried to kill Gerald Ford, and a crazy weirdo trying to impress a vocally left-wing actress who nearly ended Ronald Reagan's life. One can easily imagine some deranged leftist "nobly" rescuing his party from a shameful defeat in November of 2012 by making room for a more competitive candidate.

Then again, Obama could win re-election. Despite...or perhaps because of...his record, he could win re-election. An ugly symptom of American descent.

All are viable scenarios.

If Obama does happen to be re-elected, I predict he will be forced to resign from office in disgrace during his second term.

But that's another scenario we can explore later, perhaps.

That Scheme Called "Ponzi"

2011-09-13T10:46:00.002-05:00

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there was only 1.75 full-time private sector workers last year for every one Social Security recipient. Obviously this doesn't include part-time workers, or "covered" workers-- those who, while receiving Social Security benefits, also work part-time and pay social security taxes. But part-time and covered workers didn't pay enough to make up the difference between what came in and what went out...

That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government.

Most state and local workers are part of the Social Security system and pay Social Security taxes; and, since 1984, all federal workers have been part of the system and pay Social Security taxes. However, unlike private sector workers who pay Social Security taxes with private-sector dollars, government workers pay their payroll taxes out of wages government pays them with tax dollars or with money that was BORROWED BY GOVERNMENT AND TAXPAYERS MUST EVENTUALLY REPAY. [emphasis added]

In its latest annual report, the Social Security board of trustees reported that the federal government’s total revenue from Social Security taxes in 2010—$544.8 billion—was not enough to cover Social Security’s total benefit payments—$577.4 billion.

This is the beautiful part: government workers paid their social security taxes with our tax money... that non-government workers have to pay back. Taxed twice, essentially... private sector workers paying for public sector workers' social security benefits.

Public sector workers deserve to receive benefits when they reach that age, but there needs to be a better system in place where the private sector isn't carrying the tax burden of public sector workers as well as their own.

This pyramid scheme isn't going to be able to keep pace with demand for much longer. Last year saw a 32 billion dollar shortfall. Reforms MUST be made. Reforms that include a lock and key on all future contributions; no more plonking it all into the general fund where politicians can squander it. Reforms that include allowing taxpayers the option of investing a portion of their pre-tax earnings into private retirement investments. Reforms that ensure that present recipients and those of a certain age are guaranteed the benefits promised them.

Follow the link for the full article:

Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient

UPDATE:
Found a bit of history surrounding Social Security over at Godfather Politics. Here are the salient remarks:

Most Americans don’t know much about the financial structure of Social Security, and they also don’t know much about its history. Here’s just a little background. Take it for what it’s worth.

In William L. Shirer’s book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich we learn the origin of Social Security policies and the effect they had on the German people. Social Security was engineered by German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck in the 19^th century. His policies gradually made the German people “value security over political freedom and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a protector.”[1] Between 1883 and 1889 Bismarck put through a program for social security far beyond anything known in other countries at the time. It included compulsory insurance for workers against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though it was organized by the State it was financed by employers and employees. Sound familiar? This is American-style Social Security!

Adolf Hitler took full advantage of the German state of mind and Bismarck’s early progress in turning the nation into a model of socialist reform. Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf, “I studied Bismarck’s socialist legislation in its intention, struggle and success.”[2] It was Hitler’s social security policies and promises that helped get him elected.

Hitler was not alone in his admiration of Bismarck and what he was able to accomplish. FDR borrowed Bismarck’s socialist agenda and created what is now known as the Social Security System. Bismarck said that “the State must take the matter in hand, since the State can most easily supply the requisite funds. It must provide them not as alms but in fulfillment of the workers’ right to look to the State where their own good will can achieve nothing more.”[3] Roosevelt and his admirers agreed. P. J. O’Brien, writing in Forward with Roosevelt, links Bismarck’s social policies with those of Roosevelt: “[The quotation by Bismarck] might have been lifted out of a speech by President Roosevelt in 1936, but the Iron Chancellor uttered it in 1871.”[4]

Read more: The Hidden History of Social Security | Godfather Politics

Ten Years Later

2011-09-10T23:40:00.000-05:00

Everyone has been looking back this week; where they were, what they saw, heard, felt. I was fortunate enough to actually work at a television station [and still do]... I literally got paid to watch the whole spectacle, in all its grandiose horror, for some 48 hours before we ever bothered to do a local news broadcast. Looking back, it seems now that at the time we were too focused on what we were losing to worry or even bother about what we were doing, or saying... we allowed ourselves freedom enough to express [or expel] our very natural uncertainties and insecurities born of that day.

Not only could I not believe what I was witnessing, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I heard language on live television that would incur huge fines were such words and phrases ever uttered on live television today. I remember being stunned by some of the "vocalizations" CBS allowed to air that day-- especially the blasphemies.

I wasn't blogging then-- very few were (blogger was only two years old) --but I was writing.

What follows are my own impressions of that day, on that day, September 11, 2001.

To Shine That Much Brighter

It is said the Egyptians built with eternity in mind-- perhaps inspired by the Sphinx itself which is older than Egyptian civilization. It’s said also, that Caesar found Rome brick and clay, and left it marble. The Pyramids still stand, the Coliseum still stands, the Acropolis still stands, but the Twin Towers do not. We build to satisfy our egos, but we don’t build for posterity. In three thousand years, will there be anything left in America to exemplify the culture of our time? Will we leave a mark, or will others leave marks upon us?

It’s been said of one era or another, "these are evil times…" but times are neither good nor evil. Rather, it’s the hearts and minds of Men that shape the times which create pain and suffering enough for others to name these times evil. World War II saw evil times; Hitler’s Final Solution, America's own use of atomic weapons. There were evil times in Korea, and Vietnam, and the killing fields of Cambodia, but the times themselves were not evil. Again, it was the hearts and minds of Men. The times are not evil, Men are. Change the heart of a man and you can change the world.

But can any one man or woman change the world? Can any one Nation make a difference? While it’s true the United States has had a hand in inspiring and helping to shape today’s world, it’s also true there are those who have resisted this change, seeing in the U.S. a great evil; rather to be destroyed than emulated. They cry out that the west meddles in things that don’t concern it, that it forces its own ideals and belief system upon nations incapable of defending themselves against its unwelcome intrusion. The Taliban government of Afghanistan recently arrested several westerners for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity; an offense punishable by death. Not too long ago the Chinese used tanks against their own people in Tienanmen Square, simply because they wanted to be more like the West. U.S. companies push such products as cheeseburgers, Coca Cola, and ‘decadent’ television programming upon starving third world countries. They turn a blind eye to those who see these companies as intruders, not as business adventurers; but as subversive attacks upon the core values of nations which didn’t want or even care about Kentucky Fried Chicken, before Colonel Sanders stepped off the plane. "We’re just making money!" the West cries, but others see this as an attempt to weaken their culture and their sense of national pride. When the Pharaohs built the great pyramids it’s certain they never envisioned Burger King moving in next door. China is only now beginning to open its borders to the West. They need the money; they want the money, but how much does that Big Mac really cost? How much will it cost the West?

‘But the West is decadent! It has lost its moral center!’ Many who hate her call America a Christian nation, and in this they demonstrate their ignorance. Certainly the United States was founded on Christian principles, but those principles have eroded over the last three centuries. America today is but a dim shadow of what it once was. ‘Christian’ is a word bandied about by everyone; the Right, the Left; the Agnostic and Atheist alike, but less than ten percent of avowed Christians even put their faith into practice. The mind of this nation has changed, and Morality is now viewed subjectively at best; where once the people held to a belief in God, and right and wrong were seen as black and white issues, is it any wonder Christianity has fallen from grace? Every nation we thrust our interfering hands into can see the truth in this, so why can’t we? Could it be the Emperor has no clothes after all?

Times have changed, however. It no longer takes months on horseback to reach the Pacific Ocean from the Big Apple. It doesn’t take years for ships to circumnavigate the globe. Weapon of war have also changed. Where once armies faced one another with swords and knives and spears, they now face each other not at all; they simply make a call and push a button. Where once they rained arrows down upon enemy ranks, they now rain devastation from the skies, leveling whole cities. War has become too clean, and so we balk when the children of the Third World use our methods against us, albeit with less finesse and less concern for innocents (though that point could be debated). But destroying ten thousand innocent lives is not acceptable, no matter who pulls the trigger, pushes the button, makes the call, or hijacks the plane. And justice should be required of everyone responsible, no matter where the blame falls.

Mercy, however, should not be forgotten. Any thought of revenge should be put aside. America should not concern herself with revenge; it is not a pure enough motive for what must be done. For what must be done is terrible in and of itself. A life for a life will not return said life. Death cannot be undone. And since it does not lie in our power to give life, we should be careful in our deliberations to take life. Hunt down those responsible, yes. Make them pay the ultimate price for their crimes, yes. But let us not take pleasure in what must be done.

Changing the hearts and minds of all men is impossible. It is human nature to set ones own needs above the needs of others, but its man’s capacity for self-sacrifice that sets him above nature. A dog can only be a dog, it cannot choose to rebel against millions of years of evolution; but man most certainly can. He can say to himself, "I could die in this collapsing building, but I will work anyway to save the life of someone who might yet be alive."

Today in Manhattan civilian volunteers are finding ways to make a difference; digging through the rubble, assisting in the hospitals, donating blood, giving money, praying or simply holding a stranger in their arms as they weep. This is man at his best. This is what he aspires to, but never seems to find until times like these. The times aren’t Evil, men are. But despite the times, it is comforting to know there is still good in the world, that Evil no matter its magnitude only serves to make Goodness shine that much brighter.

The Egyptians built things to last, as did the Greeks and Romans, but then they never saw anything so big as a jumbo jet falling from the sky. It’s not likely even the pyramids could have survived such an attack unscathed; neither could men. But we will survive. That is what we do. Judgment must come, but so must rebuilding. Terrorists thought to destroy a national symbol; they think even now to force us into the bunkers for fear of other such attacks, but we must not give in to this. Find those responsible, punish them swiftly, with mercy, and then rebuild. The Towers are dead, but the ideal is not. Build a memorial to the lives lost, by all means, but rebuild. Show the enemy the measure of our strength, our courage, and our resolve. Rebuild and show the world that these places are sacred; the Spirit of America does not reside in buildings, but in the hearts of her sons and daughters.

Who will ever forget September 11, 2001? Who will ever forget the loss of so many lives, or the tears shed? Who will ever forget that at 8:50am ignorance took a stab at killing something that could not be killed? They have taken untold lives, but they have not destroyed America. Let us rebuild. Let us learn to build for posterity, and hopefully leave in our wake something that will endure.

ELAshley
September 11, 2001

Proof Multiculturalism* is Evil?

2011-08-30T10:53:00.007-05:00

[*defined by total inclusiveness at the expense of personal, religious, and (as a result) societal freedoms]

The GZ Mosque has applied for government grants to finish construction of a Mosque that did NOT exist prior to that day, September 11, 2001.

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church-- the only church destroyed on 9/11 --has been refused the right to rebuild on it's old site, across the street from Ground Zero.

The City of New York has bent over backward to accommodate the GZ Mosque; the construction of which is a huge slap in the face to most New Yorkers, to say nothing of most Americans.

The City of New York has impeded and ultimately denied a Christian church the right to rebuild what Muslims destroyed.

Mayor Bloomberg has banned all clergy and prayer from the 10th anniversary observance at Ground Zero in 12 days.

Why does New York... why does New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg hate God? Why does he deny Christians a vocal presence at the 10th anniversary memorial? What is wrong with America, with American politics, that it can't bring itself to welcome God to Ground Zero; that it will not allow a Christian church to rebuild, but will allow the religion that brought the tower's down to build a mosque; a symbol of gloating, and an affront to most Americans for it's sheer audacity?

What is so evil about Christianity that it must be denied a voice? Will there be a Muslim cleric there? Will he speak? Will a Hindu be there? Some other motivational speaker? Why do Americans hate God so much that they drive him publicly from events like this? Why is Christ so hated that Christians are told to keep silent at a time when, and where, prayers are not only warranted, but a comfort to (and desired by) many who will attend.

Is all this being done simply to not offend someone? or a group of someones?

What? God kicked us out of HIS Garden, so we're gonna kick HIM out of ours?

This is nonsense, and America will pay for it. And by that I mean: are an earthquake and a hurricane Not enough of a warning for you, America?

Demar on Leftist Dominionism

2011-08-24T14:25:00.004-05:00

Strictly speaking, Gary DeMar's hyperpreterism is anathema to me and many others; his theology is so wildly off-base it's a wonder he can't see commonsense or make logical assumptions in regard to biblical context. But where he's 180 degrees wrong in his theology, he's spot on in the article below.

This blog is about politics, not religion; despite my occasional flights off topic, but this post is not about religion, per se, it's about the hypocritical use of religion in politics by the Left.

So while I don't respect DeMar's theology, I can't discount truth even when it comes from DeMar-- a broken clock is right twice a day.

From DeMar's article, Leftist Dominionists Hate Competition...

What liberals hate is to have some group or competing ideology to claim what they believe is their turf. For decades liberals have staked out politics, education, media, entertainment, and every so-called secular area of life to be their domain, and woe to anyone who attempts to enter the gates to their heavily protected and subsidized kingdom.

So when liberals read about a group that wants to impact the family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business, they go into a frenzied dance of defiance and shock. There’s nothing new in any of this. It has a long history.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in this as well; not from DeMar, but from liberals. Religion, they say, has no place in politics, and yet they inject their own religion all the same, claiming it's their moral right and responsibility to do so. But let a conservative member of congress suggest that it is right and moral to do a thing for the benefit of all Americans, and liberals will rise up in apoplectic outrage. The only injection of religious principle into American culture the left will tolerate are those promoted by the left. As though they are the sole, rightful arbiters of morality in all of America.

In 2003, Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry criticized the Vatican for saying that “Catholic politicians like him have a ‘moral duty’ to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples.” He went on to say that “it’s important to not have the church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America.” Would Kerry agree to the following logic of his position?:
"It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about slavery."
"It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about ethnic cleansing."
"It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about civil rights."

This 'logic' is at the core of the division between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals, according to DeMar, having entered "into every civil, cultural and political activity... patiently leavening them all as thoroughly as yeast leavens bread" is loath to give up any ground to Conservatives who are trying to do the very same today. The Tea Party has become the most dangerous grass roots organization to the Left's proclaimed cultural fiefdom, in decades (or ever). Which is why they attack the Tea Party at every opportunity. They fear change. Especially any change that threatens to topple them as the rightful purveyors of approved American license and culture.

Liberalism, especially under Obama, has shown itself to be a failure. It's time for a change. Not the kind of change he wants us to believe in, but the kind of change Americans believe in. And if truth be told, democrats and republicans (outside the beltway) are not so far apart in terms of what's best for America. There are only a few sticking points keeping us on opposite sides of the fence. If the ideologues would simply get out of the way... if WASHINGTON would get out of the way... we could work this out among ourselves.

America has no further need for ideologues. What America needs are some simple, real-world Americans with good ideas.

Quakes in Colorado AND Virginia?

2011-08-23T14:47:00.003-05:00

Rare Strong Earthquake Hits Colorado
Quake rocks Washington area, felt on East Coast

Even Obama felt the tremors on Martha's Vineyard, just as he was starting another round of golf. Perhaps the Obama administration will this occasion to blame something other than president Bush for his latest approval rating dip to 38%.

"The recent earthquake in Virginia is the reason my approval rating has dropped another point..."

--President Obama,
(sometime in the near future... perhaps? one can hope?)

Even In Descent, America Still Shines On Occasion

2011-08-22T15:23:00.010-05:00

From a purely artistic perspective this is a very nice statue/monument to Dr. King...

In terms of whatever political or philosophical statement it's meant to make, I can't begrudge a great man this kind of recognition. I will, however, argue against anyone's attempt to politicize this memorial or Dr. King's message. The only side God is on is His own, and Dr. King was a man of God.

His memorial opened today on the National Mall.

Would That Obama Took These Words to Heart...

2011-08-22T14:18:00.004-05:00

"If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well."

--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Commentary from Kirk Cameron:

Just as God speaks on tops of mountains, He also paints sunrises with light and clouds, composes symphonies with birds, crickets, and frogs, and sculpts massive rock statues with wind and water. God is not only a preacher; He is also a writer, a musician, an engineer, a carpenter, a father, a son, a brother, a King, and a servant. What has God called you to be? Don't wish you were something else. Be the very best at what you do. As a fellow actor once told me, "There are no small parts, only small actors," likewise, there are no insignificant roles to play in the Kingdom of God; they're all important. There are however, people who fail to see the significance of doing what they've been called to do with all their heart. Go all out. Be all in. Don't quit. Don't back down. Don't stop till you cross the line and finish the race. Then after you've been faithful, you may hear the heavenly words, "Well done, my good and faithful servant."

To anyone reading this who takes prayer seriously...

Pray for our president. Pray for this country. Pray for mercy.

There is more to the descent of this nation than a single man, group of men, or their politics.

Nero In The White House

2011-08-22T08:20:00.004-05:00

--Mychal Massie
August 8, 2011

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

----------
Other Reading:

Obama dangerously close to a 'Killer Rabbit' moment

Not a Friend of the GOP... or Fox

2011-08-15T08:58:00.007-05:00

And yet, honest about Obama & the government, within a comedic framework...

WARNING! NSFW!!!
While American Descent appreciates the honesty, it does NOT endorse the profanity

Obama's approval rating, by the way, dropped below 40% for the first time this weekend.

Need an introduction to Felonius Munk?

Perspective: What Stability Looks Like to Bernanke

2011-08-09T16:36:00.005-05:00

After yesterday's 635 point sell off the DOW is up over 400 today. The question now remains... can Washington agree to disagree and do what's right for the country and the people it purports to represent? Or will it be more of the same and a worsening economy?

The way the DOW see-sawed today, it could have been a lot worse. In some places it is.

Here's a little perspective:

Date: August 9, 2011
Reporting From: Vilnius, Lithuania

Just a quick thought on a ridiculously volatile day:

One of the things that people pick up on very quickly as they travel are how different price levels are around the world. I've been to roughly 100 countries, and I still find it amazing how much variance there is among things like food, property, and entertainment prices.

There are certain places-- Cambodia, Ecuador, Tanzania-- that are so jaw-droppingly cheap that it almost seems unreal. And you wonder how these people could possibly ever survive if they came to your country.

Well, the United States has just joined this proud cadre of banana republics... at least if you're from Switzerland.

You see, the Swiss franc is one of the few currencies that have given investors some sense of comfort recently; Switzerland inspires confidence and stability, and the worse things get in the United States and Europe, the more investors pull their money out of the dollar and euro, and park it in the Swiss franc.

It's all about supply and demand. Increased demand for the Swiss franc coupled with expanded supply of dollars and euros has caused the franc to surge over the last weeks and months. It wasn't too long ago that it would take 1.20 francs to buy a US dollar. Now it takes $1.40 to buy a single franc.

I can think of a lot of words to describe the performance of the US dollar: Farce, Joke, Lunacy, Embarrassment, Disgusting. But it's more clearly summed up like this: the price of a Big Mac in Zurich is now so high (at $17.19) that a minimum wage employee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, would have to work for nearly 4-hours in order to afford it.

This is what stability looks like to Ben Bernanke.

Until tomorrow,

Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com

What's Wrong In America

2011-08-03T09:07:00.002-05:00

Save a baby woodpecker from certain death...

receive fine of $535

Solution: Cut funding to the obviously bloated department of U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Their heads and sense of importance are simply too big.

Snookered Again!

2011-08-02T15:27:00.006-05:00

At least, that's the feeling I'm left with.

I don't see any reason to cheer this fake compromise. None at all. This was a manufactured crisis by the Obama administration. And just like last December, this deal will turn out to have accomplished nothing in terms of debt reduction.

According to the messiahs speech today, "Growing the economy isn’t just about cutting spending and rolling back regulations that protect our air and water and keep people safe. We’re going to have to do more than that."

In other words... more stimulus. Hey! It didn't work the last time, but maybe it'll work THIS time, right?

As for market stability? The Dow dropped 265 points today.

And who said there wouldn't be any tax increases? Reid: Joint Committee Must Include Taxes Or Trigger Will Kick In

So what have we accomplished, with this 'nothing to show for...' piece of legislation other than an increase in the debt ceiling? Nothing. 2.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years? Future congresses are not beholden to this deal, as evidenced by past congresses with similar promises made before them. Simply put, future congresses can change, nullify, or add to ANY bit of legislation made law before their time at bat.

What we should have had, prior to any debt ceiling agreement, was a balanced budget amendment. Short of that, this piece of sham legislation will prove to be a waste of time, effort, and money. While bragging about not kicking the can down the road, they kicked the can down the road. And the truly spectacular thing about this is, NO ONE PAID ATTENTION WHEN THEY KICKED IT DOWN THE ROAD.

The president and politicians of both political persuasions want to tout 'shared sacrifice'? I'd like to SEE them make some sacrifices. With the exception of a small few, these folk have no idea what it means to sacrifice.

The Left simply doesn't get it.

Consider this cartoon. Look at the news guy response. How messed up is that. The GOP isn't barreling the car over the cliff, the Dems are, and yet Media's analysis lays the blame on the GOP.

What compromise was the Left offering? What compromise was Obama offering? The world will never know, because neither the president nor the Senate leader bothered to codify their plan. They had no intention of laying out a plan; just as they never intended to pass a budget when Pelosi was in charge.

Another Illustration: Not once has Obama taken responsibility for this economy. It is not George W. Bush who added 4 trillion to our national debt. If Bush truly drove the car into a ditch, Obama has done nothing to get us out. Instead he's hitched an impossible load to the already beleaguered (read: 'stuck') car. There's no way this car is getting out of the ditch. Not under the power of this bit of crap legislation... also known as (by a democrat, no less) a "Satan Sandwich."

Sadly... despite the apropos metaphor, Emanuel Cleaver doesn't get it either.

Here's a bit of analysis from Whiskey & Gunpowder:

The budget deal is all but done. Woohoo!

Back to spending beyond our means again. Back to buying more iPads. Back to more public work projects.

What a huge relief it is to get that silly spending cap out of the way.

Or... is it?

The deal making its way through congress would provide for an immediate $400 billion increase in the borrowing cap. Then they'll kick in an additional $500 billion cap increase this fall.

That $900 billion increase in borrowing is supposed to be matched by cuts to agency budgets over the next 10 years. (We'll believe it when we see it. More on that in a second...)

But first, the deal also creates a "Super Congress" (two words that typically are not found so close together). The do-gooders will appoint six "no-tax-increases-Republicans" and six "no-Medicare-or-Medicaid-entitlement-cuts-Democrats" to this group. Their goal is to find $1.5 trillion in cuts by November.

But what does this plan really accomplish?

Well, despite us waiting for the phone to ring, Congress didn't seem to ask our opinion. But we're happy to provide it to you, of course...

Aside from averting an over-due and necessary U.S. default, well... the deal does... NOTHING.

Our so-called "leaders" cut under $1 trillion over ten years. That works out to be about $90 billion per year... while we're running $1.5 trillion deficits.

And best of all, because of the non-recovery we've had, the politicians want to wait until we're on more stable footing to make any of those cuts. So NOTHING will be done for at least one year.

Laughable, I know.

All that posturing... supposed arguing... back door dealing... for a piddly 5.7% spending cut of this year's deficit... and not until 2013 at the earliest!

Nobody Loves Obama?

2011-07-29T09:50:00.003-05:00

Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal has written a piece that paints a sad picture of President Obama... no one loves him. The first third of this article chides and scolds republicans and Tea Party-ers alike, but that she sayshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif, "is not what I want to talk about."

They've Lost That Lovin' Feeling
Obama still has supporters, but theirs is a grim support.
--Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
July 29, 2011

I want to talk about something that started to become apparent to me during the debt negotiations. It's something I've never seen in national politics.

It is that nobody loves Obama. This is amazing because every president has people who love him, who feel deep personal affection or connection, who have a stubborn, even beautiful refusal to let what they know are just criticisms affect their feelings of regard. At the height of Bill Clinton's troubles there were always people who'd say, "Look, I love the guy." They'd often be smiling—a wry smile, a shrugging smile. Nobody smiles when they talk about Mr. Obama. There were people who loved George W. Bush when he was at his most unpopular, and they meant it and would say it. But people aren't that way about Mr. Obama. He has supporters and bundlers and contributors, he has voters, he may win. But his support is grim support. And surely this has implications.

The past few weeks I've asked Democrats who supported him how they feel about him. I got back nothing that showed personal investment. Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: "I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did 'love' him, I can't think of anyone who still does." Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? "Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about NAFTA or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring." With Bush, "if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is 'genuine.'" He "doesn't exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine."

Maybe Mr. Obama is living proof of the political maxim that they don't care what you know unless they know that you care. But the idea that he is aloof and so inspires aloofness may be too pat. No one was colder than FDR, deep down. But he loved the game and did a wonderful daily impersonation of jut-jawed joy. And people loved him.

The secret of Mr. Obama is that he isn't really very good at politics, and he isn't good at politics because he doesn't really get people. The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. The "Analytics Department" is looking for "predictive Modeling/Data Mining" specialists to join the campaign's "multi-disciplinary team of statisticians," which will use "predictive modeling" to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. "We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions."

This wasn't the passionate, take-no-prisoners Clinton War Room of '92, it was high-tech and bloodless. Is that what politics is now? Or does the Obama re-election effort reflect the candidate and his flaws?

Mr. Obama seemed brilliant at politics when he first emerged in 2004. He understood the nation's longing for unity. We're not divided into red states and blue, he said, we're Big Purple, we can solve our problems together. Four years later he read the lay of the land perfectly—really, perfectly. The nation and the Democratic Party were tired of the Clinton machine. He came from nowhere and dismantled it. It was breathtaking. He went into the 2008 general election with a miraculously unified party and took down another machine, bundling up all the accrued resentment of eight years with one message: "You know the two losing wars and the economic collapse we've been dealing with? I won't do that. I'm not Bush."

The fact is, he's good at dismantling. He's good at critiquing. He's good at not being the last guy, the one you didn't like. But he's not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he's not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire.

And so his failures in the debt ceiling fight. He wasn't serious, he was only shrewd—and shrewdness wasn't enough. He demagogued the issue—no Social Security checks—until he was called out, and then went on the hustings spouting inanities. He left conservatives scratching their heads: They could have made a better, more moving case for the liberal ideal as translated into the modern moment, than he did. He never offered a plan. In a crisis he was merely sly. And no one likes sly, no one respects it.

So he is losing a battle in which he had superior forces—the presidency, the U.S. senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.

When was the last time Peggy Noonan called ANYONE a loser? The man who won big in oh-eight, is now a loser? Well, I've near always thought this, and I have for the longest time felt Obama was the most dangerous man in the world, but to read Ms. Noonan calling the president of the Unite States a loser!? I have rarely read her to be so blunt. Even about Obama. She chides and scold everyone, no matter what their political identity, but I don't think I've ever read an article by her wherein she so coldly and deliberately slammed a public figure.

Bruce Lee - 38 Years Ago Today

2011-07-20T22:53:00.005-05:00

Artwork by Adrian Hardiman

In memory of Mr. Lee,

a quote...

"Those who are unaware they are walking in darkness will never seek the light."

The Old Man Remembers What the Child Once Dreamt

2011-07-14T16:33:00.006-05:00

Putting politics aside for a moment....

For everyone of a certain age who loved Edgar Rice Burroughs; who dreamt of being John Carter, living and fighting on Mars...

Here's the movie trailer for Disney's "John Carter" [of Mars]. It's awesome. It's big. And it's out March 9, 2012.

Here's your link to the official site, where a larger version can be viewed in addition to a couple production stills-- hopefully more will follow.

I never imagined, as a sixteen year old [whose face was buried in anything and everything Edgar Rice Burroughs], that I would ever have an opportunity to WATCH "A Princess of Mars". But now, in eight short months, assuming the country hasn't collapsed or I've died, I'll get to see what I never thought possible a short thirty-five years ago.

This is what passes for democracy in Greece…

2011-07-14T15:26:00.002-05:00

...and America

[lifted whole from SovereignMan.com]

July 14, 2011
Thessaloniki, Greece

Last night I had quite an unexpected surprise.

You see, at my hotel here in Thessaloniki, there's a delegation from some group of the European Parliament called the Committee on Regional Development. They're here to help... Hey, isn't that what they always say? The Committee wants to supervise Greece working its way out of the debt crisis and make sure that Greece's poor are getting the support they need.

The hotel's restaurant was filled with these sycophantic parasites last night– an entire room full of people with a superiority complex who think that they are entitled to make decisions about other people's lives and money.

They sat at dinner drinking fine wine and polishing up steak tartare making proud, bombastic proclamations about the virtues of foreign aid, the democratic process, and the great progress of Greece's austerity measures.

Coincidentally, not 300 meters down the road, a campsite has been gathering for economic refugees, Thessaloniki's former middle class that has been vanquished by the crisis. Some of the children swung by the restaurant's outdoor terrace begging for change, only to be waved off by one of the delegate's extended pinkie fingers as he sipped his wine.

It couldn't have been more ironic... the perfect image of what passes for democracy today, right here in the country that invented it.

Today's democracy is nothing more than pseudo-authoritarian rule by an elite few, executed by legions of self-deluding freeloaders who have convinced themselves that their current bureaucratic roles are both necessary and honorable... as well as a stepping stone into the next job which will be even more necessary and honorable.

With each successive position up the bureaucratic ladder comes more power, more privilege... until they actually expect to be called "The Honorable..." so and so, or "His Excellency" so and so, etc.

My dictionary suggests a few definitions for 'honor'. One of them refers to a person's chastity... and I doubt it applies in this case given the political establishment's Twitter record. The other definition says, "conferred as a distinction, especially an official award for bravery or achievement."

In the United States, they must be confusing the term 'achievement' with 'destroying the economy and culture of the formerly most powerful nation on earth.' President Obama is apparently so honorable that he can't even be bothered to hold negotiations anymore about debt compromise, arguing that Ronald Reagan wouldn't be doing that...

He seems more concerned about his esteem and rank being respected than facing the grim facts of economic reality.

Simultaneous on Capitol Hill, Comrade Bernanke sent the dollar plummeting once again. Just to put things in perspective, the entire eurozone is on the precipice of a meltdown, and the euro had been falling for days. The second this man opened his mouth, the dollar plunged... indicating that investors would rather take a chance on European insolvency than Bernanke.

It was truly pathetic... and yet another example of what passes for democracy today: One man who has never been elected is essentially given control of the money supply to do with it as he deems best in his sole discretion.

All in all, as usual, it's going to come down to the taxpayers. The bureaucrats will go on enjoying their steak tartare and ignoring the huddled masses. The politicians will go on posturing over title. The central bankers will keep making interest free loans to their friends and destroying their currencies. We get stuck with the fallout.

In the end, the governments will make it a matter of national security and patriotism, ensuring that we 'do our duty to the nation' by coughing up more of our livelihood. I stumbled across this WW2 propaganda video a few days ago in which Daffy Duck tells us all that it's our patriotic duty to give as much as possible to the government.

Should we expect a new video soon suggesting that it's our patriotic duty to buy Treasury bonds...? In what passes for democracy today, you can bet on it.

--Simon Black, SovereignMan.com

As Did Nero, So Too Obama?

2011-07-14T14:20:00.004-05:00

Imagine this. According to the White House and leftist pundits everywhere this nation runs out of money on August 2nd. Obama just the other day told CBS' Scott Pelley that he couldn't guarantee that social security checks would go out, or that the military would get paid (a bold-faced lie if ever there was one, from the captain of fear-mongery himself). Now imagine the day after, August 3rd. While all the 'defaulting and mayhem' are supposedly going on what will Obama be doing? Celebrating his 50 birthday.

No big deal right?

Except... he'll be doing it in grand style. $35,000 will get you a private dinner with the Obama's in Chicago during a lavish birthday party cum fundraiser. While the nation is crumbling under the weight of its defaulted debt(according to the White House), Obama will be partying it up, asking folks to pony up 35 G's to eat cake with the president; 35,000 smackaroonies to help him finish the job he started in January of 2009... ruining the economy, and generally destroying what remains of this once great nation. Washington, according to Obama and democrats, will be in chaos! But Obama will be partying it up. "Happy Birthday to ME!"

No one, I'm sure, begrudges Obama a birthday celebration; I certainly don't. But Obama has spent the last few months demonizing the right and predicting all manner of dire consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised. So Obama has manufactured his farce of a Liberal Noh play. The damage done to himself on August 3rd will be his doing; the crisis is of his making.

What should Obama do? First, unless he intends to come clean on the genuine consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, he should cancel those lavish plans for his birthday bash/fundraiser, and retreat to a more modest private celebration with family and a few friends-- do it the White House, I don't care. Reaching 50 is a milestone in any man's life, so celebrate, Mr. President. But as long as you continue to lie about no checks going out to seniors and the like, stay out of Chicago.

The country will be crashing down around our ears, but Obama will be raking 35 grand a pop in celebration of his birthday.

Rome is burning, Mr. President. Now is not the time to play fiddle. Instead, sackcloth and ashes are in order.

Attend that big party, Mr. President, and demonstrate, yet again, just how out of touch you are with the rest of America; how tone deaf you are to needs of EVERY American.

"What? You say the people are suffering? They have no bread to eat? Well, let them eat cake! It's my birthday, after all, so I decree everyone shall eat cake in celebration of my 50th birthday...... at the cost of 35,000 dollars a head, that is!"

--President Barack Hussein Obama, August 3rd, 2011

From the Washington Times

2011-07-13T15:32:00.001-05:00

HURT: Welcome to Jimmy Carter’s 2nd term
Tuesday, July 12, 2011

It has taken three decades, but Americans are finally living through Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Now we’ve got Jimmy Jr. barking at us from the White House about eating our peas and ripping off our Band-Aid. He might not even let us have our Social Security checks.

These are just the latest in a long line of nagging lectures. Already, we have been taught how we should sneeze into the crook of our arm. We need to drive less. And we need to caulk up those drafty houses of ours.

What ever happened to the soaring rhetoric and big bold ideas President Obama promised us in that historic election of his?

Is this what he meant by a new kind of politics? If so, no thanks. Oh, and it is not new. Jimmy already dragged us through all this once and we just barely survived it.

One of the most unpleasant things about Mr. Carter was the condescending disdain he could barely disguise for struggling Americans and their irritating malaise.

Increasingly, Jimmy Jr. is having difficulty concealing that very same disdain for us as the political winds around him turn hostile and all of his bright ideas lie fallow as nothing more than socialist hocus-pocus.

But even Mr. Carter never laid bare so baldly and plainly as Mr. Obama did earlier this week his deep-seated contempt for this whole annoying process we call “democracy.”

The problem with reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling, he explained in a long sermon, is that there is this huge wave of Republicans who won control of the House in the last election by promising not to raise any more taxes and to cut the absurd overspending that has driven this town for decades.

He bemoaned - in public - that these Republicans are more concerned about the “next election” rather than doing “what’s right for the country.” In other words, he is saying the honorable thing would be for these Republicans to ignore the expressed wishes of voters, break their campaign promises and raise taxes. Wow.

As if the whole problem of Washington spending us into oblivion is the fault of stingy taxpayers and stupid voters. And what we really need is Jimmy Jr., who knows what is best for us despite what we may think.

Continuing his lecture, Mr. Obama then complained about America’s “political process, where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections.”

How did this man get past sixth-grade social studies, much less Iowa?

When Mr. Obama finished his sermon about the contemptible Republicans keeping faith with their voters like a bunch of chumps, he then turned to his own intentions - and revealed even more of his contempt for us.

All this talk about “raising revenue” - the deceitful line he uses to describe raising taxes - has been most unhelpful, he said. “I want to be crystal clear,” he said. “Nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. Nobody has talked about increasing taxes next year.”

So when would these tax hikes that he is demanding take effect?

In 2013, well after Mr. Obama must face voters for re-election.

Lucky for us, it appears more and more unlikely every day that we will have to suffer through a third term of Jimmy Carter‘s.

Time to Jump Ship

2011-07-05T10:07:00.002-05:00

If this is what passes for education today; if this is representative of the mindset of those who govern and manage this economy... we're screwed.

One respondent's remarks:

I think it's time that all Americans realized that government connected people are self interested liars, period. They never say anything because they think it's an important rational, logic or ethical fact-- their only purpose in saying anything at all is to lie the public into further theft and control.

It's transparently ludicrous that more government borrowing will help anyone but rich connected bankers and government people [at] this point.

It's also getting to the point [that] if the American people have become so degenerate that they believe ...ever more debt is a desirable thing, they deserve the slavery that's coming to them.

Make a choice Americans, live free or die in [chains of debt].

I've been around quite a while, and I've never seen this country in such bad shape. I'm even having difficulty giving it equal billing with Carter's administration; Carter, much like Obama, failed miserably in managing the economy, but the difference between the two is ideology. Carter at least believed in American greatness, and exceptionalism (while as president, at least), but Obama has never thought of America as 'exceptional.' What Obama is doing is deliberate.

"The stimulus has worked as planned."

If this be the case, then it was the intention of the Obama administration to break America's economic back. Congratulations, Mr. President. It looks as though you'll get your wish.

Before any of you get your back up because I've insulted/slandered your man, let it be known here and now, that I don't think any better of current Republican leadership. 'A plague on both your houses,' I say.

If the economy is truly in such dire straights that it requires drastic measures to correct, then take drastic measures. Compromise is for weak-kneed, weak-willed, pandering and self-serving politicians. If a Republican truly believes this country is doomed without the taking of drastic measures, then he must not compromise. He must be willing to give something meaningful, something personal, to ensure his nation's survival.

What must that something be?

Personal interest perhaps, any thought to personal/monetary acquisition. A man who would truly seek to save his country will do so without thought of personal gain.

Sadly, there are no such men in Washington. None whatsoever.

It's time to stop playing this game, people. Time to stop playing THEIR game. By THEIR rules. It's time to begin thinking for yourself, and acting in your own best interest. Because neither our government, nor anyone in it have your best interest at heart.

Brand me a Cynic if you wish.

Sarah Palin Is An Idiot

2011-06-27T16:54:00.003-05:00

It's true! No point denying it any longer...

The Liberal Mob: Unmasked & Quantified - Part III

2011-06-17T08:00:00.000-05:00

A parting shot from Miss Coulter...

It's not an accident that Saul Alinsky, forefather to community organizers like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom-- Lucifer."

This is why liberals are shrieking oppositionists, braying, abortion-obsessed feminists, SEIU thugs, Earth Liberation Front loons, Bill Maher audiences, and querulous dissidents from every measure taken in defense of their own country. This is why they mock all that is good-- America, religion, patriotism, chivalry, the rule of law, truth, the creation of wealth, life --while hysterically attacking those who oppose them.

The mob will never support defending America, only those who seek to undermine it. The mob will never side with those who seek to protect human life, only those who seek to destroy it. The mob will never support the creation of wealth, only those who seek to punish it. The mob will never defend traditional morality, only those who seek to subvert it. And if you oppose the mob, it will come after you like a pack of ravenous hyenas.

Ann Coulter, Demonic (2011), pg. 288

Excellent book, folks.

The Liberal Mob: Unmasked & Quantified - Part II

2011-06-16T08:00:00.003-05:00

Ann Coulter's opening statement...

The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution; it is the revolutionaries who seized control of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; it is the Maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China; it is the Ku Klux Klan terrorizing Republicans and blacks in the South; it is the 1992 Los Angeles riot that left fifty dead and did $1 billion of damage after the first Rodney King verdict; it is the masked hoodlums smashing up Seattle when bankers came to town; it is the 500,000 illegal aliens marching under a foreign flag in Los Angeles; it is throngs of Islamic fanatics attending the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's funeral, tearing his body out of its coffin; it is left-wing protesters destroying property and attacking delegates at the Republican National Conventions.

Everything else changes, but mobs are always the same. A mob is an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the group. Intoxicated by messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping exhortations, mobs create mayhem, chaos, and destruction, leaving a smoldering heap of wreckage for their leaders to climb to power.

The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Democrats activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs-- they are the mob. Indeed, the very idea of a "community organizer" is to stir up a mob for some political purpose. "As so frequently happens when a crowd goes wild," historian Erik Durschmied says, "there is always one who shouts louder and thereby appoints himself as their leader." Those are the people we call "elected Democrats."

The Democrats' playbook doesn't involve heads on pikes-- as yet --but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passion, demonizing of opponents, and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas-- these are the earmarks of a mob leader.

Ann Coulter, Demonic (2011), pg. 4

The Liberal Mob: Unmasked & Quantified - Part I

2011-06-15T09:56:00.005-05:00

Ann Coulter calls it Demonic, and I can't disagree with her.

Liberals are constantly pushing for the Rousseauian approach to governance in defiance of our nation's history and Constitution. They not only believe there is a "general will," they are sure their policies express it. Instead of allowing ordinary people to have more control over their lives, democrats produce inflexible, universal plans, sublimely confident of their ability to build a perfect system. They get angry when people say, "I don't think your plan will work in this part of the country." All plans, all rules, all regulations must be universal.

It's an obsession with the Democrats to nationalize everything: health care, welfare, the speed limit, abortion, the drinking age-- so there's no escape. Like all totalitarians, the Democrats' position is: We thought up something that we know will work better than anything anyone else has done for the last 30,000 years. We don't know why no one else has thought of it. We must be smarter.

This is why the history of liberalism consists of replacing things that work with things that sounded good on paper.

...

Frustrated that, in a democracy, they can't implement their grand plans to save humanity with the ease of a dictator, liberals demonize those who stand in their way. That's why Americans who objected to ObamaCare had to be anathematized for "obstructing" the plan for health care utopia.

The mob can make a person a pariah in an instant with rumors, outright lies, and the crowd's trademark smirking. They did it to Marie Antoinette. They did it to Joe McCarthy, They did it to Richard Nixon, the shah of Iran, Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Haliburton, Margaret Thatcher, Dan Quayle, Bush I, Bush II, "neoconservative," Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Allen West-- the list is endless. It's important to liberals to express contempt for an adversary. Belittling people is pleasurable for them as well as tactically useful.

Instead of "counterrevolutionaries," liberals' opponents are called "haters," "those who seek to divide us," "tea baggers," and "right-wing hate groups." Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals "liberals"-- and that makes them testy.

They make wild, lying accusations against conservatives, especially the Tea Partiers-- to the point of accusing conservatives of complicity in a liberal lunatic's shooting spree at a Tucson Safeway that left six dead and a dozen wounded.

They terrorize their political opponents by ginning up psychopaths to physically attack conservatives at the Republican National Convention, conservative rallies, Republican luncheons, book signings, speeches-- even at the political opponent's home. Then they turn around and claim to be afraid of Tea Partiers.

Ann Coulter, Demonic (2011), pg. 276-278

Who Said....

2011-06-13T09:26:00.004-05:00

"I can see Russia from my house!"

Enough is Enough, I Say

2011-06-10T08:14:00.007-05:00

Others may disagree (and I know others will), but I'm tired of Weinergate. I don't want to destroy him; he may very well have done just that all on his own. He has only himself to blame, and he is going to pay for it, one way or the other. We all do, in the end.

I do-- but then I don't --feel sorry for Rep Weiner. He's been a caustic nasty little man, and in the eyes of some he deserves everything he's getting and more. And considering what's he's done, he DOES deserve it. I feel sorry for the man because of his name. EVERY news agency has taken pot shots at his name, and it's just juvenile. I'm tired of it. I don't want to be a part of destroying someone who appears to have royally screwed himself.

Should he resign? For what? Because he lied to the American people? Every politician lies to the American people to one extent or the other. A short while ago a republican resigned simply for a photo of his bare chest he sent out over, what was it? Craigslist? that's not near as bad as emailing photos of your namesake all over the world-- and if Rep Weiner was nearly as savvy as he thought he was, he'd have known that nothing on the internet ever goes away-- unless government kills it, and even then! Should we expect certain standards of the men who represent us? Sure! But should we expect them to be perfect? Never make mistakes? Are some mistakes too great to allow a man or woman to continue in their jobs? Most certainly. But if there is no room for forgiveness, or understanding, then we become worse than the leftist media currently on course to destroy what's left of this man.

Rep Rangel is still in office, and what he did was unarguably a crime. Weiner? Questions remain. And even at that, does exposing oneself in public carry a worse penalty than tax evasion? In terms of law and penalty? I don't think so. In terms of personal dishonor? Who's to say? Let Weiner's constituents deal with him. If they want him to stay in office, and later achieve reelection, that's their business. If they want him, they can have him. There are too many other dire happenings in American politics that require our undivided attention than the distraction of Rep Weiner's... [e-hem.]

I'm not going to stoop to the level of media who, seeing blood in the water, attacks without mercy, or seeing no blood but rather an easy kill, swarm in to destroy someone simply because they don't like her... namely, Gov. Palin. The Left is insane in its hatred and campaign of destruction leveled against Sarah Palin, among others. That they're turning on Rep Weiner only proves that some species are not above eating their own. But I've never seen the Right go to the extremes the Left has in attempting to destroy a political opponent.

There is enough evil happening in our government-- Today! Right now! --more in need of our rapt attention than the public dismantling of a man's name, family, career, etc. Mr Weiner has done this to himself, but we should not be eager to heap coals on his head. The Left is doing what they do best in that regard. Let them have it.

The Solicitor General's Horrifying Proposition

2011-06-03T16:53:00.004-05:00

If you want to avoid the individual mandate in Obamacare... Earn Less.

From Philip Klein at the WashingtonExaminer.com

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

And that's just the first paragraph.

Is this a prescription for more slothfulness? More lazy bones on welfare and food stamps? I'm sure this is fine with Obama, after all, the more people dependent upon government handouts, more people ready to pull that level for their democrat enablers.

This is what passes for compassionate governance in the minds of liberals. Anyone deigning to earn more money-- enough to live above poverty --must be made to pay out the ass to government so government can be compassionate to the slothful, government-schooled, uneducated masses too ignorant to think for themselves. Ready and willing to vote their continued subsistence on welfare. Moochers feeding off the productive at government's invitation.

This president disgusts me.

Can it Truly Be?

2011-06-01T11:25:00.007-05:00

Mainstream Media Is Beginning to Awaken?

Excerpts from CNBC.com...

Wall Street Baffled by Slowing Economy, Low Yields: Trader

"What we’ve got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money,"

Stocks extended losses after the manufacturing fell below expectations in May and the private sector added only 38,000 jobs during the month.

"Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything. We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it."

WOW! Only 38,000 jobs added to the economy in May!? What gives? Obama, and all our liberal buddies claim the stimulus has worked beautifully! Obama said it hahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifs worked "as planned"! Could this then have been the plan all along? to ruin the U.S. Economy?

Another question. Is Wall Street truly 'baffled,' or is that merely CNBC's take; that they themselves are baffled? If this is the case then I can't see how CNBC, at least, could be said to be waking up. They're still sipping the kool-aid.

Over at Drudge Report is the following list of bad economic news, in red.

Dow tumbles 200 Points
Private Sector Jobs Grew By Only 38,000 in May
Planned Layoffs Up
Manufacturing Slows
Obama bailout of GOV'T MOTORS to cost taxpayers at least $14B

Fair Warning, Liberals... if your man Obama continues this trend you're gonna lose next year.

And how's this for a sign of the times? Talk about Washington disconnect!!!

Congress Mulls Cuts to Food Stamps Program Amid Record Number of Recipients

Prepare for More Money Printing: Analyst

Too many people are on Food Stamps, so cuts need to be made (a 39% increase under Obama)... oh, and by the way, QE3 is at the door, wanting to make things worse for the people on Food Stamps, and those who are not, alike.

Welcome to Obama's America.

Thoughts From A Left Field Perspective

2011-05-31T10:11:00.003-05:00

"I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." ~ Bethania McKenstry

I've been busy/lazy lately. I have a day off today, so I've decided to offer my thoughts on a couple of things that have recently dominated the news, while I have time.

First, the Harold Camping "end of the world" fiasco. Of course, we all knew this was ridiculous. As soon as he decided on the exact day and hour the world would end, people who actually read the Bible (let alone understand it)automatically knew it wouldn't happen on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 P.M. EST.

It was a self defeating prediction.

If God had originally planned to end it all on that particular date and time, He would have simply changed His plans, right?

Perhaps not. The way I see it, even if Camping had been correct, it doesn't mean he knew when it was going to happen. It would have only meant he guessed right. One second after the event, all the world would have known that Camping's prediction was merely a coincidence.

Nevertheless, we quoted the verse in Mark 13:32, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.", but most of us left out the next verse, which reads, "Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."

It is in that context that I submit Camping did us all a service if, as the Bible says, "we have ears to hear".

I don't know about my two readers, but I have a renewed faith as a result of the "end of the world" thing. It has made me more cognizant of my responsibility to live and share my faith. By heeding the warning to be ready, we make more of an effort to try to be Christlike.

Camping has reminded us, in a bizarre, backwards kind of way, that we should live our lives as if Jesus is coming today. because, He just might.

I wish I could put it more clearly, but hopefully, my two readers will get my point.

Now, the entrance of Herman Cain into the 2012 Presidential race:

In the end, he probably won't be nominated to be the Republican candidate, but from my perspective (which, as my two long time readers may attest, is from about four rows back in the bleacher seats waaaaay out in left field), Herman Cain would have the best chance of all of the Republican hopefuls of defeating Obama in 2012.

Mind you, I do not say he is the best candidate. That remains to be seen. But, barring some revelation of malfeasance or impropriety or some other negative, besides being labeled an "Uncle Tom", an "Oreo", or a "house nigger" or some other racially tinged insult (because you know, the Democrats will make those charges and more), he can defeat Obama.

At this point, I believe the defeat of Obama is more important than putting the best Republican in the oval office.

Let's save the country first, then worry about improving it.

Here is the reason I say Herman Cain can defeat Obama:

96% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008. I saw a poll a couple of months ago (which I can't seem to find now. Perhaps a reader can have more success locating it than I did), which indicated that 96% of black voters still intend to vote for Obama in 2012.

Now, 96% of the black vote in 2008 can be a coincidence. Other conclusions can possibly be drawn from those numbers. There could well be some other reasons that so many black voters voted for Obama other than race. Even a white Democrat traditionally gets somewhere over 80% of the black vote regardless of his stance on the issues.

But, two years later, even after it became clear to black voters that Obama will not pay their mortgage, or buy them gas for their cars as he promised, the staggering percentage of blacks who would still vote for Obama makes it as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that blacks overwhelmingly support Obama simply because he is, like them, black.

So, obviously, it doesn't matter that Obama has consistently betrayed the black voters in America. It doesn't matter that he has failed to keep any of the promises he made to his black constituency. It doesn't matter that many of his policies have been harmful rather than helpful to black Americans.

They will vote according to race.

He could be as discriminatory against blacks as the Ku Klux Klan, but because he is black himself, an overwhelming majority of blacks would still vote for him.

It is estimated that blacks make up approximately 12 to 13% of the United States' population. In the 2008 election, blacks turned out to vote in record numbers. Those black voters swept Obama into office. Without the black vote, McCain would have probably won.

Enter Herman Cain. A black man.

If Cain is the Republican nominee facing off against Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 election, black voters will suddenly face a choice they have never had to make before.

They will have to choose between two black men for president.

And therefore, a dilemma.

The way I see it, there are more than two choices for blacks under this scenario:

1. A Democrat black candidate.

2. A Republican black candidate.

3. To vote for a black man who offers empty promises of "hope and change" but has failed to deliver.

4. To vote for a black man who offers real common sense solutions to the problems facing all Americans, including black Americans, and not just "bumper sticker" slogans..

5. Vote for a third party candidate.

6. Vote for a write-in candidate, or

7. Don't vote at all.

Recent polls (that I did find) indicate blacks are disappointed in Obama. Some estimate that as many as 15-20% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 do not approve of the job he's done thus far.

This doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for him again in 2012.

However, if that disappointment manifests itself in the polls on election day, many of the above choices will no doubt be made.

If black voters make any of the above choices besides the first and third choices, Herman Cain can win in 2012.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine.

Excited by power, Obama ignores legal restraints

2011-05-24T09:10:00.003-05:00

(in other words, he's forsaken his oath as president; choosing to rule rather than govern)

--by Timothy P. Carney, May 22, 2011
The Washington Examiner

Excerpts:

President Obama launched a U.S. war in Libya two months ago with no congressional approval. Under the Constitution and under the War Powers Act, which allows the president to wage defensive wars for up to 60 days without prior approval, Obama probably broke the law.

Now that 60 days have passed since the United States joined the hostilities, Obama's war is more clearly illegal. But nobody should expect this to matter to a president with a long record of disregarding legal and constitutional limits on presidential and federal power.

The same media that pulled out every stop to vilify President Bush, bends over contortionist-like to condone his every flouting and affront to the constitution.

Obama in 2009 threw out bankruptcy law and precedent when he handed ownership of Chrysler to his political patrons, the United Auto Workers, publicly and privately threatening the creditors who objected.

Obama's National Labor Relations Board has gotten in the game by blocking Boeing from making its jets at its new factory in South Carolina.

This administration regularly flouts and bends its own ethics rules. Lobbyists fresh from Google and Goldman Sachs came to the White House and helped craft policies directly affecting their former employers -- sometimes in concert with their old lobbyist colleagues. H&R Block's chief executive officer joined the administration and drafted tax-preparation regulations that help H&R Block.

More importantly, Obama seems to regard the Constitution's limits as quaint. We see it in his rhetoric and his actions.

...

Obamacare's linchpin -- a federal requirement that every person buy and hold health insurance -- is a fine example of Obama's disdain for the notion of enumerated powers. The administration's lawyers have their constitutional defenses in court, but those arguments are more semantical than sincere. The telltale is the blatant contradiction between the politicians' claims (it's not a tax!) and the lawyers' claims (it's only a tax!).

This list is just the tip of the iceberg. What's worse is the glaring hypocrisy of the Left...

It's not just the administration. Disdain for constitutional limits on federal power is widespread on the Left. The derogatory term "Tenther" was coined in 2009 (invoking the "birther" conspiracy theory that Obama is not an American citizen) to mock those conservatives and libertarians who want more deference to the 10th Amendment's declaration that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Advocating stricter adherence of the Constitution will get you called racist. Al Gore once said, in effect, that a "strict constructionist" is someone who sees blacks as three-fifths of a person.

This is the tool most often used by the Left; mock the opposition as being unreasonable or uncaring, and generate negative public opinion against it based on perception; in short, apply Alinksy Rule 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

The truth, however, is that the only way liberals can build themselves up (and their desire for a "just" society) is by tearing others down. See Liberal Truth #21.

A liberal can't consistently argue fact. A few will fall into his lap on occasion, but he will swiftly turn to personal attacks the moment his arguments give way beneath him. A liberal cannot see any truth that goes against his ideological grain. Such truths are swiftly absorbed, focus-grouped, polled, and reshaped to their own vision, design, and purpose.

Which is why the media, the Left, and Liberals in general can't see the truth of Obama. To repudiate Obama, on even so small a thing as the War Powers Act, would be to admit they are not the paragons of virtue they'd have us believe. They would have to admit that they are tainted. And no liberal can tolerate his ersatz halo to be seen as anything other than the real deal.

Obama is the worst president in modern history. Period. The most brazenly anti-constitutional, the most unapologetically anti-America.

No true-blue liberal will ever admit the truth of this. Say hello to Liberal Truth #2.

Afterthought... Reconsideration

2011-05-20T11:04:00.002-05:00

For Obama to say Israel must retreat to pre-67 borders... it's the same as supporting the Palestinians' stated goal of destroying Israel. If Obama wants Israel to retreat to such an indefensible position then Obama desires the destruction of Israel. Either that, or Obama is the most naive commander in chief this nation has ever seated.

Obama's Imbecilic Foray Into Middle East Peace

2011-05-19T14:32:00.002-05:00

I went to Drudge just now. In the top left corner was a picture of Obama making kissy-face with who appears to be Hillary. Beneath the pic were the following headlines:

Without bothering to quote the articles, here's my say:

One. Obama should be smart enough to see that any return to pre-1967 borders would spell the end of Israel.

Two. Obama said today that it is the US's position to promote reform, and to support transitions to democracy in the middle east. Great! Israel is at present the only real democracy, yet Obama seeks to give a regime with NO democratic credentials, with stated and demonstrated antipathy toward this Israel's real democracy, a toe-hold in the destruction of said real democracy. In short, Obama supports the wrong side, and defining the US's policy goals as he did shows him to be clueless. It is the Palestinian Authority that's in need of democratic reforms.

Three. Netanyahu is correct in stating that the 1967 lines are indefensible. More than 300,000 Israelis would be left, essentially, behind enemy lines. And why the 1967 lines? What's so special about those lines? How about the lines that were promised Israel in 1920 via the British Mandate (1920-1946)? Why ask the only democratic nation in the middle east to surrender large swaths of land that make the defense of it's resultant borders indefensible? If Israel were given what they were promised, they possess ALL of Jordan as well as the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza. Obama is not concerned with Israeli security. He is only concerned with enabling the terrorists.

Four. Mahmoud Abbas, for his part, appears to want to continue the peace process, while Hamas is distrustful of Obama's motives. Be that as it may, Abbas still insists Jerusalem must be the capital of any Palestinian state, and this is an untenable demand for Israelis. The biblical implication of dividing Jerusalem is one thing, but the reality on the ground is another; Israel will not... en, oh, tee, NOT surrender any part of Jerusalem-- it would be too great a psychological blow to their national identity. How do I know this? Israel is preparing to rebuild the Temple. Why would they make the staggering amount of preparation they already have if giving up Jerusalem were even a remote possibility?

Five. Obama cares more about his own ideological positions than any real stated foreign policy. He says he wants to support reforms in the middle east and establish democracies, but his insistence upon surrendering (or even dividing) Jerusalem, as well as an impractical return to previous lines belies his stated goals. Bush was criticized for his support of Israel; some criticism going so far as to brand his policy as overtly Christian. On the flip-side, Obama claims to be Christian but bends over backward in insisting the Jewish state sacrifice its very existence for the illusory promise of a democratic Palestinian state.

Proof: San Franciso Populated by Nut Cases

2011-05-19T13:44:00.005-05:00

Circumcision Ban to Appear on San Francisco Ballot

If the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18. The practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. There would be no religious exemptions.

The initiative appears to be the first of its kind in the country to actually make it to this stage, though a larger national debate over the health benefits of circumcision has been going on for many years. Banning circumcision would almost certainly prompt a flurry of legal challenges alleging violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and even dangerous. They say parents should not be able to force the decision on their young child.

"Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," said Lloyd Schofield, the measure's lead proponent and a longtime San Francisco resident, who said the cutting away of the foreskin from the penis is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realize.

That's right, Schofield said, "It's his body. It's his choice."

Since circumcision is performed on the eighth day of life (Jewish Law), the child has a choice because... why? He's eight days beyond the birth canal. According to a certain segment of liberal bastion San Francisco's population any male child on the eighth day of his life has the right of choice because it is his body. It's a shame they don't afford the same "choice" on the other side of the birth canal.

What hypocrites!

So what does this prove? To my mind it proves that "Freedom" is a concept that only encompasses their ideological brand; they're unconcerned with the constitutional rights of others, namely, those with whom they disagree. In fact, it appears they're not entirely concerned with anyone's constitutional rights but their own! Some they like, others they don't. And since San Francisco lies within the boundaries of the United States of America, these people feel they have the right to choose which rights others should have, and not have.

From where I sit-- 2,100 miles away --I can't imagine this ballot initiative ever passing. But this is California we're talking about; worse yet, San Francisco!

More Proof That Obamacare is a Very Bad Idea

2011-05-16T10:20:00.002-05:00

HHS approves 200 more new healthcare reform waivers

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats' healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372.

The waivers are temporary and only apply to one provision of the law, which requires health plans to offer at least $750,000 worth of annual medical benefits before leaving patients to fend for themselves. Still, Republicans have assailed the waivers as a sign of both favoritism and of major problems with the law.

"The fact that over 1,000 waivers have been granted is a tacit admission that the healthcare law is fundamentally flawed," Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in March. Upton is one of three House committee chairmen who has used new oversight powers to investigate the annual limit waivers.

Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.

"A transparent process..." they say. Well, it is transparently clear that the process sucks, and needs to be done away with. We can reform healthcare in this country without Obamacare.

If Government Employees Aren't Safe... No One Is

2011-05-16T09:54:00.003-05:00

If government can steal from the pension funds of government employees, how long before it decides to "borrow" from private retirement funds?

Treasury To Tap Pensions To Help Fund Government
By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post, May 15, 2011

The Obama administration will begin to tap federal retiree programs to help fund operations after the government loses its ability Monday to borrow more money from the public, adding urgency to efforts in Washington to fashion a compromise over the debt.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has warned for months that the government would soon hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling — a legal limit on how much it can borrow. With the government poised to reach that limit Monday, Geithner is undertaking special measures in an effort to postpone the day when he will no longer have enough funds to pay all of the government’s bills.

Geithner, who has already suspended a program that helps state and local government manage their finances, will begin to borrow from retirement funds for federal workers.

Apparently neither Obama nor Geithner understand that many recipients (if not most), present and future, either were or are members of government unions. Does he think he can do this and still retain their votes?

Will current recipients not receive their benefits? Not hardly. The administration is not that stupid. But what about the recipients? What will they think? Will they think the administration capable of taking more if it chooses? Will Obama plant in their minds a fear of government? If government can, at any time, dip into your pension fund, do you mean to tell me you wouldn't feel the slightest bit frightened, or concerned... even offended?

If Washington can do this, dip into pension funds to fund their irresponsibility, how soon before it believes it has the right to do the same with private pension funds? There were talks of doing just that in 2008... doing away with the 401k in favor of a government plan (which they could then tap). Who's to say such an idea cannot resurface (if it has ever truly died)? Who's to say such an idea cannot be implemented?

If Washington would simply bite the bullet and take SERIOUS steps toward balancing this nations budget and paying off our ever increasing debt. If government would simply stop spending beyond its obligations... perhaps we could save this country.

It appears our leaders can't stand to see a single dollar unspent. Every idle dollar is a token to be offered for more personal power and influence. Those idle dollars belong to us, the taxpayers. Not government. Our pensions belong to us. Not government.

If these assholes would simply stop spending.

This "Paper Tiger" Has Teeth

2011-05-03T13:00:00.004-05:00

"America is a paper tiger" ~ Osama bin Laden

I've been too busy to comment on the termination of Osama bin Laden, and, as it turns out, that may have been a blessing.

Now that further information has surfaced, I can make a more informed comment.

Stop! Don't shoot!

Upon first hearing that Osama was dead, my first thought was, "Big deal. Someone else will just step in and take his place. It's not over." I still think that, except, his death is a big deal.

Then, I heard that Obama "authorized" the operation. He gave the "Kill" order.

Now, I admit I have little to no knowledge of military operations, and certainly less knowledge of covert military operations, but I seem to remember President George W. Bush authorized the military to capture and kill bin Laden a decade ago.

Was this authorization ever rescinded?

If not, Obama did not need to authorize the operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Taking out bin Laden was the armed forces' mission, and has been their mission for the last ten years.

Mission accomplished.

Now, Obama is taking credit for this victory. This is the same man who campaigned on getting the U.S. out of the war by surrendering. He is also the same man who promised to close GITMO, and aggressively pushed for the prosecution of the CIA operatives who interrogated the Muslim terrorist detainees, calling our techniques "torture".

And yet, it was those very "techniques" that gave us the information that, in turn, led to Osama bin Laden's demise.

So, apparently, Obama gets the credit in spite of himself.

Two things bother me about the subsequent burial of Osama at sea:

I understand the stated reasons for burying him at sea, but they don't pass muster with me.

1. The first reason stated was they buried him at sea to prevent Osama's rabid followers from building a shrine at the site of Osama's grave. OK. So they have prevented Muslim extremists from creating a shrine to Osama on his gravesite. But, nevertheless, shrines can, and likely will, be created at his place of birth, place of death, and any of thousands of sites scattered in between.

So, what, if anything, did burial at sea accomplish, other than generate speculation that Osama might not really be dead? You know conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that one.

Remember the theories that Hitler was still alive somewhere and plotting his revenge?

At least there was never any doubt that Mussolini was dead.

2. The second stated reason for burial at sea was because Obama (apparently, since he had the responsibility of making such decisions) insisted we give bin Laden a proper Muslim send-off out of respect for the Islamic traditions and customs.

This offends me. How does this vermin deserve respect from us? From anyone? In my opinion, his body should have been placed in some very public place and left there with 24 hour video surveillance until his body decays into dust.

To hell with respect for Muslim tradition and customs. They are a false religion in the first place.

In my opinion, he shouldn't have been killed at all. Rather, he should have been captured and incarcerated for the rest of his life in a prison with no other inmates and no outside contact at all, ala Rudolph Hess in Spandau Prison. No newspapers. No TV. No DVD's, No computers. No visitors. At all. Until his lonely, anonymous death.

In this way, he becomes virtually ineffective as a leader of terrorists. He cannot be a martyr because he has not died a martyr's death. He becomes his own worst nightmare:

He becomes insignificant.

Osama bin Laden once famously said, "America is a paper tiger".

Evidently, this "paper tiger" has some pretty sharp teeth.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

Congratulations President Obama

2011-05-02T15:31:00.007-05:00

And to President Bush as well.

Convincing Proof: Obama Is A Phony

2011-04-27T22:28:00.001-05:00

You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. ~ Abraham Lincoln

At long last, Barack Hussein Obama has released his birth certificate, and now the issue of his citizenship and subsequent eligibility to be President is finally put to rest, right?

Of course, who could argue with this solid proof?

Click to enlarge.

Seriously, folks. This astounds me. Who, besides the willfully ignorant, could accept this obvious forgery as legitimate?

I won't lie. I have thought this issue a mere distraction for a long time. There has been no question in my mind that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. Of that, I had no doubt. All the suppositions and assumptions and convincing arguments could not convince me that Obama is not a legal natural born citizen of the United States.

Now that he has released his "actual birth certificate", I'm no longer so sure. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the obvious problems with this "document".

Look at the upper left hand corner. And then, compare the left border with the right border. See anything strange?

The so-called birth certificate was obviously and poorly cut and pasted onto a background with a nearly identical pattern. My God, the forger didn't even bother to trim the edges to complete the illusion of authenticity. He simply cut the forgery out and pasted it onto a nearly identical background pattern.

One would think in three years the forger could have perfected his art.

My 7-year old grandson could do a better, more convincing job.

Next, and probably most damning, look at the box labeled, "Race" beside his father's name.

African?

Since when is Africa a race?

There are white people native to Africa. I'll bet there are Asians who are native to Africa. Is the continent of birth their race?

Obama was presumably born in 1961. (I say "presumably", because after this fallacy, nothing about the origins of Obama is certain) No one has ever disputed that fact.

But, I digress. Does anyone want to venture a guess as to what the proper and accepted term for a black person was in 1961? I'll spoil the fun for you.

It was "Negro".

Or, if that box on the document were to be consistent with the mother's race (which is recorded to be, "Caucasian") the race should read, "Negroid". Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be "African".

See, back in 1961, there were three sub races within the all encompassing human race:

Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid, although the third was sometimes called Asian instead. I have never heard of a fourth race called "African".

I really don't know what to think about Obama's intent here.

I can't decide whether I think Obama is stupid or he thinks we are stupid, or if he is simply so arrogant and narcissistic, he doesn't really care if we buy his flim-flam or not.

At any rate, I am no longer convinced he is legitimate.

And, I know I am not alone.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

A Not-So-Pithy Review...

2011-04-22T14:48:00.005-05:00

I typically offer pithy reviews on personal blog. But as the book from which this film is drawn still finds relevance in the hearts and minds millions, here then is a not-so-pithy review of the low-budget Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

The Continued Relevance of Ayn Rand’s Villains

On Saturday, my parents called to report they had driven an hour into Reno, Nevada, to see Paul Johansson’s adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. Despite the film’s strongly negative reviews, the theater was full. Curiously, this scene was true across the nation this weekend, as the film brought in more than 1.6 million despite only opening in 300 theaters: an average of $5,600 per theater, leaving it behind only the heavily advertised films Rio and Scream 4.

Unfortunately, the quality of this adaptation is representative of its low budget and brief production time. The film meticulously retains the original plot of Rand’s opus, going so far as to lift much of the dialogue directly out of the novel. However, due to the large amount of material being covered, the result leaps through the original plot line in a somewhat disjointed portrayal, which can be difficult to follow. While Johansson is to be commended for finally bringing Atlas Shrugged to cinema after almost 40 years of negotiations, delays, and difficulties, it is disappointing that the end result is not more impressive.

Despite the film’s mediocre quality, its end was met by a surprising response in Reno on Saturday. As the main character, Dagny Taggart, climbs a flame-engulfed hill to be confronted with the destruction of petroleum magnate Ellis Wyatt’s oil fields — the lifeblood of what little remained of the American economy — she screams in terror. The camera pulls away, revealing Wyatt’s parting farewell: “I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It’s yours.”

The crowded theater began to applaud.

While some people of all ideological persuasions, including libertarians, find Ayn Rand’s rather idiosyncratic beliefs and obscure moral code distasteful, the theater’s reaction captures the hidden resonance of her greatest work on grounds she would not have completely anticipated. Indeed, many of the film’s difficulties are less the fault of the director, and more of Rand herself. The primary protagonists of the book are emotionless industrialists, stilted and one-dimensional in their behaviors, thinking only of metal, railroads, and factories.

Atlas Shrugged is compelling, not for its heroes, but for its villains. Published in 1957, Rand’s description of politicians and lobbyists in a time of economic crisis is almost prophetic. These Washington insiders scheme behind closed doors to retain and expand their power. In elaborate press conferences, they attempt to convince the unsuspecting populace of their legislation’s necessity by vilifying productive companies and portraying their own destructive, self-serving designs as being in the interests of the advancement of equality, stability, and progress.

For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, the lobbyist Wesley Mouch decries the capitalist Hank Rearden’s invention of a wonderful alloy that is stronger than steel. And last week, in the real world, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. took to the house floor to declare that Steve Jobs’s iPad was killing jobs. Congress must, according to Jackson, recognize that Apple is driving companies such as Barnes & Noble and Borders out of business, and the company should be stopped in the interests of fairness.

Jackson decried Congress for failing to foster “protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American people are being put to work.” It’s as if he wanted us to believe the printing press was harmful to the economy because it decreased the demand for scribes. Such a condemnation of a successful business and a demand for protection of failing industries could easily have been lifted directly from Rand’s novel.

However, the similarities are not restricted to a lone Democratic congressman. Similar absurd arguments were bountiful on both sides of the aisle in debates about policies ranging from Obamacare to the bailouts. Americans are directed to believe that if they would just allow the federal government to act in order to prevent further change in the economy, then stability could be restored.

It is this paltry masquerade of politicians feigning action and granting themselves greater power in the name of equality and economic stability that leads Americans to Rand’s story. Indeed, Republicans and Democrats both put on a charade of activity last week, claiming to remedy our nation’s budget woes. Both parties threatened to shut down the government over a series of austerity measures amounting to a final savings of $352 million this fiscal year. That’s $352 million out of budget deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion, or .02 percent of what would be required to actually balance the budget. Politicians bickered over funding for relatively low-cost line items like NPR and Planned Parenthood, all the while ignoring the harsh reality that our public debt is on track to surpass our GDP.

In other words, Republicans and Democrats have managed to mortgage the entire household worth of the United States. Their remedy for this self-imposed tragedy? Grant themselves greater power through increased regulations and rising taxes.

With each repeated failure of federal action to remedy our economic situation, politicians reveal themselves more fully to the American people as nothing but self-serving villains. Their strategy relies on the appearance of action coupled with soaring rhetoric to convince Americans of their good deeds. Meanwhile, these politicians are gambling with our lives and prosperity, risking the well-being of hard-working individuals in thoughtless policies designed merely to secure reelection.

It is due to her apt depiction of these self-serving villains that Ayn Rand’s novel has climbed to number four on the top-sellers list on Amazon and that the film is likely to do far better than its mediocre quality would merit. Americans are growing tired of politicians gambling away their prosperity to preserve their own power. The crowd in Reno applauded as Ellis Wyatt walked away, not because he was some great hero, but because they understood the pain of working tirelessly while a reckless and unproductive government needlessly spends away the results of your labor and rewards your hard work with mounting regulations.

The idea of walking away has become attractive — and indeed, Americans are increasingly leaving the United States for opportunities abroad, with record numbers emigrating to Australia and East Asia.

So long as Ayn Rand’s villains continue to resemble the reality in Washington, the story of Atlas Shrugged will remain popular. The average American may not be a powerful railroad executive or steel magnate, but most believe they are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Many are beginning to realize that their future is being gambled away by politicians whose only risk is losing the votes of the individuals who have lost everything.

Regards,
J. Patrick Rhamey, Jr
April 22, 2011

------------------------

Wow! that last paragraph! Imagine that! A review which, like the book itself, closely resembles the truth of our present day to day struggle.

For anyone interested in where this article came from, follow the link below and register for the free email newsletter, or just bookmark the website. There's good financial news and perspective for one and all...

Whiskey and Gunpowder
Fostering Economic and Independent Thought

It Depends Upon Which Side of the Cockpit You Sit

2011-04-21T09:49:00.007-05:00

...but no one is served if we choose only to see what is outside our own window.

Do they suffer from fatal optimism? Or do they simply want what they want no matter who gets killed? ...metaphorically speaking

Scream if you want to go faster...

2011-04-18T15:38:00.005-05:00

Standard & Poor: Heck Of a Job, Obama
The outlook for U.S. debt is not good.
--by John Hayward
April 18, 2011

If you've noticed a bit of a dip in the stock market today, one of the reasons is the new report from Standard & Poor's debt rating service, which downgraded the outlook for United States government debt from "Stable" to "Negative."

This isn't an actual downgrading of our debt rating – you'll know right away when that happens, because you’ll see toads, blood, and stockbrokers raining outside your window. Rather, it's meant as a warning – to both investors and the U.S. government. It means there is a one-in-three chance the United States will lose its AAA credit rating in the next two years.

Although S&P believe America's economic strengths "currently outweigh what we consider to be the U.S.'s meaningful economic and fiscal risks and large external debtor position," they have begun to doubt those strengths will "full offset the credit risks over the next two years." They're worried about our high level of debt, and while they appreciate the beginning of a serious conversation between the parties about deficit reduction, they "see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide." They probably were not reassured when President Obama threw a temper tantrum on stage at George Washington University and insisted that uncontrolled government spending is the key to patriotism.

Naturally, the clueless crowd at the White House – the people who brought you a "new normal" of high unemployment and soaring gas prices – dismissed the report as so much balloon juice. Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, is quoted by MSNBC as saying Standard & Poor is "making a political judgment, and it's one we don’t agree with." Oh, good, so our credit rating is safe as long as Austan Goolsbee protects us by sneering at the "political judgment" of the guys who actually issue that credit rating.

The loss of our AAA credit rating would deal profound damage to an already rickety federal budget. We're paying hundreds of billions in interest every year on over $14 trillion of debt. A lower credit rating would raise the interest on that debt by billions of dollars, as well as making foreign buyers less eager to purchase American dollars. If the government responded by printing more money, it could trigger the kind of hyperinflation spiral that ends with hundred-dollar loaves of bread. No one should be under any illusions about the ability of the current Administration to resist the temptation of printing money to escape a fiscal crisis.

Liberal Democrats won't pay a moment's heed to the dire warnings from Standard & Poor. Instead, they'll draw the exact opposite of the proper conclusion, and use the report as a club to beat anyone who resists raising the debt ceiling next month. They should read S&P's statement more carefully. The analysts don't think our problem is that we're not borrowing enough money.

America, and its liberal elite, will learn the meaning of the word "unsustainable" when Standard & Poor chooses to advise the investors of the world to stop sustaining them. That decision will not be subject to the approval of Barack Obama or any of his advisors.

--------------

From the S&P report:

"On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his Administration’s medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed at reducing the cumulative unified federal deficit by US$4 trillion in 12 years or less. A key component of the Administration’s strategy is to work with Congressional leaders over the next two months to develop a commonly agreed upon program to reach this target..."

What really leaped out at me was the text I emphasized. I thought Obama produced a new budget? But this report appears to back up what others have been saying... there is no plan. Obama went out, and in a petulant, classless speech told everyone what he wants to see in "his" new budget, but now it's up to the "Gang of Six" in the senate to come to an agreement-- they appear to be holding all the cards.

Talk has been, if the US doesn't increase oil production soon we're looking at $5 a gallon gasoline. If the conflicts in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, etc., spill over into Saudi Arabia, we're looking at further decreases in oil production.

Can we afford to await clean renewable technologies to save us from the very likely events that could cripple our economy? No, even if we start drilling tomorrow morning we wouldn't have oil filling barrels for at least a year, but every moment we wait for clean technologies to save our environmentally conscious souls the specter of economic disaster looms closer.

Sometimes what we want has to take a back seat to what we really need. If only our president understood this.

More from the S&P report:

"Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also advocated fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, during the coming 10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

"We view President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible."

Can the US economy wait until after the 2012 elections? If democrats retain the senate and Obama the White House, we're at a stalemate, and the problem worsens. Both parties are intractable in their ideologies.

I find it interesting that Standard & Poor sees BOTH plans as a foundation for a good start, and that good things "could result." The problem, again, is two diametrically opposed political forces which will work their positions to the detriment of the country. It's not about the future of this nation-- except as lip-service --for either, but for one more than the other. What it's really about is the consolidation of political power.

[Naturally I believe there's less of this in the republican party, but who reading this is surprised to hear it?]

If Obama loses-- as many expect --and democrats retain power in the senate, and republicans in the house, there's a greater chance of moving fiscal sanity forward. But from where I sit, the biggest obstacle to genuine, responsible, fiscal change is the democrat-led senate.

This country is barreling pell-mell toward an uncertain future, and one party appears hell-bent on maintaining a status quo that is no longer sustainable. Scream if you want to go faster. Make hay while you can. Rock till you drop... Or bite the bullet, and step back from the edge.

The choice should be apparent to all. But apparently it's not.

Questions to Consider

2011-04-15T11:15:00.009-05:00

[Something to truly be proud of...]

Reports indicate abortion is the leading cause of death within the African-American community in the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973 -- the year of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade -- 13 million African-American lives have been lost to abortion.

"Between abortion and black-on-black crime, as a people group we're exterminating ourselves. We're not loving our children in the womb or outside of the womb... So I have to do whatever it is that I can do to help save babies' lives and to make an impact on our culture.

"We've become a culture of death -- and I want to be one of those used by God to move us from a culture of death to a culture of life.

"Less than two percent of the African-American population is involved actively in the pro-life movement... So any of the babies who have been saved -- our babies -- have been because there's been people who aren't concerned about the color. So [while] I say thank you to that... I also say it's time for my culture to wake up and to become involved."

Currently in Congress, every member of the Congressional Black Caucus identifies himself or herself as "pro-choice." Elliott laments that fact.

Elliott, who is a minister, author, and conference speaker, says she is devoted to helping men and women in becoming who God created them to become. "We are the head of every criminal activity. We have more babies die from [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] -- there's something wrong," says the ministry leader. "And I believe the something that's wrong is we've moved away from our first love, which is Jesus Christ."

--Dr. Peggy Elliot on Genocide Within the African-American Community

Can anyone answer me why the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP are more concerned with promoting the Democrat platform to the expense of the needs of their own people? Are they blinded to what's happening within their own community and culture by a granted role and promise of power? Why doesn't the African-American community itself (not it's so-called leaders) see what is being done to them? Is it a spiritual fault within the community or is the fault of governmental interference?

What is it about liberal policy positions that make otherwise bright-minded individuals stumble about in the dark? Do they prefer the darkness I would characterize as an institutionalized 'lack of personal responsibility' offered them in place of the light of truth-- a scales falling from the eyes' kind of understanding?

Do some liberal policies, however well-meaning, promote the abandonment of deeper spiritual truths? How do conservative policies compare? Is there a moral difference between the two camps stated and defended general policies?

If genuine truth is the desired outcome of any public discussion, which side, conservative, liberal, (or neither), is closer to that 'scales falling from the eyes' variety?

Promote the general welfare...

2011-04-15T10:01:00.003-05:00

What does it mean?

Here's what various places on the web (with no effort to pick and choose on my part) have to say:

From Answers.com:

"Welfare" means health, happiness, prosperity or well-being.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that nothing in the preamble grants legislative power.

"Welfare" should not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole preamble - the idea of the preamble is simply that the founders of our nation think that the proposed system of governance would naturally result in the items listed in the preamble. Be very cautious to not confuse result and causation.

"General welfare" is one of the ostensible results of our system of governance.

Turning the tables around and saying that "general welfare" is a legislative goal is entirely corrupt and against what the founders were saying.

The founders defined "welfare" as a result - a natural consequence. Those who would incorrectly have you believe that it is a legislative objective try to rewrite history by making a consequential result into an active cause.

From CUSDI.org:

The Preamble declares that: "We the People of the United States .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning is clear that all authority originates from the People.

The meaning of the word Welfare in the Constitution is different from its current usage. The constitutional meaning of welfare is: 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [ME wel faren, to fare well]

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

From Lawandliberty.org:

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.

Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not.

There are, I know, other sites with far different takes. Seems to me, however, that this much is true: The Preamble gives an overview of what the Constitution, as an outline of rights, and sundry duties granted to the states and federal government, ultimately amounts to for the United States of America. As such, it further makes sense that the Preamble does not contain any legislative mandates to either the States or the Federal government. The 10th amendment therefore defines what is and is not allowed to the federal government. The commerce clause is a bit murkier, and has grown murkier since it's inclusion.

Another thing. It should be undeniable that the meaning of words change over time-- 'Queer' used to mean 'strange.' 'Gay' used to mean 'happy.' What did the words 'general welfare' mean in context of 17th century understanding? I can tell you what it didn't mean. What it didn't mean was near half the populace on the public dole, in some form or fashion. The meaning and expected performance of our Constitution has been bastardized over long decades of misinterpretation (intentional or ignorantly, makes no difference), however well-meaning by men and women on both sides of the aisle. We are in this mess because of discretionary and entitlement spending... areas in our budget this president is ignoring in his non-budget fix.

There IS No Plan!

2011-04-14T08:18:00.004-05:00

He punted. Biden slept.

I can't take this shit-for-brains president seriously.

Where's the plan? All he did was give a speech. And a partisan, 'hey! I'm back on the campaign trail,' one at that! His plan, from all I've heard, doesn't even exist on paper... yet. Ryan's budget is real. Obama's is a phantom, a hat trick. It raises the deficit by twelve trillion in spite of it's 4 trillion in cuts?

WTF!?

This man is supposed to be smart! That's what they all tell us. But I see no evidence of it. What I do see is the worst president in American history. The biggest liar. A racist. And a man with a lot to hide.

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, if this man wins reelection, this country will cease to be the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. America will be shat out the dark puckered hole of history, and Obama will have been the catalyst-- that final grunt and push, if you will --if not the direct cause. And I say, 'if not' because we too share culpability in this nation's coming demise. If we do not get a hold of our finances, cut spending, reform entitlements, and simplify as well as plug up the loops holes in the tax code the United States of America I grew up to respect and adore will be gone.

Obama is not so stupid he can't see this. He see's it, and doesn't care. It sickens me to know that this country has so successfully been undermined-- primarily by public education --that near half the nation would sooner drink piss and eat shit rather than vote this buffoon out of office.

This is one reason senators make poor presidents! What is wrong with America if it thinks a man with less than 60 days in-house experience in the Senate prior to declaring his candidacy has what it takes to run this nation? Is America so F\[*ed in the head stupid that this sounded like a good idea?

I firmly believe that Obama will be remembered-- assuming there is an America TO remember --as the worst president in American history.

I'm too angry right now to be rational. So take this post for what it is... the rantings of an extremely pissed conservative who has been slapped in the face by president Obama one too many times.

MAYDAY!

2011-04-10T08:15:00.003-05:00

Read this article.

This is the audiotape to which the article refers:

I leave this here without comment for the readers. What do you think?

A Headline & Righteous Anger, and Indignation

2011-04-08T15:36:00.006-05:00

President Obama to Enslave US Military in Order to Protect Abortion Funding
Planned Parenthood protected. Armed Forces go unpaid.

"Jesse Jackson says the government shutdown would be a return to the Civil War. If today's troops still engage in battle -- if they go to war and execute the orders -- but are not paid by their commander-in-chief, are they his slaves? It sure sounds like Obama has more in common with President Jefferson Davis than he does with President Lincoln."

[...]

"What's a few dead babies between friends? President Obama has no problem ordering a moratorium on drilling for oil, but he will not support a moratorium on drilling for babies."

--Rush, April 8, 2011

The best way to beat Liberals, in ANY election, is to play them at their own game. Hit first, hit hard, do not ease your attack, keep them on the defensive, give them no opportunity to establish a beach head. In other words, Alinsky rule no. 13

"Identify, isolate, freeze and escalate."

Prime example. When Boener and Reid appear at a microphone together Boener should make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that we are in this position because democrats; Reid, Pelosi, AND president Obama failed to provide or pass a budget for two years. Call them out every time they attempt to blame a stiff-necked GOP by pointing out, repeatedly, in the microphone, at every opportunity, that Democrats have failed to do their job; that all their tears spill from crocodile eyes; for if they truly cared about their precious government and the people it purports to help they would have ensured it was funded when it was their job to do so.

Democrats are not interested in returning to fiscal sanity. All they want to do is spend. And tax. They have no desire to cut. They want everyone on some form of government assistance. They want a populace enslaved by government, for the purpose of empowering government, to the detriment of the very people the government is supposed to protect. Democrats are pushing a fascist ideological world-view; they are not interested in personal responsibility, for themselves especially. They view the American people as piggy-banks to be upended and shook till every last penny spills from their pockets. They will not be happy until everyone is miserable. Except for themselves, of course. Didn't Orwell kind of presage this day at the end of Animal Farm? I think he did!

The more I hear them bemoaning the shutdown of this, that or the other, I can only think that this was deliberate on their part. They wanted a shutdown, this year, because they believe that, just like the shutdowns in 1994-5, the GOP will be blamed. And if this is what they have really done; that they really planned this crisis for just this reason, they don't deserve to be in office. They don't deserve to be called American. Not one single conservative or member of the GOP should feel the slightest compunction toward civility with democrats. If they are deliberately spending this nation into insolvency and collapse while cynically staging a shutdown scenario to blame their opponents, the fires of hell are not hot enough for this collection of rat dropping we "affectionately" call democrats. If the democratic leadership has actually done this on purpose, the gloves are off! It's time to blacken their eyes, kick them in the proverbial nuts, and kick and spit on them while they're down. They'll deserve nothing better. I'm talking destruction here. I mean utterly destroy them. Not physically, mind you, but politically, financially, personally. Give them nothing to turn to but God... where they can beg forgiveness and a reprieve from the Hell they so richly deserve.

For the record, I do not believe the GOP will take the fall for this. The American people know where the blame lies, even if democrats do not. Every time they open their misbegotten pie-holes I have to fight the urge to puke. And there's nothing I hate worse than puking...

Obama - Lost in the Grass.

2011-04-05T11:08:00.007-05:00

Why Hillary Clinton must run in 2012
--John Phillips, Los Angeles Times

Hillary voters weren't swooned by Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries and many are abandoning him in public opinion surveys today. But are they mad enough to ride the elephant in 2012?

Get out the saddle, because that's exactly what they did in 2010.

In the midterm elections, while it's true the Democrats were routed everywhere, they got especially creamed in states where Hillary did well. In House races, the Democrats lost four seats in Florida, six in New York, five in Ohio, four in Pennsylvania and three in Texas –- all states Hillary carried in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Meanwhile, the Democrats strengthened their hand in places that went heavily for Obama in 2008 –- with pickups in Hawaii, Delaware and the MSNBC prime-time lineup.

The lesson: Hillary voters aren't only willing to pull the plug on their fellow Democrats -– they're willing to yank it like they're starting a lawn mower.

I would love to see hillary pushing that mower.

The Emperors New Clothes

2011-04-05T10:50:00.003-05:00

It's all about appearances...

...cause there certainly isn't any substance to liberal fear-mongering.

The Nebulous Interests & Values of Barack Obama

2011-04-01T11:12:00.004-05:00

From today's edition of the Patriot Post...

Much Nothing About Ado
--Friday, April 1, 2011

We didn't think it possible for a president to present a nationally televised speech on a "kinetic military action" for roughly half an hour and say virtually nothing, but we were wrong. Late to decide on a course of action at all, Barack Obama's address to America on his nine-day-old decision to impose a no-fly zone over Libya was likewise late-to-need. The empty prattle had no substance so the speech would have been equally effective had Mr. Nobel-Peace-Prize-Winner given it on the same day he ordered all those "peaceful" bombs to rain down on Libyan heads.

Timely or not, we still would have liked to hear several statements that weren't included in the president's used-car pitch. Among these was an explanation for why the president didn't ask Congress for approval before giving the go-ahead order to bomb Libya -- a nation posing no imminent danger to the U.S. It also would have been nice to hear exactly what America's vital national interests are in Libya. If the answer -- as some left-pundits have posited -- is, "It's the oil, stupid," then let's hear that from the president.

Instead, Obama declared, "Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act." He took "time-limited, scope-limited" military action over "values"? Truly progressive

Read it all here

And no, Jim... president Obama did not consult Congress prior to engaging Libyan airspace with a barrage of tomahawks, and air-support for the Libyan rebels, some of whom are members of al-Qaeda.

Here's some more idiocy from the Left, courtesy of Matt Lauer... what a doofus!

Obama's M.A.

2011-03-31T16:17:00.004-05:00

It's a fine, fine illustration of bad Photoshop by yours truly, but it illustrates a point... a point made by the Bam himself

Quote...

"Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gadhafi and usher in a new government...

"In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners."

Mission Accomplished.

And now, to the above bit of mocker... er satire... add scathing review.

The president’s speech
Being a leader is about more than reading off a teleprompter
--Washington Times Editorial, Monday, March 28, 2011

When King George VI gave his Sept. 3, 1939, war message to the people of the British Empire, it was a time of great moment. It was a “grave hour,” he began, “perhaps the most fateful in our history.” The king said that “for the second time in the lives of most of us, we are at war.” That, however, was back when war was war. Now it is just kinetic military activity.

The king’s speech, so recently dramatized in an Oscar-winning film starring Colin Firth, was significant because though George VI suffered a speech impediment, his message was of the highest importance. President Obama, by contrast, has always been given ludicrously high marks for his abilities as an orator but seldom has anything substantive to say.

Mr. Obama waited nine days after U.S. forces began to engage in hostilities in Libya to make a major address to the nation. He initially avoided making more than perfunctory remarks because U.S. involvement in the nonwar was supposed to be brief and limited. But as the kinetic became more frenetic, and Mr. Obama didn’t see the favorable bump in public opinion most presidents enjoy after unleashing military force, he was compelled to address the issue head on. Unbeknownst to the novice commander in chief, Mr. Obama faces a mass of contradictions that makes this conflict a hard sell.
Mr. Obama has started a war that is not a war.

Mr. Obama is using military force, but his secretary of defense says there is no vital American interest involved.

Mr. Obama sold the country and the United Nations on a no-fly zone, but coalition forces are targeting Libyan ground troops.

Mr. Obama’s mandate was to protect civilian lives, but he is actively siding with the rebellion.

Mr. Obama has praised the “legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people,” but many of the rebels are Islamist radicals and even members of al Qaeda.

Mr. Obama has gone to war to prevent a “bloodbath” in Libya but only offers empty words to innocent Syrians being gunned down by the Assad dictatorship.

Mr. Obama has said the United States is not seeking to force regime change but believes that Moammar Gadhafi “has to go.”

Mr. Obama said there would be no “boots on the ground” in Libya but reports are emerging that some boots have landed.

Mr. Obama said the operation would be handed over to NATO but the United States will still be doing the heavy lifting.

Mr. Obama said Operation Odyssey Dawn would be limited to “days, not weeks,” but now it is projected to go on for months, or longer.

Mr. Obama denounced his predecessor President George W. Bush for unilateralism but the O Force has gone to war with no congressional authorization, fewer coalition partners and weaker support from the Arab world.
All of these contradictions were of the president’s making and are the product of trying to preserve an exalted image that now only a few members of the White House inner circle still believe. The Nobel Prize-winning man of peace who expanded America’s wars; the champion of Muslims who only helps them when it’s convenient; and the great global leader who continually emphasizes America’s declining influence: What a long strange odyssey the Obama presidency has become.

Ouch! Bad marks for the boy king.

Because it Illustrates a Point We've Been Making...

2011-03-29T16:48:00.006-05:00

...from the beginning.

The following headline lifted from 'Rush in a Hurry' show notes, March 29, 2011

Barack Obama, King of the World, is Undoing American Sovereignty

He went to the UN, not the US Congress, for approval on bombing Libya.

The weakest, most dangerous president in living memory.

This does illustrate beautifully the reasons for my, and I dare say, Mark and Marshall's disdain for president Barack H. Obama. There are other things we may disagree on as to which is worse, or not as bad as we thought might be the case, but the simple truth is our disdain is based upon his ideology, his pre-campaign activities, and actions since becoming president. And little, if nothing more.

Dick Morris today illustrates just how naive the man-child is:

Obama On The Hook
by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

With each of his policies, Obama takes a gamble. If they work, he's OK. If they don't, he's on the hook for the outcome. Consider the extent of his exposure:

His involvement in Libya makes him responsible if Gaddafi stays in power and slaughters his own people and/or renews his connections with international terrorism. Obama will be equally responsible should Gaddafi be toppled and an Iraqi-style civil war erupts between his deposed supporters and the new government. As General Powell said "you break it, you own it."

His support for the rebellion in Egypt and his action in forcing Mubarak from power makes him responsible should the Muslim Brotherhood take over the nation and use it as a basis for promoting terrorism and battling Israel, undoing the Camp David accords.

Obama's anti-oil drilling policies make him vulnerable should oil prices resume their upward march, particularly so if the Saudi monarchy is toppled and prices surge. In that event, he will be subject to blame for encouraging the wave or revolutions on the one hand and neglecting our domestic energy resources on the other.

Attorney General Eric Holder's weakening of our domestic anti-terror efforts and his curbs on investigatory tactics make Obama responsible for any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Should the economy enter a double dip recession, it will be Obama's recession. No longer will the public blame Bush, but they will realize that it is Obama's policies which have led to disaster.
That's all a lot for a president to have on his plate. But Obama keeps helping himself to more responsibility without clear exit strategies and with only a hope and a prayer standing between him and disaster. He is now so dependent on the actions of other players -- Egyptian Muslims, Libyan rebels, Saudi insurgents, domestic terrorists, and global economic forces -- that he is no longer in control of his own destiny.

He is now truly the hostage of events. Not a good place for a president facing re-election to be.

Obama is in deep doo-doo. As bad as that is in and of itself, consider also that he's in way over his head; he's way out at the back fence, it's night, and there are landmines of poop scattered all the way to the porch. And the only thing that can save his brogans from getting covered in poop is the light from his own halo.

I hate to say it-- and if I'm to be honest I have to say it --but I hope he makes it to the back step unscathed. For all our sakes. The last thing we need is the most powerful man in the world tracking s--t though the house.

Nine Day After The Bombs Begin Falling...

2011-03-28T16:05:00.001-05:00

...the anointed one finally deigns to speak to the American people.

Here, truly, is a war for oil. Not for the U.S., no... but for Europe. We're blasting Qadaffi so Europe can keep the spice flowing.

When a "No-Fly Zone" is not a NO-FLY Zone...

2011-03-23T14:13:00.003-05:00

...and is instead a "war."

Obama's so-called no-fly zone has never, at any time since its beginning, been a mission to keep Qadaffi's air-strikes against civilian targets in check. Instead we are bombing airfields, communications complexes, ground-based armor.... America does not need another war.

Obama fails on this one. We're not patrolling the skies; keeping the Libyan air-force from decimating civilians. What we're doing is actively attacking ground targets in similar fashion to the build up to the invasion of Iraq.

Wisconsin Wins Battle...

2011-03-14T09:17:00.001-05:00

...War Still To Be Decided

Stilling a Heartbeat is Murder.

2011-03-03T15:56:00.005-06:00

Whether by Gun or by Scalpel should make no difference. Using the excuse that the procedure is legal misses the point. Stoning is legal in Iran; does that make it right? An Iranian woman raped by a stranger (or any man for that matter) can be stoned for adultery, while the perpetrator(s) goes unpunished. I see no difference in the crime that is abortion in America. The perpetrators go unpunished while the innocent are murdered for the crime of being inconvenient.

But there is hope for these littlest of victims, at least in Ohio-- a slim hope, but hope nonetheless. Some in America haven't given up the fight.

An Ohio House committee has received testimony from the youngest people ever to do so.

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 3/3/2011

State lawmakers in Ohio are considering the "Heartbeat Bill," which would prohibit aborting of babies who have a detectable heartbeat, which is medically evident as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, who is regarded as the architect of the bill, explains the unique testimony that committee members heard on Wednesday -- from the womb.

"We had an unborn child -- we actually had two of them. They not only were seen but they were also heard," Porter shares. "...We were able to zoom in on their beating hearts and with the aid of an ultrasound we could hear them as well -- and I'm hoping that it will move the hearts of legislators to pass the Heartbeat Bill."

Janet Porter, the ministry leader and pro-life activist believes the audible testimony of the unborn babies, both only a few weeks in the womb, changed some hearts among committee members.

"I believe we saw some people who were surprised at just how clearly the sound of that heartbeat is and how you could see it so clearly, especially in the 15-week unborn baby," she shares. "It was interesting that the ultrasound could also make it in color so that the heart appeared orange and it was beating -- and it really jumped off the screen."

Porter also tells OneNewsNow that some 50 of 99 Ohio House members have signed on to the bill. If passed by both chambers and signed into law, the bill will be the most protective of life in the nation.

From Business Insider

2011-03-01T17:21:00.008-06:00

Here's The Only Chart You Need To See
To Understand Why The US Is Screwed

Here's the link to the story.

And here it is, a link to the companion story: Your Short Course On Why The US Is Screwed, which explains exactly why it is we're screwed.

Judging by what I saw, there doesn't appear to be a way out of this one... Certainly not with Obama at the helm, or any Republican for that matter without balls enough to drastically cut our budget. Including, and especially, entitlements.

Democrats and Republicans both... but especially Democrats... are going to have to man up. We can't continue on this path of fiscal recklessness. We are swiftly ceasing to be a great nation. Some may think that's a good thing, but weak nations don't remain free for very long. They get invaded.

A Few Headlines of Note...

2011-02-28T09:30:00.010-06:00

...just to get your blood boiling!

Rush Limbaugh: "Planned Parenthood, Doing The Job The Klan Could Never Finish"

Yes, it's a revolting thing to have to say, but it is nonetheless true. Planned Parenthood has its origins in Margaret Sanger, a eugenics proponent, who publicly defended the idea of the sterilization of blacks, the handicapped, and the general dregs of society.

"The Most Dangerous Place for an African-American is in the Womb"

And, it seems, the niece of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King agrees. In 2009 59.85% of all abortions in New York City were performed on African American women. In this country today, Genocide is being committed upon the African American population! If only liberals could see it, and do the right thing. And what would the right thing be, you ask? Stop defending the evil practice.

Obama to be Tried by Muslims 'When They Take Over U.S.?

Hey, Duckie! Is there a more kinder, gentler version of Sharia than this? One that recognizes women as having innate, God-bequeathed value? A Sharia where noses and clitoris' are honored as belonging to the women who possess them? As in, not to be cut off willy-nilly because some gray-bearded bastard doesn't want women to enjoy their lives? What better way to keep them in burkas, eh? Cut their noses off so they actually HAVE something to hide!

Now, I'll grant you; this chowder-headed guy [Anjem Choudary] from Great Britain is a nut-job. But then, so is everyone else who refuses to believe that it is not the goal of Islam to impose Sharia in the U.S., and everywhere else on earth.

Sting, in his first solo album, Dream of the Blue Turtles, beautifully expressed the foolishness of nuclear war in the song, "Russians." I would add to his sentiment, here and now, and say it would be equally foolish of the West to allow Islam unchecked freedom within its borders if we do indeed love our children... especially our daughters.

If you want to call that bigotry, fine. But according to my bible, Islam is a false religion, and I'm to give it no quarter. I am to love my neighbors, but that love should be expressed through the earnest desire and attempt to lead them to Christ. There is freedom in Christ, but there is only slavery and degradation, and eternal damnation, in Islam.

Arrogance and Lawlessness

2011-02-25T16:21:00.005-06:00

What is most stunning about this abject failure of a president is the blatant hypocrisy and lawlessness of his day-to-day mismanagement of our country. The president of the United States thinks himself above the law. Equally stunning is the number of people who support his lawlessness; making excuses for his blunders, failures and flouting of the law. Didn't this man take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, so help him God? Oh that's right, he's a constitutional scholar and he knows more about the law than the Supreme and federal courts, and he can do what he wants despite his oath because he's not a Christian worthy of the name.

Some of you who choose to read what follows will shoot it down simply because of who said it. And as to your objections, I couldn't care less. If you believe what Obama is doing is within his "right" as president, you're a fool, and idiot, unlearned, and I don't have to take you seriously.

If this were a REPUBLICAN president, doing what Obama is doing, but favoring conservative ideology instead... you aforementioned fools, idiots, and ignoramuses, would be dropping like flies from burst aneurysms and foaming-at-the-mouth apoplexy; choking on your own vomit. Which makes you all hypocrites and, again, I don't have to take you seriously. I can't even imagine what it must be like to think like you... I mean, how could you be so thoroughly devoid of sense and sensibility? to say nothing of honor and integrity?

Anyway, here it is...

Hey, folks, let's pretend for just a second. Pretend that you are the smartest person in the room, the wisest person in the world. Pretend that you are Barack Obama, President of the United States. At this moment in time, what do you focus on? What do you really "focus on like a laser"? With everything going on in the world and the country today, what do you make the biggest priority and the biggest production out of? The jobs we need and aren't getting? The exploding deficit that threatens our future? How about the soaring price of oil and the fact that we have shut down a lot of our own domestic production?

The price of oil around the world is skyrocketing. The Saudis are talking about ramping up their production. How about the crisis in the Middle East? I mean, for heaven's sake, "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste," right? We have a crisis in the Middle East, we have no job creation, the deficit continues to explode, the price of oil is soaring. We are doing nothing about compensating for that in our own country. How about Wisconsin? If you're president, the smartest person in the world, you focus on government unions and how they are choking state budgets? Do you focus on the border where unchecked illegal immigration continues?

You're The Messiah! Tell me, what do you focus on? And what's the answer?

Gay marriage.

Out of all the things going on in the country, in the world today, Obama makes a big production out of gay marriage. This is not... No, this is not a stunt. Obama, he knows how to stir the liberals. He knows how to massage the media. Of all the things going on, what do we get as a primary focus from our own president? Declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act is something he doesn't like anymore, and so he's not gonna defend it. What exactly is Obama's Plan B for oil? If the Middle East erupts entirely, what is his Plan C, what's his Plan D? He doesn't have any plan for it, because everything he does is oriented toward: How can it help him. He's out playing to the base. He's flying out to Silicon Valley last week to raise campaign cash.

It's always about him. He jumps into Arizona to pander to ethnic groups. He jumps into Wisconsin to pander to the NEA, the SEIU, and other unions. We are watching a president of the United States turn this country over to his cronies in and out of government, in and out of business and labor. This is quite a display of arrogance, ideological, self-serving arrogance. I've never seen it before in a president. I've never seen a president that does not put his country first. I've never seen that. But we're watching it right before our very eyes. His first question is always: "What will this do for me?" Whatever the issue is, whatever the story is, whatever the event is: "What will this do for me?"

And of course The Politico gets right in on the action, covering it all as a game. Their headline: "Little Downside Seen for DOMA Call." Little downside for a president acting in an unconstitutional manner simply saying, "You know, I don't like that law, I'm not gonna defend it anymore." It's a law duly passed by the representatives of the people. It has not been challenged at the US Supreme Court. He does not have the authority to declare it unconstitutional. He does not have that power. He does not have the power to say, "I'm not gonna defend it anymore," and the Politico does a story: Can he get hurt by this? We don't think so. "Little Downside Seen for DOMA Call."

Well, okay, then. If there's "little downside seen" for a president to act in ways he is not empowered to according to the law, then the next conservative president can say, based on Obama's precedent, "You know what? Obamacare is unconstitutional. I am therefore directing my attorney general to stop defending it. It doesn't exist. We've looked at it, I've never been comfortable with it, and it's just unconstitutional. We're not gonna defend it anymore." A conservative president could say, "I am directing my attorney general to stop defending the EPA's carbon dioxide regulations. I don't like what they're doing there. It's not their purview. So EPA, stand down. You can't do it. My administration is not gonna defend that anymore."

A conservative president could then say, "I am directing my attorney general to stop defending the so-called financial reform bill. I don't happen to agree with this bill. I don't like it. I never liked it when it was being debated, I never thought it shoulda passed, and so I don't care about anything else: My attorney general has just said that we're not gonna defend it anymore. So if there are parts of the financial reform bill that prevent you from doing something, go ahead and do it now, 'cause I'm not gonna prosecute you. There is no law. I'm just gonna strike it." Can you imagine?

Would the Politico be doing stories, "President Palin, Little Downside Seen for Call on Obamacare"? Can you imagine that? Can you imagine anybody in the media doing a story on the next conservative president: "You know, I don't think this guy's gonna get in any trouble here, seeing Obamacare is not gonna be defended anymore"? It'd be just the opposite. They'd be demanding the impeachment of said president. The next conservative president can say, "I have concluded these laws don't pass constitutional muster. I've decided to drop any defense of them. I! I, the president, don't like these laws. They don't count to me."

So what's happened here is Barack Obama has decided he's not gonna enforce the law. He is not enforcing a federal judge's ruling in Florida because he disagrees with it. Judge Vinson. The constitutionality of Obamacare. He is not enforcing a federal ruling in Louisiana to allow deep offshore drilling. A federal ruling says his moratorium is illegal, but to hell with the federal ruling. Barack Obama disagrees with it. Essentially Barack Obama has said, "You know what? I'm the Supreme Court! We don't need one anymore. I don't like the Defense of Marriage Act. Neither does my attorney general.

"Neither do my gay supporters and contributors. So, you know what? We're not gonna defend it anymore. I don't care what the Supreme Court thinks. It doesn't matter. I have decided." Imagine a conservative president doing this, say, on abortion. This is lawlessness. There's no other way to characterize this. This is lawlessness. He's not securing the southern border. He's not enforcing immigration laws. That is why Arizona is having to act independently -- and what does he do? He sues them! He sues the state of Arizona. He's taken sides against a United States governor in Wisconsin, and will be taking sides against many more governors as the days unfold.

So let's step back. Imagine, for the fun of it, Sarah Palin is elected president. I pick Palin only 'cause they hate her the most (and I'm not running). Imagine that Sarah Palin appoints scores of czars who are not confirmed by the Senate. These czars run the government out of the White House; they bypass the cabinet structure. Imagine that President Palin appoints as attorney general a politically partisan conservative. Imagine that attorney general takes orders from Palin on active cases, and she orders that attorney general to stop defending lawsuits against aspects of Roe v. Wade, to stop defending lawsuits against Obamacare, to stop defending lawsuits against the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations.

Imagine if President Palin directs her attorney general to sue California to enforce border security and to stop granting taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens, in violation of the supremacy clause. Imagine if President Palin did all this. Imagine President Palin ordering the Republican National Committee to work with businesses, managers and executives that contributed tens of millions of dollars to her campaign to defeat her political opponents (especially Big Labor) in places like New York, New Jersey, Michigan, California; intervening in the affairs of states. Obama's doing this. Imagine if President Palin did it. She gets hold of the guy that runs the RNC, says, "I want you to have meetings with businesspeople that contribute a lot of money to my campaign."

Imagine President Palin decides that she will not comply with federal court rulings that she disagrees with, as in Florida and Louisiana. Imagine, if you will, President Palin meeting weekly with CEOs of the oil industry, of the insurance industry, and of the health care industry in order to help them profit and prosper. Imagine if President Palin meets with these groups to try to repair the damage done by the previous president, Barack Obama. Imagine a State of the Union in a House of Representatives chamber: President Palin attacking the sitting justices of the US Supreme Court, humiliating them for a ruling in a case in a manner that she disagrees with.

Imagine President Palin hiring a fashion person and putting her on the public payroll and telling everybody what to eat while she and Todd eat whatever they want on trips to places like Vail, while her husband is eating hamburgers and fries and ice cream. Imagine President Palin sending her kids to the most expensive private school in Washington, while at the same time killing a school choice program for poor minorities in the inner city of Washington -- and, folks, I could go on and on and on. It explains everything, this sickening spectacle that is the left. Whether they pretend to be journalists, whether they are politicians, this is a dangerous force in this nation. We have to continue to expose them. That's all we can do.

That is what we will do.

When you're out there pretending, ladies and gentlemen, that you're Sarah Palin, President Palin, imagine that you don't have a birth certificate, what would happen?

Rush Limbaugh,
February 24, 2011

Thank you Rush.
You disagree? As I am not surprised you shouldn't be surprised at the following statement: You make me sick. You're not Americans-- not in any ideological sense. If you think this president is to be lauded for his lawlessness, then you're not an American. You're a hypocrite. And I can say that because we BOTH know that if it were Sarah Palin acting in the manner described above?... You'd be demanding her impeachment. And worse.

And there's more, folks...

Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Friday, 25 Feb 2011

"I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job."

Why can't you Obama supporters see the truth? Don't bother, I know the answer... you don't care about Truth... Honesty... or Integrity. You'd rather have a king, no better than Mubarak or Gadaffi, than a man who obeys the law.

Okay, Mubarak is gone. Now what?

2011-02-11T10:07:00.002-06:00

When all the dust finally settles who will control of Egypt? the radical Muslim Brotherhood? Yet another military general? A democratically elected leader? A religious head? Secular head?

What happens now?

This is the definition of activism: A relatively small (a few million vs 84 million in population) segment of society, in only 18 days, forcing regime change, societal change, changes in foreign relations... Who knows WHAT happens now?

The Many Contempts of the Obama Administration

2011-02-09T10:49:00.003-06:00

Contempt for the truth...

Economist Thomas Sowell:

"Now that two different federal courts have declared ObamaCare unconstitutional, the administration's answer is to call the courts guilty of 'judicial activism.' Barack Obama has a rhetorical solution for every problem. Remember the repeated claims of 'shovel-ready' projects that needed only federal stimulus money to get started? Last year the President quietly admitted that there were not many 'shovel-ready' projects, after all. But the phrase served its political purpose at the time -- and that was obviously all that mattered. Now, in the wake of rulings by two different courts that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, rhetoric is being mobilized again, without any fussy worries about facts."

Contempt for the American People...

Columnist John Hayward:

"Senate Republican efforts to repeal ObamaCare went down on a strict party-line vote [last week], with every single Democrat voting against (except for independent caucus member Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and Mark Warner of Virginia, who didn't vote.) ... What Republicans are carrying into the 2012 election season is a lockstep vote from a Party desperately trying to defend a badly broken law that is hated by the people, unlawful in the judgment of a federal court, devastating to the economy, and beaten to the ground by the 26 states filing suit against it. It was already looking like a bad election for the Democrats, but now they have to run from the twisted monstrosity dragging itself behind them and vomiting waivers. [Last week's] vote was much more than a symbolic act."

Contempt for the Courts...

Investors Business Daily:

"An administration that has no respect for Congress, the courts or the Constitution has been found in contempt for reissuing a drilling moratorium that a U.S. district judge found overly broad.

The Obama administration's trouble with the courts has continued with a judge's ruling last week that the Interior Department's reinstating of a drilling moratorium followed by a de facto moratorium via an overly restrictive permitting process constituted contempt.

The administration had issued a drilling moratorium in May in waters deeper than 500 feet after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off Louisiana that resulted in the spill of more than 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

In June, Martin Feldman of the Eastern District Court of Louisiana struck down Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's original moratorium, saying it was overkill based on flawed reasoning. ...

So the administration went back, rearranged a few words and a few deck chairs, and reissued its moratorium. That one was officially lifted in October, although the permitting process, which mysteriously includes shallow-water wells, has had the effect of continuing the moratorium.

Feldman was not amused. 'Each step the government took following the court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,' the judge said in his ruling. 'Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second moratorium ... provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt.'

...

It is not so much that the Obama administration differs with the law, but that it considers itself above it -- even above the Constitution."

MORE EVIDENCE...

2011-02-02T11:42:00.002-06:00

...Of Jimmy Carter's second term.

Jimmy Carter backed the radicals rather than the Shah of Iran who, like Mubarak, was a corrupt dictator, but an ally of the U.S. all the same. The end result 32 years later? An Islamic state hell bent on acquiring nukes and threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Today, we have Obama, backing the protesters over a dictatorial president who, despite being the bad guy, is an ally of the US, who also maintains a peace treaty with Israel. What happens if radicals take over? Controlling the Suez canal? This is Obama's Jimmy Carter moment.

Let's hope, however, that Obama fares better than did President Carter. The first thing Obama could do to save the day is shut up. What happened after he opened his trap last night, throwing his support to the protesters? VIOLENT protests today.

During his campaign for the presidency Obama chided the Bush administration for seeking to impose democracy on other nations. And yet that's exactly what Obama is doing now. Shut up, Mr. President, and you just might come out ahead, but as things now stand you own the growing turmoil in Egypt.

Just as much is at stake in this crisis as was in 1979. The security of Israel is at stake. The cost of oil, electronics, and food (to name just a few) is at risk. Can America survive... can OBAMA survive potentially $5 a gallon gasoline?

This is why it is best to elect leaders with experience in leading. This neophyte is destroying everything he sets his voice, hand and ideology to.

God help America!

A Call To Action

2011-01-27T12:05:00.001-06:00

"The American, by nature, is optimistic. He is experimental, an inventor and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly." ~ John F. Kennedy

The following message had been making the rounds on Facebook recently:

"Kentucky just passed the best law ever. To be on Food stamps, Medicaid,or Cash Assistance on your Children or yourself You have to pass a DRUG Test. Now every other state should do the same. If you agree re-post. People that work HAVE to take a drug test so should they. Amen....re-post if you agree"

When I first read it, I was at first elated, but then, I considered the source, and decided it sounds a little too good to be true.

Following the maxim, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't", I decided before I pass this tidbit on, I should research it to see if it's true.

So, I googled it.

This is what I found.

It turns out that it is partly true, and partly false. A bill has been introduced in one house of the Kentucky legislature. It has not been voted on yet.

Some time ago, I posted a photo of an actual "letter to the editor" that had been printed in some newspaper in the Pacific Northwest. I can't find the post now. Anyway, The author of the letter suggested drug screens should be required for welfare recipients.

Now, it appears the state of Kentucky is prepared to act upon that suggestion.

More likely than not, the bill will die on the house floor, if not sooner.

That is, if it doesn't get enough support.

We the people can make this proposal become a reality.

If you agree that this is a good idea(and I do), spread the word to all your friends and colleagues. We can make this happen by flooding the legislature's switchboard with our calls, and overwhelming their mail rooms and web browsers with messages of support.

We can set the precedence. If Kentucky succeeds in making this proposal a law, you know other states will follow suit.

Well, what are you waiting for?

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine

How I Would Balance The Budget

2011-01-26T09:02:00.001-06:00

"If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting." ~ Benjamin Franklin

I just read a snippet of Obama's state of the union address over at AOW's place this morning.

I didn't watch the speech. There is much more believable fiction on other channels.

As I've said countless times, I am not an economist. These billion and trillion dollar proposals, stimuli, tax increases and cuts boggle my mind. I don't understand how cutting this and raising that will reduce the national deficit very significantly.

I can only compare the national budget to my own personal finances. It is the only way I can relate.

I make far less money than I need with which to balance my budget. And, I can't manage my bank account by speculating that some future windfall is going to drop into my lap. I can only base my accounting on what I physically have in my possession.

I, unlike the government, cannot simply print more money. And, truthfully, because the government can print more money, this is where the comparison between my budgetary concerns diverge from the government's.

I could just stop here, and that would pretty much make my point.

But, I digress. Since I am not, in any way, some kind of economical genius, I devised a way, years ago, of balancing my budget. This is what I do:

When I receive my paycheck, after first depositing a small amount of it into my savings account (for emergencies), the first thing I do is determine what bills are most pressing. Then, I calculate how much of my money I can afford to pay on those bills. If I don't have enough to cover all the most immediate bills, I do one of two things:

1. I call my creditors and make payment arrangements. I negotiate (if they'll let me) a future time and amount that I feel reasonably (barring some unforeseen catastrophe)sure I can pay, and/or...

2. I sometimes have to let a bill or two slide until the next paycheck. This is undoubtedly the worst choice, because once in a while something gets turned off. Unfortunately, that can't be helped. If I don't have the money to pay it, it can't be paid.

Next, I pay the bills I have determined I can pay without going completely broke.

With the remaining money, I calculate how much I can spend per day until the next paycheck. Then I try to stay under my self imposed spending limit every day, thereby increasing the amount I can spend per day until the next paycheck. Hopefully, if I did my calculations correctly, and some unforeseen financial emergency doesn't come up, I will have something left before my next paycheck, which I can add to the paycheck, with which I pay the next round of bills.

I check my bank balance every day, religiously. (By the way, because I check my balance everyday, I have stopped attempts of identity fraud on more than one occasion. You see, what they do is invade your bank account and withdraw a very small amount of money at first to see if you discover it. If you don't catch it, they withdraw huge amounts.)

This system works for me, provided I don't overspend my daily allotment on whims. If I do overspend one day, I have to necessarily adjust my per diem spending limit.

This cycle will continue until I either start getting paid enough to pay my bills and have funds left over, or I receive an unexpected windfall such as win a lottery, or a rich uncle dies and leaves me his entire fortune.

Neither is likely to happen. I don't play the lottery and as far as I know, I have no rich uncle.

Now, the way I see balancing the federal budget is much the same, except on a much grander scale.

Just like myself, unless the Federal government has a trillionaire uncle somewhere who dies and leaves his entire fortune to the U.S. Government, or the federal government wins a trillion dollar plus lottery, the way it's currently budgeting it's money is not working.

The federal government has to first determine how much money it actually has.

Then, it has to pare down it's spending to the point where it can only spend what it has, and no more. If it has to be done daily, the way I do it, then do it that way. If something has to be cut off temporarily, let it be cut off.

Make some arrangements, if necessary. The government should always be aware of exactly how much money it can spend without going over the limit. In other words, the government should be checking it's bank balance every day and making adjustments.

It needs to stop printing up monopoly money. All that does is create a false sense of security that our children and grandchildren will have to pay dearly for later.

Then, don't go over the limit.

Too simple, you ask? Perhaps. But, as I say, I'm not an economist.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls before Swine

Pelosi : Intellectually Hamstrung

2010-11-06T23:14:00.003-05:00

Here's a rather humorous and, oddly, concise litany of the things Nancy Pelosi feels she needs to protect, and so has announced she will run for minority leader...

Let me get this straight. We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

--"Raymond," commenter at a story from Fox News
"Pelosi: 'I Am Running for Democratic Leader'"

Another humorous comment...

"OK, Wicked Witch of the LEFT. The right house fell on you! someone get a bucket of water!!!!! "

CORRUPT BASTARDS!!!

2010-11-01T09:24:00.004-05:00

Palin cries foul? You betcha! This is what the so-called mainstream media have devolved to. Any pretense of objectivity is just that, a pretense. We've known it for years, but I must say I find is incredibly gratifying to see the masks finally come off-- Halloween adding a bit of irony to the mix --even though this latest incident isn't the first.

Personally, I am tired of the morally corrupt Left. So here are some questions to consider...

What is the media, and why does the average American accept their word for anything? Are individual members of media better educated? Better informed? More trustworthy? Is there anything remotely elite about their position, their understanding, their grasp of stark facts and nuance?

For myself, the media, first and foremost are ideologues and ratings whores (with obvious exceptions), and the average American is lazy (with obvious exceptions). Members of media are neither better educated, nor better informed, when the average American opens his eyes and mind to personal responsibility; a man who takes responsibility for the direction of his life and community educates himself, not relying on anyone he doesn't know to tell him what to think or believe. And the media are clearly not trustworthy, as this incident alone proves; though countless others have already iced that cake.

Many on the left would and do esteem the media (left-leaning liberal media) as elite and therefore 'better' than the average American in intellect, but the reality could not be further from the truth. Especially in terms of objectivity, and for this they are not to be trusted.

Palin is right to be outraged. We ALL should. Because media has bent over backward to prop up a president to the exclusion of sense and sensibilities, at the expense of truth and honesty.

The leftist media are liars. They want us to believe their point of view is the majority view... it is not. They want us to believe that they are paragons of virtuous motive... when they aren't. They want us to believe they have this nation's best interest at heart.

Liars! Bastards all!

Why such harsh language? Anything not born of truth is a bastardization of truth. And we've had enough of that to last our lifetimes. In roughly 230 years we have come full circle back to where this nation began; a plutarchy wherein the wealthy rules for the wealthy.

This is Obama's vision of America. Under the guise of making the American dream 'more fair' he is in fact establishing a ruling class. And like soviet Russia, everyone not 'in the club' become members of the new American serfdom.

If only the media did the job they purport to doing. There might be a bit of honesty in the so-called mainstream media. But as things currently stand. There is not honesty. Only bastards. The illegitimate fitz-spawn of Edward R. Murrow.

Evidence: Democrat Civil War Is Larger Than Realized

2010-10-28T17:16:00.003-05:00

Not sure how long this 'Open Letter' will remain up at Hillbuzz.org, so I'm posting it here in full. For all of you who hate to read anything of length, fair warning-- it's a long read.

An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh and His Listeners — With Notes on the Democrat Civil War Already In Progress

Dear Rush,

It’s my great hope that some of your listeners find a way to get this letter to you, or that it makes it to “Snerdley” and finds its way into your hands. I don’t think even you understand just how much damage Obama has done to the Democrat Party — to the point where formerly lifelong Democrats like myself, and everyone here at HillBuzz.org, are actively working to expose the party and literally burn it to the ground for the good of the country.

None of this is being reported in the media, but a Civil War in the Democrat ranks has been raging since May 31st, 2008…a date every Hillary Clinton supporter knows well, because that was the date of the Democrat Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting where Howard Dean (then-DNC Chair), Donna Brazile, and scores of other Kool-Aid slurping Obama flunkies took off their masks and revealed the full extent of the Leftist coup that had taken over the party. This was the day when the DNC took delegates Hillary Clinton won in Michigan away from her and handed them to Obama (despite the fact he wasn’t even on the primary ballot in that state, because he removed his name when his campaign realized he’d come in third in that race).

May 31st, 2008 was a day when Hillary “babes” (as you call us sometimes) like us flew to Washington in large numbers to stand outside the Marriott near the National Zoo, where this Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting was held, to shout for the DNC to count all the votes and operate the nominating process fairly — but they refused. The anger over that day has never abated. In fact, it’s grown considerably since then.

This was the determining factor in millions of us leaving the Democrat Party for good. This was the day when the P.U.M.A. movement began — in response to Donna Brazile’s calls for “party unity” following the Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting, we “Hillary babes” said “Party Unity My A$$” (or People United Means Action, depending on how you want to phrase it). Exit polls showed 8 million PUMA voted Republican for the first time in our lives in the fall of 2008…casting ballots for McCain/Palin (and in truth, mainly for Palin, whom we support, and not to a small degree because she receives many of the same attacks lobbed at Hillary Clinton all these years).

You seem to know most of all this, so I’ll end the history lesson by noting the people alienated by the Democrat Party during the primaries in 2008 — where it was clear the party and the media colluded at great lengths to push Obama while hammering Hillary Clinton into the ground — never came back to the Democrat Party.

This is also when most of us stopped using the term “Democratic Party”, since there’s nothing “democratic” about these people. They are the “Democrat Party”, and even that is hard to acknowledge because they really and truly have proved themselves to be enemies of real democracy.

I’m still registered as a Democrat here in Chicago (because the Cocktail Party GOP establishment so disgusts me I can’t will myself to party-ID Republican, and there’s no Independent option here in Illinois) but I can’t imagine ever voting for another Democrat again, as long as I live. To Hell with Democrats. This was solidified for me on Christmas Eve of last year, when Democrats rushed Obamacare through the Senate in the dead of night, through various secret channels, and every single Democrat voted for its passage (even supposed moderates like Evan Bayh in Indiana, who quickly realized his vote would cost him re-election…so the coward retired rather then face angry voters over what he did). I just don’t believe Democrats should be given elected office by voters because they cannot be trusted to even read bills before they vote on them, not even when said bills seek to permanently alter the entire American economy. This is reckless and reprehensible to the point of treason.

I was a Democrat for 32 years before the heavy-handed push for Obama alienated me from the party…and I borrow what Hillary Clinton said about Republicans once, back when she was a Goldwater Girl, and will paraphrase by saying that I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me.

After it beat me to a pulp, called me a racist, berated and insulted me, and used Alinsky Rules to hit me with everything it had. Not just me, but all Hillary supporters.

This is the part I don’t think you understand because I don’t know if you and your listeners paid much attention to what the Obama campaign and DNC did to malign and assault Hillary Clinton’s supporters during the 2008 campaign. None of this has been forgotten by any of us.

If you have not seen it already, Rush, you need to watch Gigi Gaston’s documentary “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008″. I’m featured in a segment on the voter fraud that was committed in the Iowa Caucus back in January of 2008. While I was always aware Democrats use unions and other means to cheat in elections, I never knew the Democrat Party was capable of the large-scale, aggressive, unapologetic fraud it committed on Obama’s behalf all through 2008. In Iowa, I watched Obama’s ACORN and SEIU goons push and shove old people, bully them, and intimidate them when they wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton. I saw scores of Illinois license plates fill the parking lots outside caucus locations, with Chicagoland Obama supporters illegally entering the Caucus sites to vote for Obama and game Iowa for him. Having planned ahead, Obama supporters actually RAN those caucus sites, and held the doors open for all these fraudulent voters to walk right in, without being asked for IDs, where they then took control of the caucuses and bullied the Iowa residents into supporting Obama — lest they be called RAAACISTS! out in the open in front of their friends and neighbors in those open-air caucuses.

The media has never talked about this. I don’t remember ever hearing you talk about it. But one of the biggest reasons the Democrats are in the trouble they’re in right now is because of how frequently the Left and the media (one and the same, really) called anyone who opposed Obama a RAAACIST. If you supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries instead of Obama, you were called a RAAACIST. If you were someone like me who fundraised for Hillary, who hosted events for her, who put yourself out there and wrote columns advocating her or did media spots talking up her candidacy, you were aggressively targeted by the Obama campaign and his supporters…relentlessly attacked as a RAAACIST! and assaulted with the Alinksy Rules for Radicals in hopes of breaking your spirit, terrorizing you, and making you abandon Clinton for fear of having these people destroy your life, ruin your business, and make you an absolute pariah in your community.

This is what the Obama campaign, the media, and the DNC did to DEMOCRATS.

For almost a year, the Obama zealots and the Left waged all-out-war not just on Hillary Clinton, but on lifelong, loyal, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat voters like me. This came straight from the top, from Obama himself. Both he and his wife Michelle called the Clintons racists. Obama’s surrogates like James Clyburne, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, and others called Geraldine Ferraro, Madeline Albright, and others racists. The Obamas toxified the South Carolina primary, in particular, with foul race-baiting and turned North Carolina and Indiana into racial powder kegs by ramping up accusations that anyone not supporting Obama was a vile racist that needed to be pounded into the ground.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, my former Congresswoman back home in Cleveland, was a black Hillary Clinton supporter to the very end — and she was called a “race-traitor”, an “Aunt Jane”, and all manner of worse names as she was bullied, berated, and verbally assaulted by the Obama team…because she was black and dared to stand with her friend Hillary Clinton, the person Tubbs Jones knew would make a better president than “The One”. To her dying day in August of 2008, Tubbs Jones was threatened by the Obama campaign and told she’d be primaried in 2010 and kicked to the curb for being a “race-traitor”. She died of a brain aneurysm while driving her car, and Obama supporters filled Daily Kos, DemocratUnderground, and other George Soros-supported sites with lies about her drunk driving, doing drugs, and other slurs because even after she died these people wouldn’t stop hating her for daring to be an outspoken black woman who would never abandon Hillary for Obama.

This is similar to the grief that I’ve received here in Chicago for being a gay Hillary former Democrat in Boystown who never drank any Kool-Aid, never stopped speaking out against Obama, and who recently fully came out as a conservative — in the face of the same kind of Alinsky-grade, identity-based, “traitor” hectoring that Tubbs Jones got for being a black woman who didn’t kneel before the Obama altar.

Well, Rush, let me just tell you, from personal experience, that the tens of millions of people relentlessly abused and hounded by Obama supporters (remember that back in 2008 he urged his followers to “get in their faces” and “confront their neighbors” if they weren’t drinking his unicorn-pumped sparkly Kool-Aid ) will NEVER EVER FORGET what the Obama campaign directed at them, in terms of all this Alinsky bullying.

To quote Jeremiah Wright, the man Obama spent twenty years eagerly listening to at Trinity United Church of Christ: somebody’s chickens have now come back to roost.

During the campaign, Donna Brazile famously said that the Democrat Party no longer needed the people Obama once described as “bitter, religion-and-guns-clinging, Midwesterners”. Brazile took this further and said, outright, that the Democrat party did not need blue-collar white voters, the Jacksonian voters, the Hillary voters, because the party was “Obamafied” and would win elections for generations with the Obama coalition of blacks, Leftist elites, Hispanics, low information gay voters, and self-hating Jews.

This is all the Democrats have left, Rush.

Speaking from personal experience, as someone who has worked in fundraising for over 10 years and who has been a part of every presidential campaign since 1992, the Democrats have permanently alienated tens of millions of people who normally turned out reliably every year not just to vote Democrat, but also to write checks and otherwise participate in campaigns.

No more. Never again.

Here in Chicago, just about everyone who was part of Team Hillary efforts with me on the ground has completely divorced themselves from the Democrat Party. Being called a racist repeatedly and hearing from Donna Brazile that we are not needed will do that to a person.

But in a bigger sense, Democrats, by being so shameless and aggressive with the voter fraud in 2008 have opened too many eyes for us to ever go back to pretending that fraud and corrupt practices aren’t the hallmark of the Democrat Party.

There was a show on ABC a few years ago called Alias starring Jennifer Garner in which she played a woman working for a company called Credit Dauphine…which she was told was a front for a CIA organization called SD6. Garner’s character, Sidney Bristow, carried out her missions for SD6, overlooking different things the organization did that she might not have liked, because she thought she was doing what was best for the country. And then, one day, Sidney learned SD6 was actually an enemy of America…that it’s real mission was to destroy the country…that everything Sidney was told about SD6 was a lie. The mask came off SD6, and Sidney Bristow realized she had to work aggressively to take the whole enterprise down.

Rush (and his listeners), please hear me on this because you will not read this in the media — but just about every one of us from the Hillary 2008 campaign is a Sidney Bristow today.

Those of us who worked Democrat campaigns in the past put up with union associations and the other unsavory aspects of being a Democrat because we were told this was the only way Democrats could win…with union muscle. But, in 2008 the Democrats revealed themselves to be an SD6 conglomeration of every force in this country that wants to bring America down, tank our economy, usurp our Constitution, and lay waste to the American way of life.

Democrats took off the mask. The DNC reveled in being fully Leftist-controlled. Crazy people unapologetic in their Communist admiration took over positions of great influence not just in the DNC, but in our state and federal governments as well.

I’m horrified by that.

Hillary supporters are horrified by that.

And we have not sat back quietly to allow this to happen without a fight.

I know for a fact that people I worked with on the Hillary 2008 campaign have been actively working against every single Democrat who supported Obama’s nomination. Everyone who backstabbed Hillary Clinton is being undermined and sabotaged by people who might still be registered as Democrats but have no more loyalty to the party. Sometimes, conservative sites try to make this into a “sour grapes” sort of “Hillary’s revenge” meme — and there might be a taste of this in what’s going on — but the real driving force is that we former Democrats saw just how insane these people really are and we are now doing everything we can, behind the scenes, to use everything we know about the Democrat Party to collapse it from within.

If you think about it logically, there is not enough energy to sustain a years-long drive to remove Obama supporters from office just because people are still upset Hillary Clinton was not the 2008 nominee and is not president today. Sometimes, I think even you believe this is what this is all about. Your “Reverse Operation Chaos” initiative seems predicated on this, but that belief is apocryphal in that it misses a few big marks.

This is and it isn’t about Hillary.

What it’s really about is what the Democrat Party did to Hillary that alienated tens of millions of Jacksonian/Clintonian/middleclass Americans from the party permanently — and this includes what the party and Obama campaign did to Hillary’s supporters themselves (ie, calling them racists, telling them they weren’t wanted, calling them bitter clingers, etc.).

For the first time in our lives, so many of us former Democrats were given an Alinsky taste of what the Democrat Party really stand for…what it really believes…and how it really feels about America, our Constitution, our economy, and our way of life.

Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama took the mask off the Democrat Party…and the Leftist gorgon that lurked beneath is something America-loving, middleclass, Jacksonian/Clintonian Democrats want nothing to do with.

As part of your “Reverse Operation Chaos”, you really need to emphasize something the media just won’t talk about — and that’s the simple fact that even if you called yourself a Democrat for 32 years, the way I did, because everyone you grew up with and everyone in your family was a Democrat, that in 2010 it’s time to ask yourselves what that really means.

Do you want to be in a party that calls people racists for stepping out of line and voicing opposition to the socialist lurch of the current administration?

Do you condone voter fraud and the shameless, undemocratic tactics employed by Democrats?

Do you wish to associate with the likes of ACORN, the SEIU, the Black Panthers, and all the other thugs, goons, and degenerates the Obama campaign and White House employ as the DNC’s muscle on the ground?

It is crystal clear that being a patriotic American who loves this country is intellectually incompatible with being a Democrat. If you love America and want it to prosper, the Democrat Party is at absolute odds with everything we need for a thriving, successful economy.

Hillary supporters realize this.

We received a heaping helping of Alinsky assaults to wake us up to this reality.

The reason so many of us support Governor Palin is not just because we see the same Alinksy assaults being waged upon her…but the woman is pitch-perfect in outlining exactly why Obama and the Left are wrong, and why Democrats under Obama are dangerous to have in elected office.

I know you talk about a “Hillary 2012″ but Rush, as much as I love Hillary Clinton, and as much as I worked my heart out for her in 2008, there’s no way that even she can repair the damage Obama has done to the party. Certainly not by 2012. MAYBE the Clintons and their supporters can purge the Obama lunatics from the party by 2016…but I doubt even that will happen. Just like with the Leftists Carter infected the Democrat Party with, Obama legacy hires will be in the DNC for a generation to come…and it might not be until the 2030s before the Democrats can remove the taint Obama and his Leftist agenda have put on the party.

Democrats have made themselves synonymous with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-democracy. Obama and his acolytes decidedly upped the ante when it came to their aggressive push towards socialism…and this Center-Right nation is resisting it in what I am certain will be an epic refudiation (to borrow the Governor’s term) next week.

On November 3rd, no one I know will be resting on any laurels. November 3rd starts the 2012 campaign…and not just the presidential race (where we’ll back Governor Palin) but the drive to knock people like Claire McCaskill out of office, continuing our work to take down every last one of the Obama supporters who backstabbed Hillary Clinton and helped install this socialist into the White House back in 2008. When you hear talk of a Hillary “enemies’ list”, or just “The List” as we call it in HRC supporter circles, this is very much real…and we are truly committed to making sure the Claire McCaskills out there get everything that is coming to them for all their service to Obama and his agenda.

Hear that, Ben Nelson…voters will be coming for you.

You and everyone like you.

Every last one of you.

If you voted for Obamacare, you are politically dead but may not know it…and it is your own fault. Being intensely stupid is no defense. If you were a YES vote on anything related to Obamacare you are going to be defeated…if not in 2010, then in the primaries in 2012. If you survive those, you will be taken down in the 2012 general election. Your political career is over…dummy.

Hope your time on the Obama Kool-Aid bandwagon was worth ruining your life over.

We will not forget those Obamacare votes. We will not forgive being called a racist because we don’t support this terrible man and his awful agenda. We will not be silenced.

We will not give up.

It’s going to be years, if ever, before the lamestream media ever catches up to any of this, and realizes that a large swath of people who used to be Democrat loyalists are now doing everything they can to destroy the party. Some of them are out and open, like me and my friends here at HillBuzz, but many are doing their part quietly. They just stop writing checks. Or maybe now they write checks to Democrat opponents. They might continue to attend events and fundraisers, but now they call up Republican sites and give them all the dirt on what they heard in those meetings. The Democrat Party alienated so many people who are now working to bring it down that I could go on for pages and pages more on this topic.

It’s very Sidney Bristow, Rush. And if you watched that show Alias, you’d know she not only won in the end, but looked damn good kicking ass while doing it.

THAT, El Rushbo, is what your “Hillary babes” are up to.

Here in Boystown, and in every town, because the Civil War Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama started on May 31st, 2008 is raging without end until the Democrat Party is no more.

Tell your listeners to count on that.

---------------

Kevin DuJan

Editor-in-Chief, HillBuzz.org

Hillary "Babe" in Buzzquarters, Boystown

Step Up & Vote!

2010-10-26T11:06:00.001-05:00

Here's a 16 second political commercial I put together...