Ronny Reagan Alive and Well in America

Here are some quotes from Ronald Reagan that are just the best - why is it that you will never hear anything like this from a liberal? It is because they don't possess any redeeming qualities that Reagan talks about? hmmmm I believe this is a fact.


On Communism: “How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

On the Human Spirit: “We must never lose that sense of adventure, that thirst for knowledge — or the determination to explore the outer limits of our own abilities.”

On the Ten Commandments: “If a bureaucrat had been writing the Ten Commandments, a simple rock slab would not have been near enough room. Those simple rules would have read: ‘Thou Shalt Not, unless you feel strongly to the contrary, or for the following stated exceptions, see paragraph 1-10 subsection #A.’”

On Bill Clinton: “This fellow they have nominated claims he’s the new Thomas Jefferson. Well, let me tell you something, I knew Thomas Jefferson. He was a good friend of mine, and Governor, you’re no Thomas Jefferson.”

On Big Government: “The best view of big government is in the rear view mirror as we leave it behind.”

On the American Constitution: “Our constitution is a document that protects the people from government.”

Witness Liberal leadership: Kaos in Congress

This little saying speaks volumes for George Bush being in the White House on 9/11 -

"One test of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency."

If Kerry was president, we would not have done anything except consult the French on what to do next -

Al Gore in Congress - More Fantesies

Al Gore can't help it if he is nuts - he seems to get worse the closer he gets to congress - go figure -

This a short piece from the Thinker - the last paragraph or so - -

- - One contributor to that program, Professor Philip Stott, addressed the subject when speaking at the annual Tenant Farmer's Association meeting last week. According to the Farmer's Guardian, the professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London ridiculed:

- -"the idea that politicians can control the earth's climate and says the current global drive to reduce CO2 emissions is not only futile but is diverting attention and resources away from issues that really matter."
Stott went on to chide those obsessed with reducing farmers' carbon footprint while shifting focus and funds away from more practical areas, such as food production and mitigating the impact of climate change. This is crucial, as there is little debate that climate shifts will impose many real challenges upon agriculture; yet opportunists such as

Gore continue to focus on the more politically expedient blame-game in order to further their lefty causes.

Reminding us that this is "big-picture" problem, the professor then exposed the obvious flaw in putting all of our carbon-credits in one government controlled basket:

"Climate is governed by everything from the tilt of the earth, to volcanoes, ocean currents, sun spots, cosmic rays, solar sunspots, meteors and reflection from the land. So to put it all down to one factor - human CO2 emissions - is just not credible and the idea that politicians can control the climate is nonsense."

And, fittingly, concluded:

"It's Alice in Wonderland stuff."

Next: On to the Senate -- where Wonderland's Albert, who now claims that "Earth has a fever," is likely to find more than one simpatico Mad Hatter.

Al Gore Needs Professional Help

Al Gore in not stupid but he is sick, mentally, as most liberal Democrats are - he knows he has the spot light and, like Charles Manson, he has a following that will do anything he says, no matter how ill-logical.

This is not about the earth or it's present or future condition - this is about what it has always been about with liberal socialists, Marxist, it's about power, real power. Power that controls our very existence.

Al Gore doesn't give a rip about the planet - ecofascism is the new communism as it was pointed out in congressional hearing yesterday by a former communist - go figure.

Eurorpeans Living the Lie

I believe that it is common knowledge that Europe is group of small independent states living in a dream world of lies to cover their complete denial of reality. The reality is they can not defend themselves and their past history proves it.

They are a group of small countries waiting to have someone tell them what to do next. They have always been this way from the dark ages when they have been conquered over and over again. Their own elite rulers know this and are using it to make themselves wealthy. Are they cutting their own throats? of course but hope springs eternal that when things go from bad to worse, they always can depend the the stupid Americans to come to the rescue.

Will they wake up in time to defend themselves? - I think not - their history is too strong.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/post_27.html

Liberals Are Afraid of the Light

When liberals are condemned as godless, and the truth be known they are soulless as well, they have only darkness in their lives where they do their worst to those trying to do their best.

It is said that most children are afraid of the dark, but it can also be said that most liberals are afraid of the light -

The CIA Helping the Terrorists? Why Not?

It's hard to believe but it sure seems that the CIA has a vested interest in seeing the United States defeated in Iraq and is playing a pivotal role in attacking the President's war on terror to defend America.

It would appear that they are in the same league with the media and the Democrats in this country, they all want to see America destroyed and rebuilt as a socialist state with themselves in power.

The following is from the American Thinker -

The CIA: clueless or conniving?
Douglas Hanson

Greg Richards' excellent article on the CIA's ineptness as being the underlying cause of the Plame-Libby fiasco is spot on.

I might just add one other contradiction within our intell community. The assertion that they were "wrong on WMDs" despite my and others' (e.g., Dave Gaubatz) revelations on failure of the intelligence community to pursue leads, or noting that the searches were poorly executed, raises the ultimate question. CIA operatives - or any intell type for that matter - love to be proven right. It's their reason for being; to stick it to the analyst across the aisle or his fellow field agent to say "I told you so."

So, why would they go to such great lengths to show the world what buffoons they are about WMD, when so much evidence says that they (and Colin Powell I might add) were right? Not only was Wilson's trip concocted to weaken the administration in a time of war, but obviously, some in the intell community didn't give a whit about it's already sullied reputation as long as their vendetta made life hell for the administration, which by the way, if successful, would also potentially lead to defeat in Iraq.

Private correspondence and discussions with people involved with organizations attempting to track down Iraq's weapons, such as UNSCOM, remain convinced that Saddam had post-Gulf War I WMDs in violation of UN resolutions. Even our Soldiers and Marines in the field found CW which squashes any notion of a massive right wing conspiracy.

Therefore, the question remains as to why the CIA would not thoroughly investigate these matters if they had a chance of proving their "slam dunk" case. As Richards says, if the CIA was burned by failure to predict critical events such as Saddam's progress in building an A-bomb in 1991, wouldn't they want some sort of coup to regain a semblance of credibility?

This affair isn't only about Wilson's trip. It's about fighting release of unclassified documents, it's about abuse of classification authority in the case of WMD findings reported in the open media, and it's about bargaining with our enemies in Iraq instead of killing or capturing them. And because of their private war against the President, we are at risk of being overwhelmed by our enemies.

Pay attention to the Plame - Wilson Congressional hearings, since literally the devil is in the details. If we don't, our so-called protectors' selfishness and deceptions will be our undoing.

Federal Budget on Crash Course!

The federal budget is going out of control and as I mention before Bush is not helping the problem by not vetoing many of the spending bills that cross his desk - again, if not for the tax cuts our economy would be in a world of hurt - i.e. it still can happen is the cuts are not extended and the liberal socialists get into office.

This following is from the Heritage Foundation -

Federal budget chart book

Yesterday, Heritage released its latest Federal Revenue and Spending: A Book of Charts, which explains in graphical form the fiscal problems our nation’s government faces. The charts detail everything from the entitlement crunch to tax rates to the number of presidential vetoes.

Rob Bluey, who directs Heritage’s Center for Media and Public Policy, points out three charts that deserve particular attention.
Anyone who follows the debate over congressional earmarks probably heard that the Pig Book shrunk in size this year. That’s because earmarks are down significantly thanks to a moratorium in Congress. Will it last? That’s a question only the Democrats can answer. Republicans certainly couldn’t hold back — particularly during the Bush presidency.

It’s no secret the tax burden on individuals will spike sharply in just a few years — even if Bush’s tax cuts are extended. But did you know the United States is on course to exceed the highest tax burden in history in just about 10 years?

The chart that surprised me most highlights defense spending as percentage of GDP — an issue I recently noted in the context of former Sen. Jim Talent’s National Review cover story.

Despite the cost of the Iraq War, our defense spending today is below the 45-year historical average and falls significantly short of Cold War and Vietnam War levels.

How Bias Works in The Media

The following article is a bright light on the radical left media in this country - this is so on the mark that it has to be a must read - the bias in the news today is so bad that media journalists can no longer claim they aren't part of the Democrat Party and a will arm of world wide terrorism.

Battling Templates: Whitewater versus Plame
By Christopher Alleva

The liberal media make it too easy to expose their bias. Thanks to the internet, it is almost child's play to find the same behavior treated very differently, depending on whether Democrats or Republicans are responsible.
Fishing in the Washington Post archive I caught a nice essay written by the former ombudsmen Richard Harwood on March 19, 1994 that attempted to contextualize the legion of scandals that beset the first years of the Clinton Administration.

Taking the trusty template tool out of my journalistic toolbox, I adapted the essay by substituting "Plame" for "Whitewater" and "Dick Cheney" for the "Clintons." Several other minor changes were made to bring it up to date, such as moving Joe Klein from Newsweek to Time and substituting the number of Post Plame stories (398) for the number of Whitewater stories (209). Other than that, the quotes and narrative remain largely intact. Several of the journalists quoted are still working.
It's amusing to imagine the likes of Joe Klein, David Gregory and Jonathan Alter writing giving quotable phrases like these about Dick Cheney. The following represents what coverage of Plame might look like if the MSM liked the Bush Administration as much as it liked the Clintons.*****************

The Plame affair divides the country. It is also dividing the American press.

Columnist Robert Samuelson says, "The purported scandal is so far a political vendetta draped in legal trappings. The trappings are essential, because it is the mere possibility of wrongdoing that justifies the ongoing media attention."

Joe Klein of Time magazine speculates on the possibility that Dick Cheney will emerge from his present trials as innocent victims of press hysteria. In that event, he asks, "Do we, the righteous guardians of the truth, admit that we blew this all out of proportion - or do we continue to puff motes into dust storms in order to justify our investment? Dick Cheney has earned his isolation. But he deserves a more sober hearing than this lunatic caldron."

"Here we go," writes Washington Post columnist Jonathan Yardley, "hurtling down the rapids of the Plame affair into a furious eddy of political opportunism and journalistic exhibitionism. The government of the United States will grind to a halt for a year or more, thank God, and the high-octane newsfolk of the nation's capital will bore us all to tears with interminable recitations of imaginary outrages, but who cares? It's going to be one hell of a ride."

Russell Baker of the New York Times satirizes the media torrent and explains it: "The reason this rickety construction of innuendo and circumstance occupies the media so intensely is that Vice Presidents are central to the American need to be entertained. ... the Plame affair is the best news in Washington now that Barbra Streisand no longer guests at the White House."

From Harvard, Marvin Kalb, director of a media program at Harvard University, told The Post: "There is a rushing to judgment that is unprofessional and distasteful. The press is going to have a lot to answer for when this is over." The gulf between what these critics are saying and what the press is doing reflects, among other things, confusion about our function in American life. The critics put forth an ethical view of journalism in which we should not act as detectives, prosecutors or judges but should allow our system of justice and its institutions to deal with matters of innocence or guilt. There should be, as Kalb said, no rush to judgment nor, as Klein put it, no "ridiculous hyperinflation" of small peccadilloes.

That is essentially the posture taken by the press during the Watergate scandal. It was first seen - by me, among others - as a "two bit break-in" and, with the exception of The Post and a few isolated journalists, it was largely ignored by the media. Nevertheless, justice ultimately was served. A president was brought down and others were punished, not by the press, as myth has it, but through the workings of the "system" - the judiciary, the FBI, a special prosecutor and Congress. I do not mean to equate Watergate and the Plame affair but merely to make the point that with or without the press, justice can and usually does prevail.

This is not the majoritarian operating premise of the press. Underlying our approach to potential public scandals is a general distrust of the "system." We assume it can be manipulated by presidents, that "coverups" are both possible and likely from the White House down to city hall. Thus, at the hint of any scandal, it is our duty to dispatch investigative teams to dig out the truth as archaeologists do, piece by piece until the whole picture is revealed. In this process we monitor the "system's institutions of justice for foot-dragging and coverup" and, as William Safire of the New York Times has said, "light fires" under the investigators.

That may have happened several times in the Plame affair. The first story about Ms. Plame by Robert Novak published in July 2003 had no visible impact. Several months later, however, the press and the Democrats were howling for a Special Prosecutor hence Patrick Fitzgerald the U.S. attorney in Chicago was named. Did Novak's story "fire up" the CIA and the Department of Justice? No, it was not until Joe Wilson coordinatng with the Democrats began beating the drum did this get any traction.

We will never be able to establish beyond any doubt that the press has "lit fires" in the Plame or has played a "constructive" or "destructive" role in the pursuit of justice. We will never be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the press will have had any effect at all when this affair finally comes to an end.
George Church, a columnist for Time magazine, suggests that the real danger here is that the veracity and credibility of the Dick Cheney could be so damaged that he will be unable to see Iraq and other critical national security matters through to success.

The Plame affair news as of mid-March - 398 stories in The Post alone - doubtless has affected the political standing and reputation of Dick Cheney. We know that from the polls.

But as in the case of Plame affair, public interest in these abstract scandals is shallow and intermittent. Our affections for vice presidents vary almost by the hour and the day. So there is no reason to believe that whatever has been written or broadcast thus far will have any lasting effect on Dick Cheny's place in history or in the hearts of his countrymen. Ask the ghost of Harry Truman.

What about the ghost of Bill Clinton?

FEDERAL SPENDING IS NUTS!

Federal spending has grown out of control and most of it has happened under Bush - I don't know what he has in mind by not stopping this with the veto pen but he never did - the tax cuts help to balance this out but if they die, we are in deep du -


The facts on federal spending
Tools

“Before the nation can come together on federal budget solutions, it has to agree on the basic budget facts,” Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl writes.

To ensure Congress, the media and the American people are aware of these facts, Riedl and others in the domestic policy department at Heritage have pored over the government’s spending data and produced the latest edition of “Federal Spending—By the Numbers.”

The numbers in Riedl’s new report on the budget (link in PDF) are disheartening. Here’s a sampling of the data:
Federal spending has increased by 42% (23% after inflation) since 2001.

Federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton.
In 2006, inflation-adjusted federal spending topped $23,000 per household for the first time since World War II.
After inflation, spending rose four percent in 2006 over 2005 levels. With the help of the Bush tax cuts, though, economic growth drove an eight percent increase in tax revenues.

It’s worth noting that of these dramatic increases in federal spending, only a third can be attributable to homeland security and national defense, though liberals would have you believe otherwise. Riedl lists some of the large-ticket items that make up the bulk of the increase:

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, which is responsible for much of the 129 percent inflation-adjusted increase in education spending from 2001 through 2006;

A 2002 farm bill that pushed annual farm spending to double the levels of the 1990s;

A 2003 Medicare drug entitlement estimated to cost $822 billion in its first ten years and as much as $2 trillion over the following decade;

The 2005 highway bill, which, at $286 billion over six years, is the most expensive highway bill ever; and

Large expansions of outlays for the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit.

The long-term picture is grimmer still. In four decades’ time, the big three entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—will consume almost 20 percent of the nation’s economic output without reform. “Without entitlement reform,” Riedl writes, “America will have to choose between France-level tax increases or unprecedented budget cuts.”

Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.

Why the Liberal Left hates the Military

This is really good!! a must read for all those who want to know why the liberal left hate the military - the military man is everything they aren't - the liberal left intellectual elite is a physical and moral coward.

I have my own ideas in that they see them, the middle class man or woman, as a road block to their domination in political power. The all-volunteer army can not be depended on to support a socialist government which demands all citizens to conform to stick rules set by the ruling elites.

Here in lies the problem for the liberal in our government today - without the force of arms, they cannot hope to rule with absolute power. The military of today must be destroyed and then rebuilt to support a socialist agenda.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/why_do_intellectuals_oppose_th.html

Deny Liberism and Face Death

Take a minute and think about this: " Nothing ruins the truth like stretching it". Also this passage from the Bible : "A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will perish". Proverbs 19: 9

Death threats for challenging liberal orthodoxy

Liberalism has a virulent new strain of political correctness, Heritage’s Helle Dale writes in The Washington Times. “Challenge the belief that the Earth is warming dangerously due to human activity, or criticize any of its high priests, and the wrath of true believers will be visited upon you.”

A few weeks ago, a conservative organization in Tennessee, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, published a study looking into the energy usage of former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore. “As it turned out,” Dale explains, “the Gore mansion interestingly uses 20 times more electricity than the average American home.”

Liberals, though, could not stand to see their secular religion of environmentalism challenged—and they reacted strongly. Dale continues: “Little did the staff anticipate that by posting the facts of the Gore family’s bloated and certainly hypocritical energy consumption on their Web site, they would create an international firestorm, become the subject of death threats, vicious verbal abuse and almost see their Web site shut down because of the onslaught.”

Perhaps it says something about the weak intellectual and moral ground on which liberalism stands that its defenders are forced to resort to such tactics. Think about it for a minute. Does pointing out the environmental practices of radical environmentalism’s chief spokesman—facts that are in the public record, after all—really warrant death threats?

NASCAR FOR EVER !

It's racing season again and thank God we still have the Nascar fans - the true blue go-getter's that make this nations what it is - free and safe, at least for the time being. But not to worry, if the Democrats have their way, all of this will be gone as it will be unacceptable to the liberal elites. Marxist Socialism and car racing don't mix.

Read on - -

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/nascar_aint_pc.html

William Jefferson - Democrat - Crook at Large

This article is on the mark - if you want to find scum bags, all anyone has to do is find a Democrat-

Where's the outrage?
Phillip A. Gallagher

On or about August 1st of 2005 Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) was filmed accepting $100,000 in cash from a man wearing an FBI wire. Two days later, the FBI raided Rep. Jefferson's home and found most of the money tightly wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer.

This was the high point in a 14 month investigation involving allegations of influence peddling, bribe taking and other nefarious activities.Almost a year later and after numerous attempts by the FBI to have Jefferson cooperate in the investigation, the FBI used an 83 page affidavit in obtaining a warrant to search Jefferson's office in the Rayburn Building.

You get caught with $90,000 in bribe money and the FBI expects to find more incriminating evidence in your office? The search itself set of a storm of indignation on Capitol Hill. Not because Jefferson is an alleged thief who has sullied the reputation of lawmakers, but because the sanctity of the equal branch of government has been violated by the search.In the meantime Jefferson stands for re-election and guess what? Dollar Bill gets returned to the scene of the crime.

Now comes some even more bizarre goings on. With the changing of the majority guard in the house, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now faced with the prospect of Jefferson sitting on the Ways and Means Committee. After repeated refusals of requests for him to resign from the committee and despite the efforts of the House Black Caucus to retain him, House Democrats voted 99-58 to strip him of his membership.

It is rather a chilling result when you consider that 58 members of his party felt he was deserving of his seat after it became public that he was accepting cash.Here we are 2 years and six months since Rep. Jefferson's film debut and the news today is not about him being indicted or going on trial.

The news today is that the "most ethical congress in history" will allow "Dollar Bill" to be appointed to the Homeland Security Committee.Although Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats allowing Jefferson to have any kind of a role while this cloud hangs over him deserves ridicule, it is the Justice Department that is to blame.The reasoning behind such a slow pace is explained in a piece from the New Orleans City Journal by Jeff Crouere:
"One staffer in the U.S.

Attorney's office in the Eastern District of New Orleans confidentially predicts quick action in the Jefferson investigation after the election is over Dec. 9. Jefferson reportedly will be indicted right after the election regardless of whether he wins or loses. Usually, the federal government shies away from indicting a public official during the midst of a campaign because of the political implications".

My, how considerate of the government. I wonder just how much consideration you or I would get if we had accepted $100,000 from an informant wearing an FBI wire? I think being cuffed and carted off in a cruiser in front of friends, family or co-workers is the standard treatment for non-congressional alleged felons.

Well the election is long over and we have the specter of a suspected major security risk sitting on one of the most sensitive congressional committees and still no action by the Justice Department.

What can be the reason? Are they being careful, are they just slow, or are they simply incompetent

Liberal Democrats Hate Democracy

A friend of mine set this paragraph to me as an insight into the possibility of our country surrendering to fear and, consequently, our lose of freedom to the terrorists and the Marxists in our own government

Our current political/media induced stupor reminds me of France in 1940. Everyone in France knew that the Germans were going to come over theborder ,soon, and that France was not going to be able to stop them unless the nation put on a massive program to update their military anddefensive positions.

But, the divisions within the society were too deep to mend, no one was willing to change what they had been doing forthe past 20 years, and few were willing to cooperate with their political enemies.

Within the military, a chain of command that was mostlyout of touch with reality, and steeped in politics could not find the will to address problems that they knew were critical to stopping the coming German invasion. The civilians partied and pretended to each other that all was well and the future secure, while each knew in their hearts that disaster was approaching with an inevitability that was terrifying; yet most felt helpless to do anything about it.

France in 1940 was a society in stasis, paralyzed, so politically divided that it was unable to act to defend itself. The U.S. in 2007 is in very much the same position.

I fear for our country!