tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-209955742024-03-13T05:52:46.323-06:00Conservative Points to PonderA close look at political news gleaned from all over the internet, based on the 9 principles and 12 values our great Republic was founded upon.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger274125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-20326611943052675922011-08-01T08:01:00.001-06:002011-08-01T08:03:14.126-06:00Urgent Action: Stop this bad debt ceiling bill<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></strong></div><br />
Judson Philliips<br />
August 1, 2011<br />
<br />
If we thought the Boehner Bill was bad, he and Mitch McConnell have taken the White Flag of Surrender to new heights.<br />
<br />
Everyone must wear their Congressmen out to stop this bill.<br />
<br />
Here are the low lights:<br />
<br />
First it contains a massive $2.4 trillion dollar increase in the debt ceiling.<br />
<br />
It contains almost no immediate spending cuts.<br />
<br />
The Deficit commission that is going to be created by this nightmare bill will be equally divided between six Democrats who want massive tax hikes and six Republicans who will look for the first opportunity to surrender, much as John Boehner.<br />
<br />
The bill also calls for massive cuts in defense and allegedly in entitlements if the Deficit Commission is deadlocked or otherwise cannot come up with more budget cuts. The deficit commission will have the option of recommending tax hikes. The Bush tax cuts will be gone. Capital gains will be raised from 15% to 28%, destroying investment. Middle class deductions, such as home mortgage interest will be gone.<br />
<br />
In short, by the end of the year, the left will have everything it wants. It will have massive new borrowing to cripple the economy. It will have massive new tax hikes and it will gut defense spending. About the only thing it won’t do is repeal the Bill of Rights. They are saving that for next year.<br />
<br />
This bill is so incredibly bad and the worst part is it will give the Democrats the political cover they need. The GOP will not be able to pin this one on the Democrats because Boehner and McConnell brought this to the Republicans and the Republican House passed it!<br />
<br />
Folks we have to act today. Call, fax, email, tweet and visit your Congressman’s office. Tell them that if this bill passes and they vote for it, it is war. I don’t care who the Congressman is, we will find a Tea Party candidate to run against them.<br />
<br />
As a rule, at Tea Party Nation, we do not believe in threatening Congressmen but this bill is so bad we have no choice. We have to make the GOP Representatives fear the loss of their jobs. That is the only way they can overcome the pressure the House Leadership will be putting on them.<br />
<br />
Act immediately and look for further updates here on TPN.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-66204332313607817232011-01-18T16:44:00.003-07:002011-01-18T17:22:23.034-07:00Communist Goals (1963) - How Many Have Been Fulfilled?<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://www.the912project.us/forum/topic/show?id=2881797%3ATopic%3A690955&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Click Here for Link</span></a></strong></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Posted by Jared Law</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">March 16, 2010 at 10:25pm in Principles, Ideology, & Religion </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If I'm not mistaken, I first read this in 2006 in The Naked Communist, a very eye-opening book written by W. Cleon Skousen. It is stunning and quite depressing to see how many of the goals of the Communist Party have been accomplished. It's motivating to those of us who are determined to restore America!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Please take a look at these; it is very eye opening. If you've read these, but it's been more than a few months, take another look. It's good to have this information fresh in our minds.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Once you read these, you'll realize just how successful the "progressives" have been at progressing toward communism here in America.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--------</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Communist Goals (1963)</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">January 10, 1963</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Current Communist Goals</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thursday, January 10, 1963</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">18. Gain control of all student newspapers.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Note by Webmaster: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--------</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Documentation</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Webmaster Forest Glen Durland found the document in the library. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sources are listed below. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The quote starts on page 259. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Microfilm: </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">California State University at San Jose </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Clark Library, Government Floor </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Phone (408)924-2770 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Microfilm </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Call Number: </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">J </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.R5 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Congressional Record, Vol. 109 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">88th Congress, 1st Session </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Appendix Pages A1-A2842 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Reel 12 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The book was found in the off campus stacks, was ordered and checked. The quote below was checked against the original and is correct. The few errors in the copy from the Congressional Record are shown in [ ] .</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The quote starts on page 259.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">California State University at San Jose, Clark Library stacks call number: </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Naked Communist </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">HX </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">56 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">S55 </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Book title page: </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Skousen, W. Cleon. Naked Communist </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Salt Lake City, Utah: Ensign Publishing Co. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">C. 1961 , 9th edition July 1961. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You will find the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto interesting at this point. Here they are:</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the early '60's during the days of the "former" Soviet Union, Russian Premier Nikita Kruschev pounded his shoe on the podium of the United Nations and shouted to the West, "We will bury you!" Fearing an invasion from the Reds, America proceeded to build the most awesome military machine in history. Unfortunately, we forgot to guard our political homefront from being taken over by socialist - communist - liberal activists who would gain office and destroy American law by process of gradually installing the Communist agenda within our legal system and seperate branches of government. The Communist program from the start has been one which sees their revolution of 1917 successful only upon total domination of the world.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Americans, being the most naive people among the nations, now believe that Communism is dead because the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain have been removed. The ironic truth is that Communism has just switched names to become more "politically correct". Today it is called international democracy. The reason that the Berlin Wall came crashing down is not because Communism is dead but because they have achieved the planned agenda to communize the West, including America. Washington D.C. has indeed become part of the New World Order of atheist governments. With the last vestiges of Christian law having been removed from "American government" over the last twenty years, there is no longer a threat of resistance against world Communism. In reality, "American government" became part of the Iron Curtain, thus there was no more need for the likes of a Berlin Wall.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Once again, in their foolishness, the American public has believed the lies of their "leaders" who applaud "the fall of Communism", while they have sold out the country to anti-Christian, anti-American statutes and regulations on the federal, state, and local levels. Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks, The American people have truly been "buried in Communism" by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties. One other thing to remember, Karl Marx was stating in the Communist Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become commmunist or not. If they are all in effect and in force the country IS communist. Communism, but by any other name...??</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. <strong>Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. <strong>Abolition of all rights of inheritance</strong>.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986);</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Fedral Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc</span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome-Based "Education" .</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Scary, isn't it? Motivates one to redouble their efforts, doesn't it? </span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Are you ready to organize your neighborhood? Attend a caucus meeting? A Party Convention? Campaign for a Principled Constitutionalist/Patriot candidate? Start a study group in your neighborhood? Talk to your children about what they're learning in school?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.the912project.us/main/invitation/new"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">INVITE</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> your friends, neighbors, co-workers, relatives, church congregation members, customers, service providers, and other peers to join us? </span><a href="http://www.the912project.us/page/books-1"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Educate yourself</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> about </span><a href="http://www.the912project.us/page/a-patriots-history-of-the"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">American History</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">? </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Pray for America?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What are your thoughts?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-33806673558136863022011-01-04T09:49:00.002-07:002011-01-04T17:33:36.811-07:00Nullifying ObamacareWhat happened to Mead's stance on Obamacare, standing with other states in the lawsuit against the Constitutionality of Obamacare?<br />
From the Casper Star Tribune 1/4/11:<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;">"The issue of affordable health care is one that will be addressed," Mead said. "The question is whether we in Wyoming address it in a fashion that meets our needs, or whether we accept the design drafted by 435 representatives and 100 senators, only three of whom are from Wyoming."</span></em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em><span style="color: red;"></span></em></strong><br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;">"A compromise solution may be the best Congress could do. It is not the best we can do," Mead said to applause from the audience.</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
Compromise is absolutely NOT what any decent conservative Republican wants. The RINOs and progressives would do it that way.<br />
<br />
Fred Barnes has an EXCELLENT article in the Weekly Standard describing a possible scenario which will benefit ALL Americans:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nullifying-obamacare_524862.html">http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nullifying-obamacare_524862.html</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Nullifying Obamacare</span></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>Here’s one more weapon.</em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>Jan 3, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 16 • By FRED BARNES</em></strong><br />
<br />
The vehemence of the opposition to President Obama’s overhaul of health care has spawned an assortment of strategies for killing it. The newest and most ambitious would create a health care compact among the states and use it to switch control of health care programs from the federal government to the states.<br />
<br />
If that sounds like a long shot, it’s no more so than the other schemes for nullifying Obamacare. These include repeal by Congress or by constitutional amendment, lawsuits to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate, and actions by governors and House Republicans to slow down its implementation.<br />
<br />
Those are worthy efforts. But a health care compact would do more. If successful—a very big “if”—it would reduce the scope of Washington’s power. States, not Congress, the White House, or federal bureaucrats, would set the rules for health care from top to bottom, from Medicare and Medicaid to individual insurance policies.<br />
<br />
And as ambitious as that sounds, it’s merely the initial goal of the group of conservative activists leading the compact drive. They want to use compacts to return other areas of federal control—the environment, drug and medical device regulation, education, to name three possibilities—to the states or even local governments.<br />
<br />
Interstate compacts aren’t a wild idea. They just haven’t been tapped for such a political purpose before. The authority for compacts was established in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 10), and more than 200 have been set up. One example: the agreement uniting Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to build and operate the Washington area’s Metro subway system.<br />
<br />
An issue of interest to two or more states can lead to a compact. It works this way: State legislatures approve a proposal, the states agree on the parts of mutual concern (such as buying insurance across state lines), then the compact is dispatched to Washington for ratification by Congress and the president (though the need for White House assent isn’t spelled out in the Constitution). Ratification turns the compact into federal law.<br />
<br />
However, there’s a bigger reason for forming a compact against Obamacare. By banding together, states would have far more political clout in Washington. Backers of the health care compact figure they need more than 20 states to pressure Washington to go along. Their assumption is members of Congress (even Democrats who support Obamacare) would be inclined to vote for a formal request from their home state. Members who oppose Obama-care would vote for it as well.<br />
<br />
The compact strategy grew out of talks last summer among a handful of conservatives worried about the growth in federal power, particularly under President Obama. They chose health care, given its unpopularity, as the issue on which to draw a new line between federal and state authority. Texas attorney Ted Cruz, a former state solicitor general, suggested the use of a compact. “It’s certainly a new application” of the compact, Cruz told me.<br />
<br />
In October, Eric O’Keefe of the Sam Adams Alliance broached the compact strategy with the leaders of Tea Party Patriots, Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin. And in November, they, in turn, took the idea to their national council, gathered in Washington to conduct an orientation session for newly elected members of Congress (only Republicans showed up).<br />
<br />
When O’Keefe and a panel explained the strategy, they got a standing ovation from the 180 members of the council. “I’ve never heard of a panel getting a standing ovation,” O’Keefe says. At least 37 of them signed up as state coordinators for winning legislative approval of the health care compact. An experienced political consultant, Mike Barnhart, was hired as national coordinator. <br />
<br />
“We constantly receive ideas from people on what we should do,” says Meckler, an attorney specializing in Internet law. After hearing O’Keefe’s pitch, he read the American Bar Association’s guide on interstate compacts. “Despite the fact that it was very boring,” he was struck by how appropriate a tool it could be for slashing the power of the federal government.<br />
<br />
The campaign for the compact begins early next month when many state legislatures convene. Texas and Nebraska are among the target states. “There are a lot of good opportunities,” Cruz says.<br />
<br />
Like the other efforts to snuff out Obamacare, the compact drive is likely to aid Republicans and conservatives by keeping the health care issue alive. That won’t help Obama in his reelection campaign. But it could be an effective tool for Republicans in recruiting volunteers and appealing to voters.<br />
<br />
But what attracted conservative organizers like O’Keefe and Tea Partiers is how broadly the compact strategy can be used to shrink the power of the federal government. It’s an “unused lever point” with enormous potential, O’Keefe says.<br />
<br />
“We picked one of the tougher issues,” health care, he says, and ratification by Congress and the president is “a big hurdle. But we want the fight. We want the clarity. We want to define the lines of the fight” between Washington and the people. Achieving that won’t be easy. But not impossible.<br />
<br />
***********************************************<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.</em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-32380367481017541762010-11-18T07:34:00.004-07:002010-11-18T07:41:34.403-07:00American Narcissus - the Vanity of Barack Obama<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/american-narcissus_516686.html?page=1"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>by Jonathan V. Last</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>November 13, 2010</em></strong><br />
<br />
Why has Barack Obama failed so spectacularly? Is he too dogmatically liberal or too pragmatic? Is he a socialist, or an anticolonialist, or a philosopher-president? Or is it possible that Obama’s failures stem from something simpler: vanity. Politicians as a class are particularly susceptible to mirror-gazing. But Obama’s vanity is overwhelming. It defines him, his politics, and his presidency.<br />
<br />
It’s revealed in lots of little stories. There was the time he bragged about how one of his campaign volunteers, who had tragically died of breast cancer, “insisted she’s going to be buried in an Obama T-shirt.” There was the Nobel acceptance speech where he conceded, “I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war” (the emphasis is mine). <br />
<br />
There was the moment during the 2008 campaign when Obama appeared with a seal that was a mash-up of the Great Seal of the United States and his own campaign logo (with its motto Vero Possumus, “Yes we Can” in Latin). Just a few weeks ago, Obama was giving a speech when the actual presidential seal fell from the rostrum. “That’s all right,” he quipped. “All of you know who I am.” Oh yes, Mr. President, we certainly do.<br />
<br />
My favorite is this line from page 160 of <strong>The Audacity of Hope</strong>:<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;">I find comfort in the fact that the longer I’m in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for power and rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience.</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
So popularity and fame once nourished him, but now his ambition is richer and he’s answerable not, like some presidents, to the Almighty, but to the gaze of his personal conscience. Which is steady. The fact that this sentence appears in the second memoir of a man not yet 50 years old—and who had been in national politics for all of two years—is merely icing.<br />
<br />
People have been noticing Obama’s vanity for a long time. In 2008, one of his Harvard Law classmates, the entertainment lawyer Jackie Fuchs, explained what Obama was like during his school days: <strong><em><span style="color: blue;">“One of our classmates once famously noted that you could judge just how pretentious someone’s remarks in class were by how high they ranked on the ‘Obamanometer,’ a term that lasted far longer than our time at law school. Obama didn’t just share in class—he pontificated. He knew better than everyone else in the room, including the teachers. ”</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
The story of Obama’s writing career is an object lesson in how our president’s view of himself shapes his interactions with the world around him. In 1990, Obama was wrapping up his second year at Harvard Law when the New York Times ran a profile of him on the occasion of his becoming the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. A book agent in New York named Jane Dystel read the story and called up the young man, asking if he’d be interested in writing a book. Like any 29-year-old, he wasn’t about to turn down money. He promptly accepted a deal with Simon & Schuster’s Poseidon imprint—reportedly in the low six-figures—to write a book about race relations.<br />
<br />
Obama missed his deadline. No matter. His agent quickly secured him another contract, this time with Times Books. And a $40,000 advance. <strong><em>Not bad for an unknown author who had already blown one deal, writing about a noncommercial subject.</em></strong><br />
<br />
By this point Obama had left law school, and academia was courting him. The University of Chicago Law School approached him; although they didn’t have any specific needs, they wanted to be in the Barack Obama business. As Douglas Baird, the head of Chicago’s appointments committee, would later explain,<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;">“You look at his background—Harvard Law Review president, magna cum laude, and he’s African American. This is a no-brainer hiring decision at the entry level of any law school in the country</span></em></strong>.” Chicago invited Obama to come in and teach just about anything he wanted. But Obama wasn’t interested in a professor’s life. Instead, he told them that he was writing a book—about voting rights. The university made him a fellow, giving him an office and a paycheck to keep him going while he worked on this important project.<br />
<br />
In case you’re keeping score at home, there was some confusion as to what book young Obama was writing. His publisher thought he was writing about race relations. His employer thought he was writing about voting rights law. But Obama seems to have never seriously considered either subject. Instead, he decided that his subject would be himself. The 32-year-old was writing a memoir.<br />
<br />
Obama came clean to the university first. He waited until his fellowship was halfway over—perhaps he was concerned that his employers might not like the bait-and-switch. He needn’t have worried. Baird still hoped that Obama would eventually join the university’s faculty (he had already begun teaching a small classload as a “senior lecturer”). “It was a good deal for us,” Baird explained, “because he was a good teaching prospect and we wanted him around.”<br />
<br />
And it all worked out in the end. The book Obama eventually finished was Dreams from My Father. It didn’t do well initially, but nine years later, after his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention made him a star, it sold like gangbusters. Obama got rich. And famous. The book became the springboard for his career in national politics.<br />
<br />
Only it didn’t quite work out for everybody. Obama left the University of Chicago, never succumbing to their offers of a permanent position in their hallowed halls. Simon & Schuster, which had taken a chance on an unproven young writer, got burned for a few thousand bucks. And Jane Dystel, who’d plucked him out of the pages of the New York Times and got him the deal to write the book that sped his political rise? As soon as Obama was ready to negotiate the contract for his second book—the big-money payday—he dumped her and replaced her with super-agent Robert Barnett. <br />
<br />
We risk reading too much into these vignettes—after all, our president is a mansion with many rooms and it would be foolish to reduce him to pure ego. Yet the vignettes are so numerous. For instance, a few years ago Obama’s high school basketball coach told ABC News how, as a teenager, Obama always badgered him for more playing time, even though he wasn’t the best player on the team—or even as good as he thought he was. Everyone who has ever played team sports has encountered the kid with an inflated sense of self. <br />
<br />
That’s common. What’s rare is the kid who feels entitled enough to nag the coach about his minutes. Obama was that kid. His enthusiasm about his abilities and his playing time extended into his political life. In 2004, <strong>Obama explained to author David Mendell how he saw his future as a national political figure: <em><span style="color: red;">“I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game.”</span></em></strong> <strong>After just a couple of months in the Senate, Obama jumped the Democratic line and started asking voters to make him president</strong>.<br />
<br />
Yet you don’t have to delve deep into armchair psychology to see how <strong>Obama’s vanity has shaped his presidency.</strong> In January 2009 he met with congressional leaders to discuss the stimulus package. The meeting was supposed to foster bipartisanship. <strong>Senator Jon Kyl questioned the plan’s mixture of spending and tax cuts. Obama’s response to him was, <span style="color: blue;">“I won.”</span></strong> A year later Obama held another meeting to foster bipartisanship for his health care reform plan. There was some technical back-and-forth about Republicans not having the chance to properly respond within the constraints of the format because President Obama had done some pontificating, as is his wont. Obama explained, “There was an imbalance on the opening statements because”—<strong><em>here he paused, self-satisfiedly</em><span style="color: red;">—“I’m the president. And so I made, uh, I don’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;"></span></strong><br />
There are lots of times when you get the sense that<strong> Obama views the powers of the presidency as little more than a shadow of his own person.</strong> When he journeyed to <strong><span style="color: blue;">Copenhagen in October 2009 </span></strong>to pitch Chicago’s bid for the Olympics, his speech to the IOC was about—you guessed it: “<strong><em>Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night,” he told the committee, “people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of</em></strong> . . . ” and away he went. <br />
<br />
A short while later he was back in Copenhagen for the climate change summit. When things looked darkest, he personally commandeered the meeting to broker a “deal.” Which turned out to be worthless.<strong><span style="color: red;"> In January 2010</span></strong>, Obama met with nervous Democratic congressmen to assure them that he wasn’t driving the party off a cliff. Confronted with worries that 2010 could be a worse off-year election than 1994, Obama explained to the professional politicians, <strong><span style="color: red;"><em>“Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.”</em></span></strong><br />
<br />
In the midst of the BP oil spill last summer, Obama explained, “My job right now is just to make sure that everybody in the Gulf understands this is what I wake up to in the morning and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about: the spill.” Read that again: <strong><span style="color: blue;">The president thinks that the job of the president is to make certain the citizens correctly understand what’s on the president’s mind</span></strong>.<br />
<br />
Obama’s vanity is even more jarring when paraded in the foreign arena. In April, Poland suffered a national tragedy when its president, first lady, and a good portion of the government were killed in a plane crash. Obama decided not to go to the funeral. He played golf instead. Though maybe it’s best that he didn’t make the trip. When he journeyed to Great Britain to meet with the queen he gave her an amazing gift: an iPod loaded with recordings of his speeches and pictures from his inauguration.<br />
<br />
On November 9, 2009, Europe celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was kind of a big deal. They may not mention the Cold War in schools much these days, but it pitted the Western liberal order against a totalitarian ideology in a global struggle. In this the United States was the guarantor of liberty and peace for the West; had we faltered, no corner of the world would have been safe from Soviet domination. <br />
<br />
President Obama has a somewhat different reading. He explains: “The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”<strong><span style="color: red;"> Pretty magnanimous of the Soviets to let the long twilight struggle end peacefully like that, especially after all we did to provoke them.</span></strong><br />
<br />
So Obama doesn’t know much about the Cold War. Which is probably why he didn’t think the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was all that important. <strong><span style="color: blue;">When the leaders of Europe got together to commemorate it, he decided not to go to that, either</span></strong>. But he did find time to record a video message, which he graciously allowed the Europeans to air during the ceremony.<br />
<br />
In his video, Obama ruminated for a few minutes on the grand events of the 20th century, the Cold War itself, and the great lesson we all should take from this historic passing: “Few would have foreseen . . . that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.” <strong><em><span style="color: red;">The fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, and the freedom of all humanity—it’s great stuff. Right up there with the election of Barack Obama. </span></em></strong><br />
<br />
All presidents are hostage to self-confidence. But not since Babe Ruth grabbed a bat and wagged his fat finger at Wrigley’s center-field wall has an American politician called his shot like Barack Obama. He announced his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, on the steps where Abraham Lincoln gave his “house divided” speech. He mentioned Lincoln continually during the 2008 campaign. After he vanquished John McCain he passed out copies of Team of Rivals, a book about Lincoln’s cabinet, to his senior staff. At his inauguration, he chose to be sworn into office using Lincoln’s Bible. At the inaugural luncheon following the ceremony, he requested that the food—each dish of which was selected as a “tribute” to Lincoln—be served on replicas of Lincoln’s china. <strong><em><span style="color: red;">At some point in January 2009 you wanted to grab Obama by the lapels and tell him—We get it! You’re the Rail Splitter! If we promise to play along, will you keep the log cabin out of the Rose Garden?</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;"></span></em></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">It’s troubling that a fellow whose electoral rationale was that he edited the Harvard Law Review and wrote a couple of memoirs was comparing himself to the man who saved the Union.</span></strong> But it tells you all you need to know about what Obama thinks of his political gifts and why he’s unperturbed about having led his party into political disaster in the midterms. He assumes that he’ll be able to reverse the political tide once he becomes the issue, in the presidential race in 2012. As he said to Harry Reid after the majority leader congratulated him on one particularly fine oration, <strong><em><span style="color: red;">“I have a gift, Harry.”</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
But Obama’s faith in his abilities extends beyond mere vote-getting. Buried in a 2008 New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza about the Obama campaign was this gob-smacking passage:<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;">Obama said that he liked being surrounded by people who expressed strong opinions, but he also said, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” After Obama’s first debate with McCain, on September 26th, [campaign political director Patrick] Gaspard sent him an e-mail. “You are more clutch than Michael Jordan,” he wrote. Obama replied, “Just give me the ball.”</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;"></span></em></strong><br />
In fairness to Obama, maybe he is a better speechwriter than his speechwriters. After all, his speechwriter was a 27-year-old, and the most affecting part of Obama’s big 2008 stump speech was recycled from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, with whom he shared a campaign strategist. <strong><span style="color: blue;">But it’s instructive that Obama thinks he knows “more about policies on any particular issue” than his policy directors</span></strong>. The rate of growth of the mohair subsidy? The replacement schedule for servers at the NORAD command center? The relationship between annual rainfall in northeast Nevada and water prices in Las Vegas?<br />
<br />
What Scott Fitzgerald once said about Hollywood is true of the American government: It can be understood only dimly and in flashes; there are no more than a handful of men who have ever been able to keep the entire equation in their heads. Barack Obama had worked in the federal government for all of four years. He was not one of those men. More important, however, is that as president he shouldn’t be the chief wonk, speechwriter, and political director.<br />
<br />
David Remnick delivers a number of insights about Obama in his book The Bridge. For instance, Valerie Jarrett—think of her as the president’s Karen Hughes—tells Remnick that Obama is often bored with the world around him. “I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually,” Jarrett says. “So what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that they had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy.” Jarrett concludes,<strong><em><span style="color: red;"> “He’s been bored to death his whole life.”</span></em></strong><br />
With one or two possible exceptions, that is. Remnick reports that “Jarrett was quite sure that one of the few things that truly engaged him fully before going to the White House was writing Dreams from My Father.” <strong><span style="color: blue;">So the only job Barack Obama ever had that didn’t bore him was writing about Barack Obama</span></strong>. But wait, there’s more.<br />
<br />
David Axelrod—he’s Obama’s Karl Rove—told Remnick that “<strong>Barack hated being a senator</strong>.” Remnick went on:<br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;">Washington was a grander stage than Springfield, but the frustrations of being a rookie in a minority party were familiar. Obama could barely conceal his frustration with the torpid pace of the Senate. His aides could sense his frustration and so could his colleagues. “<span style="color: blue;">He was so bored being a senator</span>,” one Senate aide said.</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
Obama’s friend and law firm colleague Judd Miner agreed. “The reality,” Miner told Remnick, “was that during his first two years in the U.S. Senate, I think, he was struggling; it wasn’t nearly as stimulating as he expected.” But even during his long, desolate exile as a senator, Obama was able to find a task that satisfied him. Here’s Remnick again: “<strong><span style="color: blue;">The one project that did engage Obama fully was work on The Audacity of Hope. He procrastinated for a long time and then, facing his deadline, wrote nearly a chapter a week</span></strong>.” Your tax dollars at work.<br />
<br />
Looking at this American Narcissus, it’s easy to be hammered into a stupor <strong>by the accumulated acts of vanity</strong>. Oh look, we think to ourselves, there’s our new president accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. There’s the president likening his election to the West’s victory in the Cold War. There’s the commander in chief bragging about his March Madness picks.<br />
<br />
Yet it’s important to remember that our presidents aren’t always this way. When he accepted command of the Revolutionary forces, <strong><span style="color: blue;">George Washington said, </span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;">I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important Trust. . . . I beg it may be remembered, by every Gentleman in the room, that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;"></span></em></strong><br />
Accepting the presidency, <strong><span style="color: blue;">Washington</span></strong> was even more reticent. Being chosen to be president, he said, <strong><em><span style="color: blue;">“could not but overwhelm with despondence one who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.”</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
In his biography of <strong>John Quincy Adams</strong>, Robert Remini noted that Adams was not an especially popular fellow. Yet on one of the rare occasions when he was met with adoring fans, “<strong><span style="color: red;">he told crowds that gathered to see and hear him to go home and attend to their private duties</span></strong>.”<br />
<br />
And Obama? In light of the present state of his presidency, let’s look back at his most famous oration:<br />
<strong><em>The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then<span style="color: red;"> I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth</span>. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.</em></strong><br />
<br />
The speech was given on June 3, 2008, and <strong><span style="color: blue;">the epoch-making historical event to which “this moment”</span></strong> refers throughout is <strong><span style="color: blue;">Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton</span></strong> in the Democratic primaries.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>A senior writer at The Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last covered the Obama campaign in 2008.</em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-76321481573583857092010-11-14T07:32:00.002-07:002010-11-14T07:33:41.696-07:00George Will: SHOCKING HYPE ON THE VOLT<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/nov/14/ed-will1114-ar-650135/"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>George Will</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>November 14, 2010</em></strong><br />
<br />
Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century, and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive.<br />
<br />
--Joe Biden, Oct. 26 WASHINGTON <strong><span style="color: blue;">General Motors</span></strong>, an appendage of the government, which owns 61 percent of it,<strong><span style="color: blue;"> is spending some of your money, dear reader, on full-page newspaper ads praising a government brainstorm -- the Volt</span></strong>, Chevrolet's highly anticipated and prematurely celebrated (sort of) electric car. Although the situation is murky -- GM and its government masters probably prefer it that way -- <strong><span style="color: red;">it is unclear in what sense GM has any money that is truly its own</span></strong>. And the Volt is not quite an electric car, or not the sort GM deliberately misled Americans into expecting.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">It is another hybrid</span></strong>. GM said the Volt would be an "all electrically driven vehicle" whose gas engine would be a mere range-extender, powering the Volt's generator, not its wheels: The engine just would maintain the charge as the battery ran down. <strong><em><span style="color: red;">Now GM says that at some point when the battery's charge declines, or when the car is moving near 70 mph, the gas engine will power the wheels</span></em></strong>.<br />
<br />
The newspaper ads proclaim, "Chevrolet Runs Deep." Whatever that means, if anything, it does not mean the Volt runs deep into a commute or the countryside just on electricity. At the bottom of the ads, there is this, in microscopic print: <strong>"Volt available in CA, TX, MI, NY, NJ, CT and Washington, DC, at the end of 2010. Quantities limited."</strong> Well.<br />
<br />
Quantities of everything -- except perhaps God's mercy, which is said to be infinite -- are limited. But quantities of the Volt are going to be so limited that 44 states can only pine for Volts from afar. Good, <strong><span style="color: blue;">because the federal government, which evidently is feeling flush, will give tax credits of up to $7,500 to every Volt purchaser. </span></strong>The Volt was conceived to appease the automotive engineers in Congress, which knows that people will have to be bribed, with other people's money, to buy this $41,000 car that seats only four people (the 435-pound battery eats up space).<br />
<br />
Mark Reuss, president of GM North America, said in a letter to The Wall Street Journal: "The early enthusiastic consumer response -- more than 120,000 potential Volt customers have already signaled interest in the car, and orders have flowed since the summer -- give us confidence that the Volt will succeed on its merits." <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Disregard the slipperiness ("signaled interest" how?) and telltale reticence (how many orders have "flowed"?). But "on its merits"? Why, then, the tax credits and other subsidies?</span></strong><br />
<br />
The Automotive-Engineer-in-Chief -- our polymathic president -- says there will be a million plug-in cars in America by 2015. <strong><span style="color: blue;">This will require much higher gasoline prices (perhaps $9 a gallon)</span></strong> and <strong><span style="color: blue;">much bigger bribes</span></strong>: GM, which originally was expected to produce as many as 60,000 next year, now says 10,000 for all of North America.<br />
<br />
GM says that, battery powered, the Volt has a 40-mile range. Popular Mechanics says 33. Thomas R. Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association of the electric utility industry, is, understandably, a Volt enthusiast: <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">This supposedly "green" vehicle will store electric energy -- 10 to 12 hours of charging on household current -- <span style="color: red;">produced by coal and gas-fired power plants</span></span></strong>.<br />
<br />
The <strong><span style="color: red;">federal government</span></strong>, although <strong><span style="color: red;">waist-deep in red ink</span></strong>, offers another bribe: Any purchaser can get a <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">tax credit of up to 50 percent</span></strong> of the cost (up to $2,000) of an extra-powerful (240 volt) charger. <strong><span style="color: blue;">California,</span></strong> although so strapped it recently issued IOUs to vendors, <span style="color: blue;"><strong>offers a $5,000 cash rebate</strong></span> for which Volt buyers are not eligible but purchasers of Nissan's electric Leaf are. Go figure.<br />
<br />
In April, in a<strong><span style="color: red;"> television commercial</span></strong> and a Wall Street Journal column headlined "The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full," <strong><em><span style="color: red;">GM's then-CEO Ed Whitacre said, "we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule." Rubbish</span></em></strong>.<br />
<br />
GM, which has received almost $50 billion in government subventions, repaid a $6.7 billion loan using other federal funds, a TARP-funded escrow account. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, called this a "TARP money shuffle."<span style="background-color: yellow;"> </span><strong><em><span style="background-color: yellow;">A commentator compared it to "paying off your Visa credit card with your MasterCard."</span></em></strong><br />
<strong><em><span style="background-color: yellow;"><br />
</span></em></strong><strong>Meretricious accounting</strong> and <strong>deceptive marketing</strong> are inevitable when<span style="color: red;"> government</span> and its <strong><span style="color: red;">misnamed </span><span style="color: red;">"private sector"</span></strong> accomplices foist state capitalism on an appalled country. But those who thought the ethanol debacle <strong><em>defined outer limits of government foolishness pertaining to automobiles were, alas, mistaken</em></strong>.<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
Contact George Will at <a href="mailto:georgewill@washpost.com">georgewill@washpost.com</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-68641295873131888752010-11-09T13:15:00.010-07:002010-11-09T13:19:01.025-07:00Separation of Church and State? For Muslims, Not so Much<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">De Facto Shariah Law in America</span></strong></div><br />
<strong><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html"><span style="color: blue;"><em>Click Here for Article</em></span></a></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>By Janet Levy</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>November 9, 2010</em></strong><br />
<br />
Is the United States today a de facto shariah state? A close look at recent events points to some alarming conclusions about the tenets of shariah law taking hold in our once-proud constitutional republic and the unwitting, unequal application of existing U.S. laws. <strong><span style="color: red;">The result is that when it comes to religious expression, Muslims now enjoy more freedom of religion and speech under our Bill of Rights than non-Muslims. Equal protection under the laws of our country holds for Muslims far better than for non-Muslims.</span></strong> Several recent examples illustrate this point.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;"><u>Christianity Suppressed</u></span></strong><br />
<br />
In October, students at a Chattanooga, Tennessee high school were told that their longtime tradition of praying at practice and before games would no longer be allowed. The school superintendent had called an end to prayer at all school functions following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.<br />
In July, students visiting the Supreme Court from an Arizona Christian school were stopped by police as they bowed their heads and quietly prayed for the justices. The students were standing outside the court building to the side at the bottom of the building steps. They weren't blocking traffic, but an officer abruptly approached them and ordered them to stop praying immediately.<br />
<br />
Four Christians were arrested in June for disorderly conduct at the Dearborn Arab International Festival after handing out copies of the Gospel of John. The four had stationed themselves five blocks from the festival and did not actively approach anyone, but instead waited for others to approach them. Still, police officers confiscated their video cameras and led the four Christians away in handcuffs to shouts of "Allah hu Akbar" from Muslim bystanders.<br />
<br />
In June of 2006, an instrumental rendition of "Ave Maria" was banned at the Henry Jackson High School graduation in Everett, Washington. Despite Justice Samuel Alito's protests, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider whether the case was an example of censorship of student speech.<br />
<br />
In direct contrast to the above incidents, <strong><em><span style="color: red;">which limit Christian prayer and expression</span></em></strong>, numerous examples exist of <strong><em><span style="color: red;">special accommodations for Muslim activities and religious practices</span></em></strong>. These indicate an adherence to a separate and distinct policy for Muslims that mirrors the supremacist requirements of shariah law.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>Islam Accepted</u></strong><br />
<br />
In the State of California, 7th-grade students at Excelsior Middle School in Discovery Bay, California adopted Muslim names, prayed on prayer rugs, and celebrated Ramadan under a state-mandated curriculum that requires instruction about various religions. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court again declined to hear legal challenges by concerned Excelsior parents, who complained that the instruction was actually religious indoctrination and that Christianity and Judaism were not given equal time and exposure. The curriculum has been upheld as appropriate multicultural material.<br />
<br />
After Carver Elementary School in San Diego absorbed Muslim students from a defunct charter school in September 2006, a special recess was provided for the students to pray, classes were segregated by gender, and pork was removed from the school menu. A teacher's aide at the school led children in prayer and was provided with a lesson plan allotting an hour of class time for Islamic prayer. In essence, Muslim students alone were privileged with public school time to practice their religion at an additional cost of $450,000 in public funds and a loss of instruction time. (Note: Looked this up also and revised it a bit as well.)<br />
<br />
In May, students at a Wellesley, Massachusetts middle school visited a local radical mosque and participated in a prayer session. Parents, who gave signed permission for students to visit the mosque, were not informed in advance that students would also be bowing to Allah and listening to lectures on Islam. Surprisingly, teachers did nothing to intervene as students participated and a mosque spokesperson denigrated Western civilization while glorifying and misrepresenting Islam, even falsely referring to the greater rights of women under Islam. Astonishingly, this occurred in a state that has prohibited the sale of Christmas items, including red and green tissue paper, at a school store and forced firefighters to remove a "Merry Christmas" sign from their station.<br />
<br />
Over the last few years, the University of Michigan, a taxpayer-funded school, has provided separate prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, requiring bathroom modifications costing over $100,000, for Muslim observances.<br />
<br />
At Minneapolis Community and Technical College, where religious displays, including those for Christmas, have been strictly prohibited, foot-washing facilities are being installed using taxpayer dollars after one student slipped and injured herself washing her feet in a sink. Director of Legal Affairs and President Phil Davis justified the disparate treatment of Muslims, explaining, "The foot-washing facilities are not about religion; they are about public safety."<br />
<br />
Muslims periodically block the streets of New York City, prostrating themselves in the middle of roadways and sidewalks undisturbed by police and other authorities. The resulting traffic jams are ignored, the double- and illegally parked vehicles are free of citations, and law enforcement officers are nowhere to be seen. Surely, practitioners of other religions or groups planning similar gatherings would be required to obtain permits for such an activity. Reportedly, the police have been ordered not to interfere with the Muslim prayer spectacle.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">These special accommodations for Muslims effectively elevate the Islamic faith above that of Christians and Jews, reinforcing the message of the Koran</span></strong> -- <strong><em><span style="color: red;">"Allah proclaims Islam over all other religions" (48:28), "Islam will dominate other religions" (9:33), and "Islam does not coexist with other faiths" (5:51).</span></em></strong> Muslims are required by the teachings of their faith to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims and Ensure worldwide submission to Islam -- <strong><em><span style="color: red;">"The believers must make war on infidels around them and let the infidels find firmness in them" (9:123).</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: red;"></span></em></strong><br />
<strong><em><span style="background-color: yellow;">Under Islamic shariah law, Christians may not even speak to Muslims about Christianity nor provide them with any literature about Christianity</span></em></strong>. With the recent arrests of Christians in Dearborn juxtaposed with prostrate Muslim worshipers in Manhattan (where a mosque is planned at Ground Zero at the same location where a church will not be rebuilt),<strong><span style="color: blue;"> it appears that the principles of Islamic supremacy and prohibitions against Christian proselytizing have begun to gain traction in America</span></strong>.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Christianity in America is withering as Bible study is eradicated in public schools, crosses are removed from the public square, and "winter holidays" replace Christmas celebrations. Remarkably, as Christianity is being dethroned and denied public expression, Islam is being unabashedly and openly promoted in what has been a Christian country for over two hundred years. It is truly remarkable that as American students chant prayers in Arabic in California's classrooms, Christmas music and graphics that refer to both Christmas and Chanukah are prohibited in New Jersey.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>Censure of Non-Muslims</u></strong><br />
<br />
<strong></strong><br />
Further, the First Amendment, free-speech rights of non-Muslims are being curtailed amidst the demands of Muslims who operate under few constraints. While non-Muslims are self-censoring out of fear and being shut down by authorities, Muslims enjoy almost unfettered rights to speak out.<br />
<br />
For example, leading up to the 9th anniversary of the Muslim attack on 9/11, Pastor Terry Jones of Florida announced that he would burn the Koran in protest of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Not only was Jones's life threatened by Muslims, but an Obama administration official asked him to cancel his plans. New York Governor David A. Paterson commented in response to Jones' threat: "More and more, particularly this year, I feel that the memory of those who were lost is being disrespected." However, Paterson did not criticize the Muslim threat on Jones' life, nor the plan itself to build a mosque over the remains of the victims of Islamic terrorism killed on 9/11.<br />
<br />
While Pastor Jones was punished by the loss of his mortgage and insurance and was presented with a bill for $180,000 for security by the City of Gainesville, Muslims avoided any public opprobrium even though twenty innocent people around the world died during Muslim protests against Jones. Like the response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons years earlier, the Koran-burning activity was suppressed and censured as disrespectful to Muslims. It was even compared to the burning of churches and synagogues. Yet Muslims who threatened violent reprisals against Jones were not warned that attempts to curtail First Amendment rights and even mayhem, assaults, or murder would not be tolerated and would be punished to the full extent of the law.<br />
<br />
In another instance of free speech rights violations, when New Jersey Transit Authority (NJTA) worker Derek Fenton burned a Koran near Ground Zero on 9-11, he was promptly removed by authorities as much for the perceived insult to Islam as for his own safety. The very next day, he was fired from his job of eleven years.<br />
<br />
In October, NPR reporter,Juan Williams was fired for expressing on Fox News a fear shared by the majority of Americans in a post-9/11 world -- his discomfort about being on a plane with people who dress as conservative Muslims. <strong><span style="color: blue;">Thanks to pressure from CAIR, a Hamas-supporting, extremist-linked organization, Williams was punished for this thoughtcrime</span></strong> and, without first talking to Williams, an NPR spokesperson broke the news on Twitter. Ironically, CAIR spokespersons are regular guests on NPR programs.<br />
<br />
Cartoonist Molly Norris was forced to disappear after declaring April 20 "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." <strong><span style="color: red;">Norris ignited a religious firestorm with radical Islamic cleric Imam Anwar al-Awlaki publicly ordering her execution.</span></strong> Under FBI recommendations and at her own expense, Norris went underground, changing her name and identity. She is no longer publishing cartoons at the publication where she has been a regular contributor.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;"><u>Freedom of Speech for Muslims</u></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>Whereas Norris was forced to enter a witness-protection program in response to a fatwa against her,</strong> <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Islamic leaders enjoy unlimited freedom to spread their messages of hate within the United States.</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: blue;">Some even receive protection at taxpayer expense, as did Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Egyptian-American Sufi imam who plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero</span></strong>. Rauf is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, endeavors to supplant U.S. law with shariah, and refuses to condemn jihadist groups and terrorism. In addition, he refused to sign a pledge revoking the mandatory death sentence for Muslim apostasy, has encouraged U.S. government officials to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas, and blames the United States for 9/11. Imam Rauf, who created the Shariah Index Project, which rates countries around the world on shariah compliance, has said that he believes in shariah supremacy.<br />
<br />
Tariq Ramadan, a highly controversial leader in the fundamentalist Muslim world and the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna, visited the United States in April. As a keynote speaker at the Hamas-supporting Council on American Islam Relations and as a speaker before another Muslim Brotherhood organization, the Muslim American Society, Ramadan refused to condemn the shariah law provision that calls for stoning women for alleged improprieties or to denounce suicide bombing. Ramadan is suspected by U.S. intelligence of having ties to al-Qaeda. He espouses amicable messages of peace and respect when speaking with Western audiences, while endorsing Wahhabism and spreading hatred of the West to Arabic-speaking audiences.<br />
<br />
Even Muslims targeted by our own government for their crimes receive protection. Anwar al-Awlaki, dubbed the "bin Laden of the internet" and suspected of having prior knowledge of 9/11 by having met privately with two of the 9/11 hijackers, has been defended by the American Civil Liberties Union. After President Obama approved placing Awlaki on a government assassination list, the ACLU initiated a lawsuit against the U.S. government challenging the order to kill him. This despite Awlaki being on the FBI's Most Wanted List and his having met and corresponded with Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin. He trained the Christmas underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was the inspiration for Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square car bomber. In a recent video delivered to CNN, Awlaki stated that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against the United States.<br />
<br />
Nine years after 9/11, in contrast to protections enjoyed by Muslims, individuals perceived by Muslims to have damaged Islam in some way have been threatened, fired, and publicly censured. This development indicates how far we have come down the road to dhimmitude, a subservient status in relation to Muslims. Clearly, if Norris had organized a Draw Jesus or Draw Moses Day, her life would be very much intact. If Juan Williams had talked about his fear of fundamentalist Christians, he would still be an NPR host in good standing. Had Jones burned the Old Testament, twenty people murdered by Muslims jihadists would still be alive, his reputation would be untarnished, and his financial situation would be undamaged. Had Derek Fenton burned a copy of the Old or New Testament, it is unlikely that the NJTA would have taken any action against him.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>Islamization of America</u></strong><br />
<br />
<strong></strong><br />
We are witnessing a transformation of American society in which <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Islam enjoys a privileged place among the country's religions</span></strong>. The sensitivities of the country's 3 to 5 million Muslims are considered above those of non-Muslims. Non-Muslims even assist sensitive Muslims in the weeding out of potentially offensive statements or actions that could be remotely critical of Islam or Muslims. Since 9/11, Americans have been well-trained not to talk about Islam and terrorism or to use the word "jihad." Publicly criticizing, voicing concern about, or even expressing fear about Muslim behavior or activities is forbidden. While other religions may be freely criticized, lampooned in cartoons, and denigrated by artwork, Islam is sacred, supreme, and beyond reproach.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Every effort is made in the United States to accommodate Muslims and engage them in interfaith dialogue and community affairs</span></strong>. Muslims may pray openly in public -- on city streets and in airport terminals. Many U.S. government departments hold Iftar dinners to celebrate the end of Ramadan. The Ground Zero mosque will be built over the ashes of 9/11 victims, but the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed by Muslims will not. <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Non-Muslims enjoy no such privileges or special treatment in Muslim countries. They may not visit Mecca nor build churches or synagogues</span></strong>. U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia are prohibited from wearing visible religious symbols.<br />
<br />
The foregoing examples, not exhaustive by any means, point to the fact that <strong><em><span style="color: red;">we are living under a de facto shariah law system in the United States today that has compromised the freedoms we have enjoyed under our Constitution </span></em></strong>-- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. <strong>Now, we no longer enjoy equal protection under the law</strong>. Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression. This has led to the stealthy introduction of shariah law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions.<br />
<br />
Instead, claims of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bias are rampant. Yet consider the following: the Muslim atrocity of 9/11, the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim Abdulmutallab to detonate plastic explosive in his underwear on a Northwest Airlines flight in 2009, the massacre of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood by jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hassan in 2009, the failed bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad last May, the violent jihad plot in North Carolina planned by Daniel Patrick Boyd, the recent storming of a Baghdad church and murder of 58 Christians, the UPS plot to bomb synagogues in the Chicago area uncovered this past weekend, and countless other incidents over the past several years.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">It is not irrational and biased to fear practitioners of a religion who are trying to kill non-Muslims based on teachings from their religion's doctrine.</span></strong> Apologists for Islam whitewash these events, but <strong><span style="color: red;">Islamic teachings (Reliance of the Traveller, o4.9, p. 590) specifically state that a Muslim's life is worth three times that of a Christian or Jew and fifteen times more than that of a Zoroastrian</span></strong>. (The Consulate General of India, Jeddah lists indemnities for Hindus and Buddhists at 1/15 that of Muslims). <strong><em><span style="color: blue;">When non-Muslims so much as express any discomfort with Muslims and Islamic ideology, they risk public censure, financial ruin, loss of livelihood, and even death. he United States is truly under shariah law when it is forbidden and a punishable offense to call out Islamic doctrine for what it is.</span></em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-14634719519699666222010-11-09T12:54:00.003-07:002010-11-09T12:57:50.052-07:00Bernanke's Cowardice Has Sealed Our Fate<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/bernankes_cowardice_has_sealed.html"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>Monty Pelerin blogs at <a href="http://www.economicnoise/">http://www.economicnoise/</a></em></strong><br />
<span class="home_blog_date" itxtvisited="1"><strong><em>November 09, 2010</em></strong></span> <br />
<br />
The day after the election, the Federal Reserve launched QE2, the second round of Quantitative Easing. This public relations euphemism attempts to hide the fact that the Fed is "printing money" (the Fed actually does it electronically these days).<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;"> "Cheating, debasing and inflating," as in stealing from the public, is a more accurate description.</span></strong><br />
<br />
Bernanke indicated from 600 to 850 billion additional dollars would be created. To put this in perspective, the Tarp package was in this range. The <span style="color: blue;"><strong>total Federal Reserve balance sheet</strong></span> was <strong><span style="color: blue;">$829 billion</span></strong> at the end of <strong><span style="color: blue;">2004</span></strong> and only <strong><span style="color: red;">$869 billion in August 2007</span></strong>. At the end of <strong><span style="color: blue;">2009 </span><span style="background-color: yellow;">it had ballooned to over $2,200</span></strong> <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">billion.</span></strong> This announcement means it is headed to $3,000 billion (3 trillion).<br />
<br />
<strong>Ben Bernanke weakly defended his action with the following justifications:</strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>•... further support to the economy is needed</em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>•Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth.</em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>•higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending.</em></strong><br />
<br />
The first two statements are true as stated, but unlikely to be affected by additional QE. The third is partially true, although it is unclear that his action will raise stock prices. Furthermore, empirical data is not supportive of the alleged relationship between stock prices and spending (see the Kass reference below).<br />
<br />
Many economists and analysts believe that the Fed actions will not help. Several believe they will actually make conditions worse (two examples are Doug Kass and Pimco's El Erian).<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">The Real Reason for QE2</span></strong><br />
<br />
Mr. Bernanke's justification for committing nearly another trillion dollars does not meet the "smell" test. <strong><span style="color: red;">In prior life, Professor Bernanke would flunk an Econ 101 student for such weak justification (of course we know no one really gets an F at Princeton, no matter how deserved). </span></strong><br />
<br />
Mr. Bernanke's performance was a charade meant to hide the fact that the government is now illiquid! Mr. Bernanke instituted QE2 because the Federal Government has reached the point where it cannot pay its bills.<br />
<br />
If the Fed does not buy government bonds (print money), checks will stop for programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, military pay, etc.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">The Madoff Model of government just ended. There are no longer enough bond buyers or taxpayers to pay for the profligate spending of the US government.</span></strong><br />
<br />
For more than a decade, responsible economists and analysts warned how this situation had to end. That point has apparently just been reached as a result of some of these reasons:<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">•We are increasingly viewed overseas as a profligate, fiscally irresponsible country with no willingness to change. </span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">•Our debt levels have become dangerously high, raising the probability of sovereign default. </span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">•Our annual deficit is 3 to 4 times larger than ever before and looks like there is no political will to address it. Interest rates are too low to compensate for the perceived risk.</span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">•Foreign countries that supported us are now either unwilling or unable to purchase our debt.</span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span></strong><br />
<strong>Solving Insolvency</strong><br />
<br />
The root cause of the liquidity problem is insolvency. Insolvency is a condition where eventually obligations cannot be met. Illiquidity then results. <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">QE2 provides liquidity, but does nothing to solve the insolvency issue. </span></strong><br />
<br />
Unless the insolvency problem is solved, illiquidity will continue. From a mathematical standpoint, it is possible to solve the insolvency problem. From a practical or political standpoint, it is likely impossible. <br />
<br />
Our funded Federal Debt is almost 100% of GDP. Our unfunded social obligations are about another $100 trillion. The total net worth of the country is about $55 trillion. Government has promised benefits that are twice what everything in the country is worth. To understand the math, see Spiraling to Bankruptcy. <br />
<br />
Laurence Kotlikoff referred to a recent <strong><span style="color: red;">International Monetary Fund assessment</span></strong> of the US financial condition: <br />
<br />
...<strong><span style="color: red;"> the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt.</span></strong> Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: "The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today's federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates." It adds that "closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP."<br />
<br />
The government would have to double every tax it collects (including payroll taxes) to run 5% surpluses for decades in order to bring government obligations into manageable range. Such tax increases would plunge the US and probably the world into an economic Dark Ages. <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Alternatively, current government spending could be cut by about 50%. Managing spending forward so that a 5% surplus was maintained would also work.</span></strong> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Bernanke's Morton's Fork</span></strong><br />
<br />
Mr. Bernanke was faced with two choices, neither of which were good. He could have refused to initiate another round of QE, which would have forced the government to make tough decisions. Such action might have put the economy into another Great Depression. He likely would have lost his job and been blamed for any economic difficulties that followed. <br />
<br />
He chose the other option -- provide the needed funds. <strong>As such, he chose to be the Enabler-in-Chief,</strong> reinforcing the out-of-control government fiscal policies. This choice likely enabled him to keep his job (for the time being) and made him appear to be the White Knight responsive to economic needs. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately for the country, his choice makes matters worse, much worse. <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">The Road Ahead</span></strong><br />
<br />
With QE2, the government will be able to pay its bills. If the shortfall were temporary, Bernanke's actions might be considered prudent. Of course if the shortfall were temporary, the government would be able to borrow in the marketplace. <br />
<br />
Without a solution to spending excesses and social commitments that cannot be met, there is no end to our shortfalls. <strong><span style="color: blue;">Welcome to QE2, soon to be followed by QE3, QE4 ... and hyperinflation</span></strong>. <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">QE2 is just another step toward "banana republic" status</span></strong>. We are on the same road travelled by Argentina, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany and many others who destroyed their currencies. <br />
<br />
These countries did not intend that result. Each step was justified based on the expediency of keeping the government going. As Hayek pointed out:<br />
<br />
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments.<br />
<br />
In every case, including our own, the government had already failed. Its attempt to survive made matters much worse for its citizens.<br />
<br />
QE2 may only represent the first step, but its effects alone are apt to be profound. <strong><span style="color: red;">Pimco's Bill Gross anticipates it will produce a 20% decline in the value of the dollar</span></strong>. If you were China or Japan, would you want to buy Treasury Bonds? Would you continue to hold dollar-denominated assets? These types of considerations trigger currency runs.<br />
<br />
Mr. Bernanke has deferred the day of reckoning. His action will not prevent government collapse, it will ensure it, along with collapses in the currency, economy and likely society itself. <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">This little man, unelected and accountable to no one, has just sentenced the country to an Economic Apocalypse. </span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>Milton Friedman's concern seems especially appropriate:</strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>The power to determine the quantity of money... is too important, too pervasive, to be exercised by a few people, however public-spirited, if there is any feasible alternative. There is no need for such arbitrary power... <span style="background-color: yellow;">Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes - excusable or not - can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system</span>. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic -<span style="color: red;"> this is the key political argument against an independent central bank</span>.</em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">How Will This End?</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>There is no pleasant ending</strong>. Political activity over the past fifty years guaranteed that. As Ludwig von Mises observed:<br />
<br />
Credit expansion can bring about a temporary boom. But such a fictitious prosperity must end in a general depression of trade, a slump. <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">The best solution is for Mr. Bernanke to cease and desist from his QE policy</span></strong>. That would require the political class to face up to its problems. <strong><em>It would require a massive roll-back of the welfare state and government.</em></strong> It would require resizing government to a level that productive citizens would support. Transitional hardships would occur, including civil unrest and possibly a Depression. <br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: blue;">The worst solution is the one that Mr. Bernanke has selected. If he stays on this course, fiat money will become worthless. So will Social Security checks, because they will have no purchasing power. All fixed income and savings will be wiped out. The middle class will be financially destroyed. </span></em></strong><br />
<br />
Markets will cease to function except on a barter system. Food and other necessities will be in short supply, possibly to the extent of health risks developing. Unimaginable civil unrest is likely. <br />
<br />
A Greater Depression is assured. Unlike the first Great Depression, citizens would be without any financial wherewithal. Their savings and fixed income will have been stolen from them via hyperinflation. In short, it would be the worst Economic Hell imaginable.<br />
<br />
Mr. Bernanke was unwilling to tell you what is happening. His action has moved us into the eye of a massive storm. <strong><em><span style="color: blue;">Do not be lulled into complacency for as von Mises stated:</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: blue;">A fiat-money inflation can be carried on only as long as the masses do not become aware of the fact that the government is committed to such a policy.</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
Now you know and others will pick up on this quickly. Make like the political elite and protect yourselves from the Level Six economic hurricane that Mr. Bernanke is stoking. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>The history of government management of money has, except for a few short happy periods, been one of incessant fraud and deception. </em></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>-Friedrich Hayek</em></strong></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-9348934227070937042010-10-28T07:14:00.002-06:002010-10-28T07:30:56.724-06:00An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh and His Listeners [From a Democrat]— With Notes on the Democrat Civil War Already In Progress<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/27/an-open-letter-to-rush-limbaugh-and-his-listeners/"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>October 27, 2010</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>Kevin DuJan, Editor in Chief</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>Hillbuz.org</em></strong><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pbRHmX-rF6E/TMlwwTM0q6I/AAAAAAAAR_c/OWJ1ho_lQ-g/s1600/hillary.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" nx="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pbRHmX-rF6E/TMlwwTM0q6I/AAAAAAAAR_c/OWJ1ho_lQ-g/s1600/hillary.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">When Obama and the DNC attacked Hillary and her supporters, they permanently alienated tens of millions of us from the party. I know for a fact I am not the only guy with a picture like this on his wall who is working every day to bring down the Obama White House and Democrat Party. Not for Hillary, though I love the woman, but for America...because I love this country even more. </div><br />
Dear Rush, <br />
<br />
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 <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">how much damage Obama has done to the Democrat Party</span></strong> — 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.<br />
<br />
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. <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">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).</span></strong><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
You seem to know most of all this, so I’ll end the history lesson by noting <strong><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></strong><br />
<br />
This is also when most of us stopped using the term “Democratic Party”, since there’s nothing “democratic” about these people. <strong><span style="color: red;">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.</span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span></strong><br />
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) <strong><span style="color: blue;">but I can’t imagine ever voting for another Democrat again, as long as I live.</span></strong> To Hell with Democrats. <strong><em><span style="background-color: yellow;">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).</span></em></strong> 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. <strong><span style="color: red;">This is reckless and reprehensible to the point of treason.</span></strong><br />
<br />
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 <span style="color: blue;"><strong>I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me</strong></span>.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></strong> Not just me, but all Hillary supporters.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
If you have not seen it already, Rush, you need to watch <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Gigi Gaston’s documentary “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008″.</span></strong> 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.<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;"> 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</span></strong>. 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.<br />
<br />
The media has never talked about this. I don’t remember ever hearing you talk about it.<strong><span style="color: red;"> 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</span></strong>. 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 <strong><em><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em><span style="color: blue;"></span></em></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">This is what the Obama campaign, the media, and the DNC did to DEMOCRATS</span></strong>.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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. </span></strong>This came straight from the top, from Obama himself. <strong>Both he and his wife Michelle called the Clintons racists</strong>. <strong><span style="color: red;">Obama’s surrogates like James Clyburne, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, and others called Geraldine Ferraro, Madeline Albright, and others racists.</span></strong> <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">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.</span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;"></span></strong><br />
<strong>Stephanie Tubbs Jones</strong>, my former Congresswoman back home in Cleveland, was a black Hillary Clinton supporter to the very end — and <strong><span style="color: blue;">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…</span></strong>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”. <strong><span style="color: red;">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”.</span></strong> 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 <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">even after she died</span></strong> these people wouldn’t stop hating her for daring to be an outspoken black woman who would never abandon Hillary for Obama.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Well, Rush, let me just tell you, from personal experience, <strong><em><span style="color: red;">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</span></em></strong> what the Obama campaign directed at them, in terms of all this Alinsky bullying.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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”. <strong><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></strong><br />
<br />
This is all the Democrats have left, Rush.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>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.</em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">No more. Never again.</span></strong><br />
<br />
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.<strong> Being called a racist repeatedly and hearing from Donna Brazile that we are not needed will do that to a person.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></strong><br />
<br />
There was a show on ABC a few years ago called <strong><span style="color: red;">Alias starring Jennifer Garner</span></strong> 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.<strong><span style="color: red;"> And then, one day, Sidney learned SD6 was actually an enemy of America</span></strong>…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.<br />
<br />
Rush (and his listeners), please hear me on this because you will not read this in the media — <strong><span style="color: red;">but just about every one of us from the Hillary 2008 campaign is a Sidney Bristow today.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>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 <span style="background-color: yellow;">we were told this was the only way Democrats could win…with union muscle</span>.</strong> 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.<br />
<br />
Democrats took off the mask. The DNC reveled in being fully Leftist-controlled. <strong><em><span style="color: red;">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.</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
I’m horrified by that.<br />
<br />
Hillary supporters are horrified by that.<br />
<br />
And we have not sat back quietly to allow this to happen without a fight.<br />
<br />
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 <strong><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></strong><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
This is and it isn’t about Hillary.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">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.).</span></strong><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <strong><span style="color: red;">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<span style="color: black;"> what that really means</span>.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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?</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">Do you condone voter fraud and the shameless, undemocratic tactics employed by Democrats?</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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?</span></strong><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Hillary supporters realize this.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">We received a heaping helping of Alinsky assaults to wake us up to this reality.</span></strong><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <strong><span style="color: blue;">Just like with the Leftists Carter infected the Democrat Party with, Obama legacy hires will be in the DNC for a generation to come</span></strong>…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.<br />
<br />
<strong>Democrats have made themselves synonymous with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-democracy.</strong> 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.<br />
<br />
On November 3rd, no one I know will be resting on any laurels. <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">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</span></strong>. When you hear talk of a <strong><span style="color: red;">Hillary “enemies’ list”,</span></strong> or just <span style="color: red;"><strong>“The List”</strong></span> 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.<br />
<br />
Hear that, Ben Nelson…voters will be coming for you.<br />
<br />
You and everyone like you.<br />
<br />
Every last one of you.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Hope your time on the Obama Kool-Aid bandwagon was worth ruining your life over.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>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.</em></strong><br />
<br />
We will not give up.<br />
<br />
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. <strong><span style="color: red;">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.</span></strong><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
THAT, El Rushbo, is what your “Hillary babes” are up to.<br />
<br />
<strong>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.</strong><br />
<br />
Tell your listeners to count on that.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-20803587821168256542010-10-13T07:12:00.000-06:002010-10-13T07:12:10.288-06:00Obama’s Healthcare Rules Will Shut Down Catholic Hospitals Nationwide<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://emergingcorruption.com/2010/10/obamas-healthcare-rules-will-shut-down-catholic-hospitals-nationwide/"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>Oct. 12, 2010</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>Warner Todd Huston</em></strong><br />
<br />
Some of Obamacare’s most destructive forces are quickly becoming common knowledge. We have, for instance, become painfully aware that Obama’s claim that we all could keep our plans and doctors “if you like them” is an outright falsehood as some people are already losing their coverage. It is also becoming clear that companies will be dropping plans all over the place making a lie of the idea that plans will be cheaper and easier to get once Obamacre comes into force. Another aspect of the destructive nature of this top down-style of “healthcare” is that once government takes over the system Democrats will assume they have the power to force religious-based healthcare providers to perform abortions and this will cause thousands of facilities to close down. This will, of course, make care even harder to get in many cities across the nation as hospital beds are lost in great numbers.<br />
<br />
In fact, we are already seeing this disastrous situation of closing hospitals playing out in Scranton, Pennsylvania where three Catholic-operated hospitals are likely going to be shut down and/or sold off because of the negative affects Obamacare will have on these facilities.<br />
<br />
Kevin Cook, the CEO of Mercy Health Partners, the company that operates these three hospitals,<a href="http://www.wnep.com/news/countybycounty/wnep-scr-mercy-hospital-for-sale,0,5633203.story"> <strong><span style="color: red;">told WNEP TV News</span></strong></a> that Obamacare “absolutely” playing a role in the decision to sell off the facilities.<br />
<br />
“Health care reform is absolutely playing a role.” Cook said. “Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely.”<br />
<br />
Almost immediately Obama associate Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association came out to <a href="http://uspolitics.einnews.com/pr-news/182023-alarmist-news-reports-about-catholic-hospitals-are-false-cha-supports-difficult-decision-by-mercy-health-partners"><strong><span style="color: red;">slam Mr. Cook</span></strong></a><strong><span style="color: red;">.</span></strong><br />
<br />
Keehan’s press release says in part: “Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation.”<br />
<br />
The CHA is a for profit company that works for some Catholic hospitals as a sort of trade association and Keehan is a close associate of the president and a prominent supporter of Obamacare. Keehan was even a recipient of one of the 21 pens that Obama used to sign the Orwellian named Affordable Care Act — <strong><a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/sr._kehaan_receives_presidential_pen_for_supporting_health_care_against_bishops_decision"><span style="color: red;">much to the chagrin of Catholic Bishops</span></a></strong>.<br />
<br />
This Keehan apostate is constantly put forth by the Old Media as some representative of Catholic hospitals. Worse few Old Media outlets note that she is an Obamacare activist and Obama associate.<br />
<br />
As Jeffery Lord of the Spectator <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/11/the-presidents-nun-obamacare-s/3"><strong><span style="color: red;">says</span></strong></a>, “In other words, Sister Carol is not just some kindly nun who reminds you of the nun whacking your knuckles in grade school for this or that offense. No, in the world of Washington Sister Carol is a powerhouse lobbyist — make that a liberal social justice lobbyist — with a clear set of political skills and a very, very high-powered set of very elite friends.”<br />
<br />
For instance, back in March the AP passed off a false news story attempting to mislead the public into thinking that <a href="http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/03/15/ap-conflates-fake-catholic-group-with-catholic-church/"><strong><span style="color: red;">Catholic hospitals supported Obama’s healthcare bill</span></strong>.</a> AP then reported the support of Obamacare announced by the CHA, an independent group that does not represent the Catholic Church nor Catholic hospitals per se, and conflated that announcement to a claim as if all Catholic hospitals and therefore the Church itself were standing behind Obama’s take over of the nation’s healthcare system.<br />
<br />
AP reported the announcement by the CHA and made as if it somehow represented “Catholics,” but this group has no official relationship with the Catholic Church, nor does it represent any groups of religious Catholics, nor serve as a source for Catholic teaching or doctrine. Needless to say the CHA also does not represent all Catholic hospitals but only the few that have paid to join her association.<br />
<br />
The costs that Obamacare will force upon hospitals isn’t the only problem for Catholic-based healthcare. Obama, his party, and their pro-infanticide supporting associates also intend to force Catholic and other religious based healthcare facilities to perform abortions whether it violates their consciences or not.<br />
<br />
Recently former Senator Rick Santorum (R, Penn) raised this point in an <a href="http://m.philly.com/phillycom/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=1LfX8pfP&full=true#display"><strong><span style="color: red;">editorial for Philly.com</span></strong></a>. Santorum cites a new effort by the ACLU to get Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama’s controversial abortion supporting recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, to force all healthcare providers to perform abortion procedures.<br />
<br />
Santorum rails against this effort saying: “This abuse of conscience betrays American principles that go back at least to the country’s founding, when George Washington respected the pacifist consciences of Quakers. Similarly, since Roe v. Wade and under both political parties, Congress has passed laws that respect the consciences of health-care workers.”<br />
<br />
This effort to force all healthcare providers to provide abortion is a serious threat to the nation’s healthcare system.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nccbuscc.org/comm/cip.shtml"><strong><span style="color: red;">By 2005</span></strong></a> there were over 615 Catholic hospitals, some 400 healthcare centers, and over 1,500 specialized healthcare homes. These facilities employ almost 600,000 employees and accounted for more than 20% of all hospital admissions. And this is just the Catholic oriented healthcare facilities.<br />
<br />
As the realities of the strict, anti-religious qualities of Obamacare dawns on people and as the government begins to crack down on religious organizations forcing them to obviate their consciences the eventual result will be the end of religious-based healthcare institutions. This will leave millions of Americans underserved and will also leave their health in danger.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-59268430940071761632010-10-11T20:17:00.000-06:002010-10-11T20:17:52.963-06:00<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/LuritaDoan/2010/10/11/obamas_huge_new_tax/page/full/"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>by Lurita Doan</em></strong><br />
<br />
Pity the poor entrepreneur and small business owner in America now getting socked, with the mother of all taxes, by a government that has become either hostile, or indifferent, to understanding what it takes to build a business, grow a company and hire more workers. I'm not talking about new fees, but about a much greater confiscatory tax, imposed without any real debate or consideration--the confiscation of time. <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Nearly every Obama administration initiative demands new, more complicated reporting and compliance filings</span></strong> on small businesses and entrepreneurs that are already overburdened with a mish-mash of reporting requirements that suck away an entrepreneur's time and energy. 2008 compliance costs for a small business, according to a recent SBA Report, was approximately $10,000 per employee. But, the Obama Administration has added new, and far more onerous, reporting demands that are likely to treble those costs to $30,000 per employee. Facing such huge, and hidden, costs of compliance, is there any wonder small businesses are not hiring as they have in the past? <br />
<br />
Consider, for example, one of the new reporting requirements contained in Section 9006 of the disastrous Obama healthcare bill which requires all small companies to file 1099s for any purchase over $600, to include anything from office supplies to electricity to independent contractors. As a result, small businesses may need to hire a full-time compliance officer that does nothing but file these new forms and reports. <br />
<br />
But that is just the start. For example, Section 1512 of the Recovery Act (ARRA) requires that a report with a minimum of 12 data points be submitted quarterly for each Recovery Act project over $25,000. A separate report has to be submitted if the business worked as a subcontractor on any ARRA project. This report is separate from and in addition to the mandatory, contractual reports submitted monthly to the government contracting officer on each project and, separate from and in addition to, the quarterly program reviews provided for agency leaders. Of course, if the business performs ARRA work at the State level, many of those states have additional reporting requirements for businesses who are working on federally funded stimulus projects within the state. <br />
<br />
Small business already struggles because the federal government’s reporting requirements are a moving target. Businesses must track the unusually frequent changes in government-issued guidance regarding reporting requirements. For example, since issuing the first reporting requirements for ARRA in February 2009, these requirements have changed nine times in the past 19 months, in March 2009, April 2009, June 2009, September 2009, November 2009, December 2009, April 2010, May 2010 and most recently in September 2010. <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Each “update” to the reporting requirements issued by OMB is followed by an ancillary memo issued within each federal agency by each agency’s Chief Acquisition Officer. </span></strong><br />
<br />
Businesses, especially small businesses, may spend large segments of the workday tracking reporting requirement changes. <strong>Businesses must do this because a clerical error,</strong> which could be interpreted by the oversight community as fraud, <strong><span style="color: red;">carries severe penalties</span></strong>, and the burden of proof of innocence falls on the business. <br />
<br />
Taxes take many forms. <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">More damaging</span></strong>, than canceling the Bush tax cuts, more damaging than the changing definition of who is considered “rich”, more disturbing than Obama Administration's complete lack of understand of what it takes to grow a business and an economy, <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">is the fact that time is money</span></strong>, so the new, burdensome and intrusive reporting requirements demanded by Obama's flawed policies <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">puts a tax burden of time on all businesses. </span></strong><br />
<br />
Under the guise of “accountability” and the lure of “transparency”, the Obama Administration continues to bombard businesses with additional, ill-thought reporting requirements. Few legislators and few members of the Obama Administration have ever experienced first-hand, the struggles of entrepreneurship--what Jerry McGuire calls "an up-at-dawn, pride-swallowing siege," of trying to win a customer's business, be competitive and succeed.<strong><span style="color: red;"> The Administration, clearly, does not understand or does not care about the true cost to business of their self-serving actions. </span></strong><br />
<br />
Peter Drucker, the management guru once said: “if you’re meeting, you’re not working”. Perhaps the corollary is that when a business is “reporting”, then they aren’t really working either. <br />
<br />
Make no mistake: well-reasoned reports aid in accountability and transparency and are essential to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely by the government. But this is not happening in the Obama Administration. The President Obama once promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class.<strong><span style="color: blue;"> Yet, fees, fines and mandatory purchases are “onerous, rigorous demands” which, according to Webster, qualify as taxes. </span></strong><br />
<br />
Obama has demanded the one commodity which is in limited supply, and which can never be reproduced once spent—time. <strong><span style="color: red;">Obama wastes our time--and that tax is the greatest of all.</span></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-57468201378739460522010-10-10T14:31:00.001-06:002010-10-10T14:32:09.541-06:00"Here's to You Mr. Jefferson"<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLAg8a0vCZQ"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Link to Youtube</span></a></strong></div><br />
Absolutely awesome video on our Founding Fathers! Share with your friends! Sung to the tune of "Here's to You, Mrs. Robinson."<br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CLAg8a0vCZQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CLAg8a0vCZQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-71349797524062970942010-10-03T17:01:00.001-06:002010-10-03T17:05:45.868-06:00All the King's Horses and all the Kings Slaves Couldn't Put Butts in the Streets<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/10/all-the-kings-horses-and-all-the-kings-slaves-couldnt-put-butts-in-the-streets-.html"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
Imagine that: all of Caesar's subjects from across all spectrums of the leftist universe couldn't fill a ...... tooth. Oprah, Jon Stewart, ACORN, SEIU -- union attendance was mandatory. Sharpton and his gang pay folks ($65 a day) to show up at their hate fests.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2010/09/27/astroturf-thousands-given-free-bus-rides-by-unions-naacp-to-one-nation-rally/"><span style="color: red;">Astroturf? Thousands Given Free Bus Rides by Unions & NAACP to One Nation Rally</span></a><br />
<br />
Worse, these bloodsuckers and parasites trashed the World War II Memorial.<br />
<br />
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GCcwXlvb74Y?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GCcwXlvb74Y?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/leftist-and-media-double-standards-on.html"><strong><span style="color: red;">Leftist and Media Double-Standards on Socialist 'One Nation' Rally Reporting</span></strong></a> American Power<br />
<br />
It's nothing new, of course, but the media's campaign to downplay the left's communist-dominated "One Nation" protest yesterday needs to be highlighted nevertheless.<br />
<br />
The first thing to notice is this photograph on crowd size comparisons from "Restoring Honor" and "One Nation" <a href="http://oldretiredpettyofficer.blogspot.com/2010/10/in-thousands-thousands-they-say.html"><strong><span style="color: red;">(via Old Retired Petty Officer</span></strong></a>). <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pbRHmX-rF6E/TKkKbl9Z25I/AAAAAAAAR_A/vZFHsO2QnYo/s1600/Beck_Rally_v_Commie_Obama_Rally.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" px="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pbRHmX-rF6E/TKkKbl9Z25I/AAAAAAAAR_A/vZFHsO2QnYo/s320/Beck_Rally_v_Commie_Obama_Rally.jpg" width="273" /></a></div> <br />
Crowd estimates have an "outsized" importance when the press and leftist blogs seek to minimize and ridicule the tea parties. But as soon as Democrat-Socialists march on D.C., <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/heres-your-enthusiasm-gap-one-nation-"><strong><span style="color: blue;">wild claims</span></strong></a> <a href="http://www.memeorandum.com/101002/p37#a101002p37"><strong><span style="color: red;">of "double" the size</span></strong></a> of the Glenn Beck rally get wide play. <a href="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/10/one-of-these-is-not-like-the-others.html"><strong><span style="color: blue;">Tom Maguire</span></strong></a> reports on the widely divergent crowd-size estimates, as well as systematic efforts to withhold on-the-ground reports <strong><span style="color: red;">(</span></strong><a href="http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/306412.php"><strong><span style="color: red;">MSNBC edited</span></strong></a> out <strong><a href="http://www.memeorandum.com/101002/p27#a101002p27"><span style="color: red;">AP's first-hand report</span></a></strong> indicating that<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;"> "Saturday's crowds were less dense and didn't reach as far to the edges as they did during Beck's rally")</span></strong>. And while some lefty blogs <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/todays-one-nation-rally-dc-lets-make"><strong><span style="color: blue;">continue to pump up</span></strong></a> bogus "larger" crowd numbers, some have scaled back their claims as the facts have become available. The Political Carnival, which posted two entries yesterday boasting bigger numbers for "One Nation," has now issued a hilarious retraction, asking "<a href="http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/10/does-size-matter/"><strong><span style="color: red;">Does Size Matter</span></strong></a>?" Well obviously it did yesterday, but now we have this: "<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">While it is a visual indicator of enthusiasm and support, the size of a crowd isn’t as important as the content, message, and tone of the event." </span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, October 03, 2010 at 05:23 PM </em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-16055456324997933562010-10-02T11:22:00.002-06:002010-10-02T11:35:29.394-06:00Matt Mead and the Hansen conservative heritage<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://wyomingwatchdogs.com/archives/912"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
Matt Mead, 2010 Republican candidate for governor of Wyoming, <strong><em>has promoted himself as a rancher, playing to the respect and admiration we feel </em></strong>for the cowboy, an icon of independence, self-reliance, and resourcefulness, a symbol of the man who is able to push through hardship and hard work to provide for himself and his family.<br />
<br />
So how well does Mead size up to this icon of independence?<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Matthew Hansen Mead can claim a family tradition of political conservativism</span></strong>. Mead’s mother, Mary Hansen Mead, was the daughter of Clifford P. (Cliff) Hansen, one of those rare men who was almost universally respected for his great successes in defending Wyoming’s rights. Cliff’s father, Peter Arthur Hansen, did surveying and ditch work on ranches and built up the Jackson Hole ranch he and his wife homesteaded with Cliff and the other children helping every step of the way. Cliff liked to tell the story that he never tasted beef until he was a college student, not because the family didn’t like beef, but because it was a luxury. The family produced cattle, and ate wild game like elk and deer. <strong><em>This was a story every frugal cattleman could relate to…you don’t eat your profits.</em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">Cliff Hansen was a true son of Wyoming</span></strong>, growing up and getting his early education in Jackson before heading to the University of Wyoming where he earned a degree in animal science in 1934, then back home to Jackson. From 1943 on Hansen’s life included Wyoming political service, as Teton County Commissioner (1943-1951), UW Trustee (1946-1966), Governor (1963-1967) and U.S. Senator (1967-1978). At the same time he was President of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association (1953-1955) and a member of American National Cattlemen’s Association. <strong><em>This was a man who stayed in the middle of things, getting things done.</em></strong><br />
<br />
Hansen worked for all the people of Wyoming. <strong><span style="color: blue;">Governor Cliff Hansen drove an expansion of highways</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: blue;">and reservoirs</span></strong> in Wyoming, critical to our way of life. Senator Hansen, with Louisiana’s Sen. Huey Long Jr, won the battle to <strong><span style="color: blue;">turn the flow of Wyoming’s public mineral oil royalties to Cheyenne rather than the U.S. Treasury</span></strong>. Hansen was involved in amending the Surface Mining Act, <strong><span style="color: blue;">assuring that private land owners are compensated when minerals are extracted below the surface.</span></strong> He drove a change in national legislation to make the <strong><span style="color: blue;">state’s share of public mineral royalties to 50%, up from 37.5%</span></strong>. He demonstrated selflessness for sake of Wyoming when he resigned his Senate seat three days early to allow his successor, Alan Kooi Simpson, to assume the seat, giving Simpson seniority in the U.S. Senate which stood to Wyoming’s advantage.<br />
<br />
Given this man stood at the head of Mead’s family, leading by example, <strong>you would expect Matt to be a natural conservative. </strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">Check the articles "What Heritage is Matt Mead Carrying Forward?" and "A Progressive Heritage - Not Constitutionally Based" for the answer.</span></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-23399922598849344012010-10-02T10:56:00.000-06:002010-10-02T10:56:21.534-06:00A Progressive Heritage - not Constitutionally Based<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://wyomingwatchdogs.com/archives/947"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
This is the next in a series about Matt Mead’s political heritage. [found at <a href="http://www.wyomingwatchdogs.com/"><strong><span style="color: red;">www.wyomingwatchdogs.com</span></strong></a>]<br />
<br />
We’re going to digress for just a bit from our focus on Mead to lay some groundwork for what will follow. <strong><span style="color: blue;">Most of us think we know what a ‘liberal’ is and understand that Liberals and Progressives are somehow linked</span></strong>. For instance, there was Obama addressing a gathering of our elected officials as his “Republican and Progressive friends”. <br />
<br />
Democrats were in the room, just not addressed as ‘Democrats’. And <strong><span style="color: red;">Hillary Clinton told us not long ago that she strongly identifies with the best of the century-old American Progressivism movement</span></strong>. But for the most part that link is fuzzy, as we’ve only recently begun to hear our politicians publicly identify themselves as Progressives. So let’s clear up a bit of confusion.<br />
<br />
In a previous article we explored the basic nature of Conservatives. <strong>A</strong> <strong>simple explanation of the difference between a Progressive and a Conservative in the United States is:</strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">A Conservative wants to conserve or maintain traditional institutions, including the U.S. Constitution, and believes that some laws transcend time and place.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">A Progressive wants to progress, or move beyond…everything, anything, traditional Americans stand for. For them, change must be constant. </span><span style="background-color: yellow;">And most importantly, they insist we must progress beyond the U.S. Constitution, which they say is outdated and no longer applicable to our laws or our lives</span></strong>.<br />
<br />
There are many variations on the Progressive theme, and there have been three major Progressive Party advances in the course of our nation’s life, so it’s difficult to follow and understand the movement. But every day we’re getting better acquainted with their ideas through their policies, laws, and regulations. How influential are they? <strong><em><span style="color: red;">Members of the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) have drafted, developed or sponsored most of bills advancing modern Progressive goals over the course of its 20-year life</span></em></strong>. The Caucus’s 80-plus members include many House Representatives and three Senators.<br />
<br />
Mind you, there are other Congressional Member Organizations that our national elected officials have formed. These exclusive clubs are built around an ideology, philosophy or race identity, and behind their closed doors members hammer out positions, plans and projects. But CPC’s members are particularly powerful.<br />
<br />
There’s <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Barney Frank and Maxine Waters</span></strong> who, along with enablers and enforcers, <strong><span style="color: blue;">put in place the rules and laws that delivered the sub-prime lending fiasco directly leading to our latest economic crash</span></strong>. There’s <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Henry Waxman</span></strong>, who has a <strong><span style="color: red;">bill before Congress right now intended to put controls on our internet free speech and access.</span></strong> Waxman and his good friend Ed Markey are sponsors of the cap and trade bill. Then there’s<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;"> Alcee Hastings</span></strong>, a current Florida Representative <strong><span style="color: blue;">who was a federal judge until he was impeached for “corrupt conspiracy”. </span><span style="color: red;">This is the guy who </span></strong>when asked in March “how can Congress use the reconciliation rule to pass the health care bill?” <strong><span style="color: red;">replied, basically, that rules were for dummies and furthermore “<em>we make them up as we go along</em>“.</span></strong><br />
<br />
Other notable members of the CPC include <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Alan Grayson, Jesse Jackson, Jr, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and New Mexico Senator Tom Udall.</span></strong> Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House, was a member until she became House leader. The late Senator Ted Kennedy, who was so effective at shoving Progressive health care goals forward issue by issue, regulation by regulation, bill by bill for years, was also a member.<br />
<br />
The fire burning in the bellies of Conservatives is a direct result of these Progressives. Now here’s the second half of the story. <strong><span style="color: blue;">Progressives aren’t found only in the Democrat’s ranks</span></strong>. These ideals cross party lines. And there you have the source of much of the political frustration and anger this country’s people feel toward their government. No wonder nothing in our political world makes sense anymore.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Making your head hurt more</em></strong><br />
<br />
Do start in on some reading of your own. To find out what Progressives are thinking straight from them, take a look at <a href="http://www.ppionline.org/">http://www.ppionline.org/</a>, or <a href="http://www.dlc.org/">http://www.dlc.org/</a>/ or <a href="http://www.progressivefix.com/">http://www.progressivefix.com/</a>, or <a href="http://www.progressive.org/node/130774">http://www.progressive.org/node/130774</a>.<br />
<br />
Then for another perspective from outside their movement, read Ronald Pestritto’s <strong>American Progressivism: A Reader,</strong> or Peter Berkowitz’s <strong>Varieties of Progressivism in America</strong>. <br />
<br />
That’ll keep you busy, and awake at night, for quite a while.<br />
<br />
1 <a href="http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfmknlgAreaID=87&subsecID=205&contentID=896">http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfmknlgAreaID=87&subsecID=205&contentID=896</a>. Accessed Sep 29, 2010<br />
<br />
2 <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/30/9310">http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/30/9310</a>. Accessed Sep 29, 2010<br />
<br />
3 <a href="http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/">http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/</a> Accessed Sep 29, 2010Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-31463804922257273192010-10-02T10:26:00.001-06:002010-10-02T11:34:18.115-06:00What Heritage is Matt Mead Carrying Forward in Governor's Race?<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://wyomingwatchdogs.com/archives/930"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
Matt Mead has big political shoes to fill. His grandfather Cliff Hansen took principled Conservative stands in his service as an elected official. So how does grandson Matt stack up against that? We’ve gone to Mead’s campaign website as a primary source for his positions on the issues we’re exploring.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>To be fair, his website says he’s a fiscal Conservative, so it may that he’s not claiming to be an all-round Conservative. </em></strong>But let’s assume that in his quest for Conservative votes, he’s trying to convince us he is.<br />
<br />
How do <strong><span style="color: blue;">Conservative Republicans</span></strong> define themselves right now? The newly formed Republican National Conservative Caucus gives us some clues. Their No. 1 defining issue is a commitment to <strong><span style="color: red;">“work together to restore our Constitutional Republic”.</span></strong> Nowhere can I find that Mead is even interested in this, much less driven to accomplish the goal.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Conservative Republicans are also committed to:</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>• God, family, country, conservative principles, political party, in that order.</em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>• Accountability (requiring individuals to answer for what they say and do).</em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>• Free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, individual liberties, and a strong national defense.</em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>• Dignifying human life and holding it sacred.</em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>• Protecting families from interference in their lives.</em></strong><br />
<br />
We could add others, like <strong>state’s rights</strong>, a topic not found on Mead’s issues list. The most Mead has said about state’s rights is he ‘believes in them’. Mead generally says that any federal mandate forcing states to pick up the tab for regulating and enforcing a federal law should be decided by the courts.<br />
<br />
So how do Mead’s positions fit into the rest of the Conservative ones?<br />
<br />
<strong>Committed to God, family, country, conservative principles, political party, in that order.</strong><br />
<br />
The Wyoming Tribune-Eagle quoted Mead on his priorities.<br />
<br />
“My major priorities include creating jobs and building the economy; developing our resources – ag, energy, water; making our education system the best possible for our children; protecting our gun, private property, and state’s rights; improving our transportation infrastructure and our quality of life; and improving connectivity and technology for the freedom to live and work wherever we choose to live in this great state”.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">Clearly his priority order doesn’t match up.</span></strong> As for the priority issues themselves, some of the Conservative issues are missing in Mead’s and some of Mead’s aren’t found in the Conservative list. One noteworthy absence involves the top priority, commitment to God. I can’t find any quotes showing that Mead recognizes the existence of a Creator, or that he would agree that that our basic natural rights, like life, are granted by that Being. The LAST priority is supposed to be commitment to political party. Mead? I think it’s safe to say that he would put commitment to party way ahead of many of the others. And he definitely expects the R-people to be committed to him, which he tells us on his campaign website<strong><em>…” Wyoming GOP needs unity to win gov’s race”. In other words, he’ seems to be saying “R’s, I won the Primary, now you owe me your vote”.</em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Accountability.</span></strong> Mead, an experienced attorney, is a practiced sidestepper. See ‘Dignifying human life…’ below for more on that.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Free enterprise … limited government…individual freedoms and liberties, and a strong national defense</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>His priority of ‘creating jobs’ is not a Conservative concept</em></strong>. Government isn’t business and should have no influence except to keep regulations from hampering business. As for limited government, his website includes his statement that “<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Wyoming must honor its commitment to the state retirement system”</span></strong>. <strong><em>If his priority is to state employees, is it also to growing their influence, numbers, bureau size and reach? Much of his website describes how the state, meaning state bureaus, not the citizens, needs to guide, direct, dominate, and drive our government in all sorts of areas. </em></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Dignifying human life and holding it sacred</strong></span><br />
<br />
He says “Regarding abortion, I believe in the sanctity of life and am against abortion. But, as a conservative, I believe in individual rights…” <strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Possible translation, he’s against abortion unless the pregnant woman wants one.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Protecting families from interference in their lives</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>More families are finding themselves under the not so protective wings of social services, education programs, and so-called justice programs</em></strong>. Families we know worry about their family incomes, about their kids getting a poor scholastic education and a too liberal social education. They’re worried about bullying, by kids and school staff, about whether their kids will find work and a successful, happy life, and they worry about how to keep them ‘busy’ and out of trouble while Mom and Dad are at work.<br />
<br />
Mead’s legal focus has apparently caused him to zoom in on one thing he sees as a priority for families – “protecting Wyoming children from exploitation” and making adoption easier. <strong><em>Seems narrow, given the concerns of our families, and in some respects, even vaguely threatening.</em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">In the end</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">Mead’s positions seem to be at odds with Republican ideals,</span></strong> and the fact that he successfully recruited at least a couple thousand Democrat votes for the Primary puts a point on his chameleon political nature. Could a Conservative Republican really garner this kind of support? Not likely.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">So if he’s not a Conservative Republican as we’ve defined it, where do his views fit?</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Check the article "A Progressive Heritage - Not Constitutionally Based" for some answers.</span></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-27070182199988808112010-09-28T07:51:00.000-06:002010-09-28T07:51:38.894-06:00Ronald Reagan and Capitalism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyOMMnBTareQQsWEvgxW-52dS0PBtqtuVOO0bUmDletH8mo8DkMW2kkAlRuBUFytg-QL1ARxPAq5G4' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-27551981914248607522010-09-25T09:44:00.000-06:002010-09-25T09:44:23.354-06:00Islamic (Sharia) Law: Stoning Video Surfaces from Pakistan<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/09/islamic-sharia-law-stoning-video-surfaces-from-pakistan-graphic-warning.html"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>September 25, 2010</em></strong><br />
<br />
Imagine, one of the attendees of this stoning released the video. <strong><em><span style="color: red;">So just think about what we don't see</span></em></strong>. <strong>I saw this video first at ABC, but didn't run their video because it was irresponsibly edited, and because the accompanying narrative was so wrong, so patently false and deliberately misleading -- the commentary from Gayle Lemmon, an apologist from the Council of Foreign Relations (a tool for the stealth jihad), makes these pathetic excuses to ABC's Brian Ross, who nods cluelessly:</strong><br />
<br />
"It's difficult to know where and when it was shot," says Gayle Lemmon, deputy director of the Women and Foreign Policy Program at the Council of Foreign Relations, in an interview with Ross, "It is consistent with videos that have been coming from Taliban-controlled areas since the '90s."<br />
<br />
Lemmon says that when women "stray outside the line" in Taliban-controlled areas, they may "face severe punishment."<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">"Women are respected as carriers of the family honor," says Lemmon, "but they also pay the price."...</span></strong><br />
<br />
It's the sharia, stupid. Check out the rest of the idiocy over at ABC<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/rare-video-shows-taliban-allegedly-stoning-woman-death/story?id=11717682"> here</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/video-surfaces-of-taliban-stoning-woman-in-northwest-pakistan.html"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>Click Here for Video of Taliban stoning woman in northwest Pakistan</strong></span></a> <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">WARNING</span></strong>: The video is graphic, and beyond disturbing. It is footage of a woman dying under a barrage of stones. But it must be exposed:<br />
This is Sharia. This is an act <a href="http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.816"><strong><span style="color: red;">Muhammad approved of and participated in</span></strong></a>, according to canonical Islamic sources including Sahih ("sound," "reliable") Bukhari.<br />
<br />
This is Islam's "justice," "compassion," and "mercy" which apologists will not repudiate, attempting to dodge the issue by assuring the uninformed (and maybe even trying to make themselves believe) that it is not an issue because it is not prescribed in the Qur'an itself. Click <strong><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/islamic-apologists-relax-stoning-isnt-in-the-quran.html"><span style="color: red;">here</span></a></strong> for why that does not make a difference to the Muslims who have continued the practice over the centuries.<br />
<br />
And what was this woman's crime? <strong><span style="color: blue;">Here is the back story</span></strong>. "Rare Video Shows Taliban Allegedly Stoning Woman to Death in Pakistan," by Megan Chuchmach for ABC News, September 24:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>A rare video reportedly smuggled out of northwest Pakistan allegedly shows a woman being stoned to death by Taliban militants in the upper region of Orakzai. Al Aan, a Dubai-based pan-Arab television channel that focuses on women's issues, said it had obtained cellphone footage that it says shows a woman being executed because she was seen out with a man. The killing reportedly took place two months ago and was smuggled out by a Taliban member who attended the stoning, according to Al Aan. ABC News could not independently confirm the cellphone video's authenticity. The video, which seems to show a woman tethered to the ground as a group of men throw stones at her, is so graphic that ABC News cannot show it in its entirety. Parts of it air today on the 25th episode of "Brian Ross Investigates."</em></strong></div><br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">Gee, what a great system: be "honored" or be killed!</span></strong><br />
<br />
The ABC link has its own video, including a mostly dismal interview with Lemmon, who hedges on whether this has anything to do with Islam.<br />
But we know better.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-40599274896765144922010-09-24T06:45:00.002-06:002010-09-24T06:46:37.768-06:00Celebratory day for Obama is a day of "mourning" for a Wyoming Dr.<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://wyomingpolitico.blogspot.com/2010/09/celebratory-day-for-obama-is-day-of.html"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
President Barack Obama today called attention to tomorrow's date as marking 6 months since he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. He held this up as a celebratory date for his administration's accomplishments. He signed that bill on March 23, 2010. <br />
<br />
<strong>Not coincidentally, March 23, 2010 also marks the date of my retirement from the practice of medicine.</strong> Although at age 67 I was still healthy and active and enjoying my profession part-time, I felt obligated to express my dissatisfaction -- my thorough disapproval -- of a plan conceived not in the best interest of the American people, but a political sword thrust to derail the free market system at the expense of patients and providers from coast to coast, border to border, and to bring the American population further under direct control of an uncaring government. <br />
<br />
My retirement was and is a symbolic protest. I completely agree that health care reform was warranted -- but a a plan much simpler, more market-oriented, and far less intrusive had been proposed by conservative thinkers and rejected out of hand, without consideration, by the Powers That Be in government and most of the media. The conservative alternative never saw the light of day, and the general public was told, in fact, that the Republicans were rowdy obstructionists who had no plan of their own. This was patently untrue. <br />
<br />
I have watched in dismay as our government has enslaved us for generations to come, with no positive results and apparently no end in sight to the ensuing chaos and irresponsible behavior. <br />
<br />
And thus my symbolic gesture, and a promise to spend more of my (now much-freer) time being actively involved in the pursuit of political change. Our country faces a transformation, as promised by Barack Obama, but I doubt that many who desired change are satisfied with the direction our Republic is heading. I hope that multitudes will agree with me. <br />
<br />
Obama celebrates September 23, 2010, as the six-month mark in the official existence of "Obamacare." I mourn the same day as the six-month mark of my withdrawal from medical practice. My symbolic gesture represents a very small voice in this vast nation -- but I hope with all my heart that "We, the People" will all make our individual small voices heard, to build to a resounding roar that will save our country from the relentlessly downhill course that the administration and a "progressive" Congress have planned. <br />
<br />
<strong><em>Kent D. Stockton M.D., Riverton, Wyoming</em></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-61381307513309671792010-09-23T11:07:00.002-06:002010-09-23T11:10:12.545-06:00Fundamental Differences : Haynes & Mead on Private Property Rights<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://wyomingpolitico.blogspot.com/2010/09/fundamental-differences-haynes-mead-on_23.html"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
Thursday, September 23, 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
-- Mead is hardly concerned with private property rights, citing lots of examples of how the Feds influence the state but no real plan for how to protect private property rights.<br />
<br />
-- Haynes sites the constitution and plans ("I will") to use it to protect the rights of private citizens.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Haynes on Property Rights</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>"I will promote and sign legislation preventing the government from interfering with the lawful use of private property under the guise of protecting endangered species. </em></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<em></em></strong><br />
<strong><em>I will restore the fourth amendment rights to all Wyoming citizens by promoting and signing legislation to stop the use of Eminent Domain by private companies." </em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">from Mead's web-page : </span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>"In large part, we owe our beautiful vistas, open spaces, clean environment, and recreational opportunities to private landowners. Private property rights and our land and water must be protected. The federal government, through laws like the Endangered Species Act and the proposed amendment to the Clean Water Act, continues to try to encroach on these rights. It’s time for that to stop."</em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">----- Haynes on Property Rights -----</span></strong><br />
<br />
<object height="390" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T3w2gGwfBDo&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T3w2gGwfBDo&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
----------<br />
What would the Founders say about Private Property Rights?<br />
<br />
<object height="390" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HEYnZG5oS1Q&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HEYnZG5oS1Q&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
-----<br />
No matter what Mead says, it seems there are his own words that contradict what he says he believes.<br />
<br />
For Example ...<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">Mead:</span></strong> <strong><em>"The federal government ... continues to try to encroach on these(private property) rights. It’s time for that to stop."</em></strong> But when it comes to actually having a stance on acting on those beliefs, he can't find solid footing. <br />
<br />
-- Sheriff Richard Mack has a history of fighting for State and Individual Rights up against the Fed - and winning.<br />
<br />
--<strong> <span style="color: blue;">Mead has declared his disagreement by having a "different perspective" with the Sheriff</span></strong>, who has done nothing but enforce the US Constitution.<br />
<br />
-- Side note : <strong><span style="color: red;">Sheriff Mack endorses Taylor Haynes and he, The Sheriff, also endorsed Ron Micheli</span></strong>, a strong conservative candidate that Mead must have felt he needed to separate himself from, making himself more attractive to a more liberal base of voters. No?<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">So is Mead standing by principle and doing what is right or is he standing for whatever is opposite of conservatism and truth because that is where the people who like him are</span></strong>? Is that not, by definition, a major criteria for a <strong>RINO</strong>?<br />
<br />
So where does Mead really stand on Private Property rights? ... because he claims :<strong><em> "Whether it takes a lawsuit, joining with other state governors, use of the bully pulpit, or a combination of those things, as Governor, I will take up the fight for Wyoming’s rights as a state."</em></strong><br />
<br />
But again,<strong><span style="color: red;"> he also claims he has a "different perspective" on issues of state sovereignty as compared to that of Sheriff Mack</span></strong> - an advocate of enforcing the constitution - i.e. by using the LAW. <br />
<br />
Somehow <strong><span style="color: blue;">Mead sees that as "promoting violent resistance</span></strong>"<br />
So there is a <span style="color: red;"><strong>different perspective ... of what? the constitution</strong>?</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Perspectives :</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>As an acting Sheriff, <span style="color: blue;">Mack</span> fought the Feds in the Supreme Court over the issue of <span style="color: blue;">State Sovereignty</span>, and <span style="color: blue;">won</span>. (videos w/Mack below)** </em></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><strong><em>As an acting Federal Attorney, <span style="color: red;">Mead</span> <span style="color: red;">fought </span>on the side of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms <span style="color: red;">against </span>Wyoming's defense of the 2nd Amendment. <span style="color: red;">Mead and the Fed's won</span></em>.</strong> </span><br />
<br />
----------------------------------<br />
<br />
Mead can't find solid ground of "Fiscal Conservatism" either ... even though <strong><em>he says "as a conservative</em></strong>" ...<br />
<br />
How much can we believe of what Mead lathers onto his web page?<br />
<br />
On the issue of his <strong>conservative claim to fiscal responsibility</strong> ... In his <strong><span style="color: blue;">Issues on Property</span></strong> page :<br />
<br />
<strong><em>"As the federal government becomes more saddled with debt and more unwieldy from sheer size and bureaucracy, <span style="color: red;">states like Wyoming</span><span style="color: red;"> </span><span style="color: black;">that are both fiscally disciplined and fundamentally sound will show the way, <span style="color: red;">assuming the mantle of leadership</span> while others follow our good</span> example."</em></strong><br />
<br />
But when asked about those same issues and how they have been applied here in Wyoming : <strong><span style="color: blue;">growth of government, bureaucracy, fiscal discipline, and leadership</span></strong>, Mead responded : <br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: blue;">"I think the governor has responded accordingly to that and in a proper way. And so ... I do not think the growth of government in the last 6-7 years has been excessive"</span></em></strong> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjWnjgHZU8o"><strong><span style="color: red;">audio clip</span></strong></a><br />
----------------------------------<br />
Sheriff Mack interviewed in 2009 ... <br />
<br />
<object height="390" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCKlXEfyrWA&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCKlXEfyrWA&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
----- Part 2<br />
<br />
<object height="390" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bzln_QySyUA&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bzln_QySyUA&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
---------------------------------- <br />
<br />
----- <strong><em>from an e-mail written by Mead in response to</em> <span style="color: red;">"Are you familiar with Sheriff Mack and his travels teaching the sheriffs in our country (about) their constitutional rights in standing up and supporting the constitution of the US when the feds are moving in on a citizen?"...</span></strong><br />
<br />
... <em>I heard Richard Mack speak in Sublette County in February. <strong>My perspective is different from his</strong>. As a county and federal prosecutor for a number of years and as U.S. Attorney for Wyoming from 2001 to 2007, I enforced criminal laws, including laws prohibiting illegal drugs. I have seen from my work as a prosecutor how drug use, abuse, and trafficking takes a huge societal toll, ruins lives and families, brings about violence and death. Regarding federal overreach, <strong>I would seek a court injunction or judicial determination</strong>, not promote <strong>violent</strong> resistance, because our country’s judicial system is set up to resolve disputes when state and federal interests collide. </em><br />
<br />
<em>Let me say further that both the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution start with the words “we the people” so first and foremost our government is to serve us. I am a strong supporter of state’s rights and individual’s rights. If elected governor, I will aggressively defend these rights against federal policies that are harmful to Wyoming. <strong>My defense of these rights will include a robust litigation agenda. </strong>Whether it takes an independent lawsuit, joining with other states, use of the office’s bully pulpit, or a combination of measures, as governor, I will proactively fight for Wyoming’s rights as a state and for the constitutional rights of the citizens of our state...</em><br />
<br />
-----<br />
More Reading ...<br />
<br />
Earl Taylor is the "James Kirk" of the <strong><a href="http://www.nccs.net/"><span style="color: red;">National Center for Constitutional Studies</span></a></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-12782733474239522272010-09-22T21:26:00.003-06:002010-09-22T21:33:20.343-06:00Fundamental Differences: Haynes and Mead on Taxation<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://wyomingpolitico.blogspot.com/2010/09/fundamental-differences-haynes-mead-on_19.html"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
The real issue is how to balance a bloated/bloating state budget.<br />
<br />
-- Mead has <strong><em><span style="color: red;">openly suggested raising taxes</span></em></strong> in a variety of areas.<br />
<br />
-- Haynes is <strong><em><span style="color: red;">suggesting eliminating them</span></em></strong>, like private property taxes.<br />
<br />
"We can do it, lawfully," says Haynes. "Because the constitution says we can." <br />
<br />
<strong><em>"on a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the state fuel tax, Republican candidates are split on the question... Rita Meyer and Matt Mead said they would consider a gas tax increase." -- Governor candidates divided over gas tax --- video:"<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFihyIiAyEc&feature=player_embedded"><span style="color: blue;">increase in fuel tax</span></a>"</em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em>"I am not interested in a Non-Profit director who makes $5M a year." -- said Mead in response to a question about <a href="http://wyomingpolitico.blogspot.com/2010/09/who-said-im-not-interested-in-non.html"><span style="color: blue;">taxing Non-Profit organizations</span></a>.</em></strong><br />
<br />
The <strong>Wyoming state budget expe</strong>nditures in ...<br />
<br />
-- <strong><span style="color: red;">2000 - $3.7B</span></strong>.<br />
<br />
-- In <strong><span style="color: red;">2003</span></strong>, when Gov. Dave took office - <span style="color: red;"><strong>$4.7B.</strong></span><br />
<br />
-- In <strong><span style="color: red;">2009</span></strong> - <strong><span style="color: red;">$7.2B</span></strong>.<br />
<br />
-- "<strong><span style="color: red;">$7.6B</span></strong> state spending plan for <strong><span style="color: red;">2011-12</span></strong>". <br />
<br />
Mead, when asked about his<strong> thoughts on the growth of Wyoming state budget</strong> said : "I think the governor has responded accordingly to that and in a proper way. And so ... <strong><em>I do not think the growth of government in the last 6-7 years has been excessive</em></strong>"--<span style="color: blue;"> </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjWnjgHZU8o"><span style="color: blue;">audio clip</span></a><br />
<br />
In high contrast to what Mead is offering Wyoming, Taylor Haynes has a completely different approach.<br />
Haynes says that by <strong>simply following the constitution</strong>, having Wyoming "<strong>draw the line</strong>" that <strong><span style="color: red;">Wyoming will take back all that tax from natural resources</span></strong> and <strong><span style="color: red;">use it in the state of Wyoming</span></strong>. Part of that money would then eliminate the private property tax in Wyoming. It would not eliminate funding things like roads, schools, police department, it just would not come out of the peoples pockets.<br />
<br />
That's a pay raise in any home owners check book. <br />
<br />
Haynes says <strong><em><span style="color: blue;">private property rights was the big reason why he endorsed current governor Dave Freudenthal</span></em></strong>. "Because at the time Dave was a supporter of private property rights," and that when he got into office, "<strong><span style="color: blue;">what did he do about it? Nothing</span></strong>." He says, "And I was out of there. Fool me once, and that's it!" said Haynes.<br />
<br />
So Gov. Dave got into office by selling himself as the most conservative candidate, and then did nothing. Hmmm ... "<strong><span style="color: red;">Matt Mead is the candidate who most reminds us of the state's current Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal."</span></strong> Early Praise from the Red Star ... of which Mead has NEVER said a THING about. <strong><span style="color: blue;">He has never made a statement, never publicly declared that as inaccurate.</span></strong> He just went along with it, kept writing the check to pay for the heavy amount of advertising he did with the Tribune.<br />
<br />
Haynes also talks about changes in the <strong><span style="color: red;">Eminent Domain law</span></strong> that would allow<strong> private property owners to have more negotiating power</strong> in cases where government or private companies want to buy their land. In brief, property owners would have a say in what kind of deal would be negotiated, 'private property owners can get their "piece of the action," says Haynes.<br />
<br />
Haynes clarified further with that situation, giving an example, 'if the owner stands firm on an offer, and then government or that company says, 'well, that's just too much. We can't do that' ... "Hellooo!" says Haynes, "You can't do it then."<br />
<br />
Consistently, Haynes speaks about enforcing the laws of the constitution.<br />
<br />
Consistently, he speaks about empowering private citizens of Wyoming by putting them in charge. <br />
<br />
Consistently, he offers a more conservative and principled approach to the issues because he sticks to the constitution.<br />
<br />
All are encouraged to find out for yourself, bring questions, and bring the hard ones.<br />
<br />
Find out where Haynes is going and bring a friend. Bring 'em all.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.haynesforgovernor.com/">http://www.haynesforgovernor.com/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/?act=68623952#%21/pages/Write-in-Taylor-Haynes/153807084645123?v=app_2344061033">Facebook Haynes Events</a><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">A Write In Candidate is a viable vote. It is yours. Not the parties.</span></strong><br />
<br />
With Taylor Haynes, your voice is not limited.<br />
<br />
It is mathematically impossible to split the vote and have Leslie Petersen win.<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
More Reading ...<br />
<br />
-- <a href="http://wyomingpolitico.blogspot.com/2010/09/fundamental-differences-haynes-mead-on_16.html">Fundamental Differences : Haynes & Mead on Life/Abortion</a><br />
<br />
-- <a href="http://wyomingpolitico.blogspot.com/2010/09/fundamental-differences-haynes-mead-on.html">Fundamental Differences : Haynes & Mead on the 2nd Amendment</a><br />
<br />
--------------<br />
A serious question:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_08dc2328-a42c-11df-be57-001cc4c03286.html"><span style="color: blue;">Governor candidates divided over gas tax</span> : </a><br />
<br />
<em>"Mead said he is not in favor of a higher gas tax or tolling, but thinks a governor needs to look at all the options.</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>“Looking at our roads, delayed maintenance is simply not a good idea,” he said on his website. “We should look at all funding streams. I am unconvinced that a toll on I-80 would be the answer.</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>“As governor, I will pay special attention to the state’s infrastructure needs so we can keep our economy and our daily lives moving.”</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>A recent Casper Star-Tribune poll found that 59 percent of registered voters opposed increasing the state fuel tax to raise money to maintain I-80."</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>So Mead searches to find an answer without having to ruffle any feathers. What does that sound like? Someone wanting to get along? Someone being the immortal nice guy, because, 'you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, huh? would ya?'</em><em><br />
</em><br />
<br />
<em>Let us all remind ourselves that the elected office of governor is not American Idol, and it is not some snooty dinner party. If Wyoming wants a 'nice guy' to defend our UNalienable rights of which come from our CREATOR - in the face of the Obama Machine, who omits "Creator" and uses INalienable...</em><br />
<br />
<em>Then what else are we to expect but more of the same from Meadenthal? </em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-35565054123425903562010-09-18T08:21:00.005-06:002010-09-18T08:24:52.475-06:00Sheriff Mack Endorses Dr. Taylor Haynes<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://wyomingwatchdogs.com/archives/887"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">Wyoming Watchdogs™ are thrilled to announce that 2010 Wyoming Gubernatorial Write-In Candidate Taylor Haynes has received Sheriff Richard Mack’s endorsement!<br />
<br />
“I have taken a very serious look at the candidates for the Governor’s race in Wyoming, for those who are seeking a meaningful and Constitutional change that would have to be Dr. Taylor Haynes.”</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">~ Sheriff Richard Mack</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Sheriff Mack is widely known and respected for his victory in Printz v. United States – a very famous case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Bill was in violation of the Tenth Amendment.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZhB6MSvWa8&feature=player_embedded"><span style="color: blue;">Click here for Sheriff Mack interview discussing this case with FOX News, Judge Napolitano (Freedom Watch, August 2010)</span></a><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZC1.html"><span style="color: blue;">Click here for more information on Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997).</span></a><br />
<br />
Sheriff Mack is also well-known for his intimate involvement with Oath Keepers. If you are not familiar with this highly esteemed and honorable organization;<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.</em></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.</em></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”<br />
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”</em></strong><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone.</em></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><br />
<em></em></strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>We will stand with you.</em></strong></div>For more information:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://oathkeepers.org/oath/"><span style="color: red;"><strong>Click here for the Oath Keepers website.</strong></span></a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2K4-BQYAI&feature=related"><span style="color: red;"><strong>Click here to view their video, Orders We Will NOT Obey</strong></span></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-90947294579734184852010-09-13T21:07:00.000-06:002010-09-13T21:07:12.268-06:00Bill Gates: Death Panel Advocate<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/bill-gates-death-panel-advocate/"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Video</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>September 12, 2010</em></strong><br />
<br />
Do you want your healthcare determined by the government? Your life span? Be sure to read the comments on this video.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-22577028457313121142010-09-13T07:36:00.001-06:002010-09-13T07:37:03.994-06:00Democracy and Power 103: Government Money<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/teda/lincolns-last-earmark"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong><br />
<strong><em>by Dave Abram</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>9/10/10</em></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: blue;">In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. – Voltaire (1764)</span></em></strong><br />
<br />
The money taxed and spent by the politicians comes from the labor and ingenuity of millions of working persons. Politicians spend other peoples’ money.<br />
<br />
<em>The politician transfers money from productive people, to mostly favored special interest groups.</em><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: red;">Lincoln's Last Earmark</span></strong></div><br />
<strong>The spending problem, in profile</strong>.<br />
<br />
Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas has been attempting to change an agriculture insurance law to allow corporate agribusinesses to retroactively extract hundreds of thousands of dollars from the US Treasury. The total cost is $1.5 billion.<br />
<br />
Senator Lincoln is the most endangered Democratic Senator in the upcoming November elections. Ardently, she has attempted to attach her “earmark” to a series of bills. The <strong><span style="color: red;">Wall Street Journal</span></strong> reports:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>Mrs. Lincoln's claim is preposterous enough that she can't persuade even her fellow Democrats to pony up the cash. First she suggested tapping TARP for the money. When that didn't fly, she tried unsuccessfully to add an earmark to a war funding bill, and then to the small business bill that Congress will take up after Labor Day. Her colleagues keep saying "no." </em></strong></div><br />
Ah, but the President must help a collaborator in need. The WSJ continues:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>Enter the White House. In an August 6 letter, deputy budget director Robert L. Nabors II pledged that <span style="color: red;">"the Administration is committed to providing [the disaster] assistance consistent with your legislative proposal by the end of the month</span>." The <span style="color: blue;">White House says it can do so under a Depression-era law allowing tariff funds to be used for farm emergency payments</span>.</em></strong></div><strong><em><span style="color: #38761d;">Will the amounts received by the agribusinesses be published?</span></em></strong> Apparently, not.<br />
<br />
Coincidentally—or not—<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">the USDA has chosen this moment to stop publishing the names of farm subsidy recipients and how much they receive</span></strong>. As EWG (Environmental Working Group) puts it: <span style="color: black;"><span style="background-color: #f4cccc;">"<strong>This policy effectively shields from disclosure</strong></span></span> subsidy benefits going to multiple, and often absentee, owners of large, agribusiness farming operations." The USDA says shutting down the data base will save money. <strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">Welcome to the new era of transparency in government.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong>According to the WSJ the insurance program has merit, and this raid will destroy the program.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color: yellow;">If Mrs. Lincoln gets her $1.5 billion, the White House will have eviscerated the one laudable farm subsidy reform in years</span></strong>. Congress will revert to raiding the Treasury every year to enrich its wealthiest constituents. All of this in a last ditch, and probably futile, effort to help Mrs. Lincoln retain her Senate seat. <br />
<br />
Tragically, this is politics as usual in DC. <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Democracy and Power 103: The politician transfers money from productive people, to mostly favored special interest groups.</span></strong> <br />
<br />
Or as <strong><span style="color: red;">Walter Williams</span></strong> states:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>Conservatives and liberals are kindred spirits as far as government spending is concerned. First, let's make sure we understand what government spending is. Since government has no resources of its own, and since <span style="color: blue;">there's no Tooth Fairy handing Congress the funds</span> for the programs it enacts, we are forced to recognize that <span style="color: red;">government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person's property to give it to another to whom it does not belong – in effect, legalized theft</span>.</em></strong> </div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-34016230012602288832010-09-13T07:16:00.000-06:002010-09-13T07:16:02.618-06:00The Perspective on Gaza You Won't See on CNN<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><a href="http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/09/perspective-on-gaza-you-wont-see-on-cnn.html#links"><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></a></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>September 13, 2010</em></strong><br />
<strong><em>Posted by Trevor Loudon</em></strong><br />
<br />
This is the best video about Gaza that you’ve never seen. It was released on July 25 but has had relatively little exposure, so I'd encourage you all to pass on this important video.<br />
<br />
The producer of the video, Ronen, says about it:<br />
<br />
"<strong><span style="color: blue;">It's a non-sugar coated, eye opening look at the REAL conflict in Gaza</span></strong>. One that is concealed from the Western world on how the Gaza siege truly begins from within Gaza itself via Hamas, before ever factoring Israel's blockade for security reasons. <strong><em><span style="color: red;">Hamas has all of Gazan's hostage and silences their opposition at gunpoint.</span></em></strong> Gaza is one massive human shield and the only road to a free Gaza, is a Gaza not under siege by a Terrorist mafia posing as a government authority."<br />
<br />
<object height="385" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HYKKxL1gDEg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HYKKxL1gDEg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
This is part 1. Part 2 should be released any day now.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20995574.post-49006583909193959142010-09-10T14:52:00.001-06:002010-09-10T14:53:24.964-06:002007 - Do You Remember Muslims Burning Bibles and Destroying Crosses?<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">Click Here for Article</span></strong></div><br />
<strong><em>Published June 18, 2007 </em></strong><br />
<strong><em>by Kimberly West</em></strong><br />
<br />
After defeating their rivals in Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, Muslim extremists are focusing their attacks on Christians in Gaza City. Christians in Gaza City have issued an appeal to the <br />
international community and a plea for protection against the increased attacks by Muslim extremists.<br />
<br />
Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.<br />
<br />
Gunmen used the roof of the school during the fighting, and the convent was "desecrated," Mussalem told the AP. <br />
<br />
"Nothing happens by mistake these days," he said.<br />
<br />
Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24422"><span style="color: blue;">Catholic Online reports</span></a> that the heads of Christian churches in the Holy Land have urged both sides to put aside their weapons, noting that the infighting diverted international attention from the national goal of Palestinian independence. <br />
<br />
"This domestic fighting where brother draws his weapon against brother is detrimental to all the aspirations of achieving security and stability for the Palestinian people," they said. "In the name of the one and only God as well as in the name of each devastated Palestinian, many of whom are still dying, we urge our brothers in the Fatah and Hamas movements to listen to the voice of reason, truth and wisdom." <br />
<br />
One young woman told the Catholic News Service that she was concerned the Islamic extremists would "enforce a strict dress code, forcing women to wear veils and robes." One Christian teenager spoke to the Catholic News Service on the condition that her name not be used. She said the days of fighting had been "very difficult" but they were "OK now." <br />
<br />
"We all hope it will be better, but it will never ever be good with Hamas," she said. <br />
<br />
Approximately 2,500 Christians live in Gaza.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0