I believe these are good reasons to oppose Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court, besides just plain common sense, given she believes she is part of the coming "master race" that will control all the country.
What other reason could there be for Obama picking such a person with a background so richly founded in a Marxist socialist agenda.
Keep the faith -
TOP TEN REASONS SOTOMAYOR WON'T BE CONFIRMED (& how to stop her)
I generally support the idea of nominating a woman or a Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court, but not this one, not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And she's so biased, that I'll go out on a limb to predict she won't be confirmed, for ten reasons:
10) SOTOMAYOR: ADMITS MAKING ACTIVIST POLICY FROM THE BENCHIn a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." As a judicial activist, she jokingly admits "making policy" from the bench, based on feelings or empathy or judicial precedent, not laws passed by Congress, and so she assumes the power of legislature, to make policy, legislating from the bench.
9) SOTOMAYOR: PRO-ABORTION-SUPPORTS ROE V. WADE Although she ruled to uphold the longstanding "Mexico City Policy" which had limited funds for abortions performed overseas (until President Obama struck down that policy, now fully funding abortions overseas with our taxes), Sotomayor stands squarely in the camp of supporting and upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized child killing across America and cost 50,000,000 children their lives. Furthermore, Rev. Rob Schenck of The National Clergy Council now reports that Sotomayor was or is an active board member of a group called the "Childbirth Connection" that advocates for "reproductive rights of women," which is generally a code word for abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion, which Sotomayor has never publicly opposed. Since I was born to a single mom who courageously gave me up for adoption, and I was adopted at age three by a Christian family, I'm passionately pro-life.
PLEASE SELECT HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR. (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)
8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON, ANTI- 2nd AMENDMENTIn her ruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to New York citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right . . . not upon that of the state." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbids Congress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fully authorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according to Sotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning. But as a former military distinguished marksman and former captain of my rifle team at a New York State high school, I care about protecting our right to bear arms.
7) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-TEN COMMANDMENTS, BUT PRO-MUSLIM?ACLJ Attorney Jay Sekulow said of Sotomayor: "She is left in judicial philosophy, ranges much further left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter . . . I just had a case where the Court was unanimous, it was involving the 10 commandments issue, and the court was unanimous 9 to 0, but I would not expect that if Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, that it would probably have been 8 to 1. She has a very, very strict view of church-state separation, and she was aggressive on this idea of a 'living constitution.'" Meanwhile she ruled one Muslim prisoner had a right to receive the Eid ul Fitr feast (a Muslim holiday meal) in his prison cell, and another Muslim prisoner had a right to access a Muslim chaplain, which is fine if she treats other faiths equally. But I personally suspect Sotomayor would rule to disallow public prayers offered "in Jesus name" but allow prayers to Allah, just like Obama's other judicial nominee David Hamilton.
6) SOTOMAYOR: SAVIOR OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMENNOW President Kim Gandy quickly endorsed Sotomayor, saying: "This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our 'Confirm Her' campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice." There's no way this liberal group would endorse Sotomayor unless she were pro-lesbian and pro-abortion, as Gandy openly advocates on the NOW web-site.
5) SOTOMAYOR: OVERRULED 33 OF 44 VOTES BY SUPREME COURTSotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed. One of these was her aggressive pro-environmental anti-energy decision, another was her aggressive pro-litigation anti-business decision, which was overturned unanimously. She has carried only 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases. Chief Justice Roberts once stated that her method of reading the statute in question "flies in the face of the statutory language." Dean Mat Staver of Liberty Law School cites these reasons to oppose Sotomayor, saying, "No one ever expected President Barack Obama to nominate someone who respects the original intent of the Constitution."
4) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORITISM BY RACE OR GENDER, NOT LAWSotomayor told the Berkeley Law School: "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging . . .I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It is no surprise, therefore, she ruled against white Firefighters of New Haven, throwing out the results of a promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified. She denied promotion for the white firefighters who performed well on the exam, and gave minorities who failed the exam favorable consideration toward promotion. Sotomayor promotes aggressive affirmative action, promoting race or gender, not merit. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this case in April 2009, and is expected to overturn her again.
3) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORS INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER AMERICAN LAW Opposing a U.S. Congressional bill that would forbid activist judges from citing international law (instead of applying American law) in their decisions, Sotomayor wrote the controversial introduction for The International Judge, a book that promotes, in her words, "developing an international rule of law and institution-building" and idealizes the "pioneers who work tirelessly to bring these institutions from their incipience to their maturity." No doubt she will vote with Justice Ginsberg, who believes American judges should sometimes look toward international law rather than the U.S. Constitution.
2) SOTOMAYOR: EVEN THE LIBERALS CALL HER A BULLY Her own former clerk, liberal Jeffrey Rosen, now legal affairs editor for The New Republic, said she has "has an inflated opinion of herself" and is "kind of a bully on the bench." Another clerk who worked on the 2nd Circuit said she's: "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench . . .She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."
1) SOTOMAYOR: BASEBALL BIAS FOR NEW YORK YANKEES!As a native of South Bronx, Sotomayor's hidden home-town bias became manifest in her love for the New York Yankees, judicially favoring her "Bronx Bombers" over teams from all other cities. No kidding! When ruling to end the 1995 baseball strike, she sided with the player's union against team owners (who sought parity among all teams with an talent-sharing salary cap).
Instead Sotomayor created bias in favor of rich teams who can afford to buy up all the good free agents. So when the New York Yankees hogged 4 titles and 6 pennants in the 8 years after her ruling, with payrolls averaging three times most other team salaries, you can blame Sotomayor for creating that competitive imbalance. I understand why Yankees fans might celebrate her promotion to the Supreme Court, but baseball fans from all other cities should complain loudly against her confirmation!
WHY DID SEVEN REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HER? In 1991, President George H.W. Bush was forced to pick Sotomayor, in a back-room deal manipulated by powerful New York Senator Patrick Moynihan, but Bush Sr. likely regrets this just like he later regretted nominating Justice Souter. In 1998, Sotomayor was barely confirmed to the 2nd Circuit Court under Bill Clinton, but only seven current 2009 Republicans voted for Sotomayor then: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Robert Bennett (R-Utah). They were misled into joining all Democrats to push Sotomayor through by a vote of 68-28. Perhaps you might call these 7 Republicans (and all Southern Democrats, and both Penn. Democrats Specter and Casey, and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.) at 202-225-3121 and ask them to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER Judge Sotomayor. But remember, 100 emails = 10 phone calls = 1 fax in political capital, since the Senate staffers must handle each paper and usually write a reply. So please join our automated fax campaign first!
ALL TRUE CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE AGAINST HER In 1998, twenty-eight conservative Senators united against Sotomayor, but now we need 40 to uphold a filibuster. Two leading conservative Senators have already questioned her credentials: "The role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Let's support Leader McConnell and Ranking Member Sessions by encouraging them to stand firm, and get more Senators to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER Sotomayor's nomination.
God Bless you, in Jesus' name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Obama High Court Candidate Sonia Sotomayor : Liberal Left Extreme
This from the Heritage Foundation that takes a very insightful and complete look at the confirmation process, the importance of a knowledgeable and thorough vetting of this candidate by the Senate and the consequences of making a bad decision.
This appointment is for life. She will effect, infect, our lives and the lives of our children for generations to come. It is imparitive we demand our representives in congress act responsibilly by asking tough questions and then decide what is right for the country - we must not allow them to vote her on a party line vote - this affect us all!
The Facts on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee
President Barack Obama this morning nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.
» To ensure lawmakers, the media and the America can get all the facts on the Supreme Court vacancy, The Heritage Foundation has created a Rapid Response web page. Be sure to check back for all the latest updates.
Senators should "engage in robust advice and consent to assure that if confirmed Judge Sotomayor would not use her seat…to advance liberal policy preferences," argues Heritage Foundation Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow and former Attorney General Edwin Meese.
The "advice and consent" process, mandated by the Constitution, is a delicate and timely one. Senators should use it to determine whether Judge Sotomayor will faithfully and impartially interpret the Constitution and laws of this nation -- and not shape them to her policy preferences.
"Nominations should be judged by a common standard: Will they apply the Constitution of the United States and the law as it is written and according to its original meaning?" asks Heritage expert Conn Carroll. "Or will they use the lifetime appointment to enact policy preferences from the bench?"
Judge Sotomayor, who sits on the Federal Court of Appeals in New York, has a long record of statements about the proper role of judges, many of which raise important questions. Heritage constitutional scholar Robert Alt explains:
Judge Sotomayor's statements about judges as policymakers, her questioning of whether judges can be objective in most cases, and her insensitive statement that the ethnicity of some judges somehow makes them better at doing their job than judges of different ethnicity—raise serious questions about her view of judging which must be carefully and fully explored by the Senate.
Some of her thoughts on judges' role in shaping policy were captured on video.
President Obama has established an "aggressive confirmation timetable," writes Heritage senior policy analyst Andrew Grossman. But his push to complete all hearings and vote before Congress' August recess may be hasty and "risks shortchanging the Constitution's commands."
The Senate "should not delay" the confirmation process, Grossman argues, "but nor should it be rushed."
- Amanda Reinecker
This appointment is for life. She will effect, infect, our lives and the lives of our children for generations to come. It is imparitive we demand our representives in congress act responsibilly by asking tough questions and then decide what is right for the country - we must not allow them to vote her on a party line vote - this affect us all!
The Facts on Obama's Supreme Court Nominee
President Barack Obama this morning nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.
» To ensure lawmakers, the media and the America can get all the facts on the Supreme Court vacancy, The Heritage Foundation has created a Rapid Response web page. Be sure to check back for all the latest updates.
Senators should "engage in robust advice and consent to assure that if confirmed Judge Sotomayor would not use her seat…to advance liberal policy preferences," argues Heritage Foundation Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow and former Attorney General Edwin Meese.
The "advice and consent" process, mandated by the Constitution, is a delicate and timely one. Senators should use it to determine whether Judge Sotomayor will faithfully and impartially interpret the Constitution and laws of this nation -- and not shape them to her policy preferences.
"Nominations should be judged by a common standard: Will they apply the Constitution of the United States and the law as it is written and according to its original meaning?" asks Heritage expert Conn Carroll. "Or will they use the lifetime appointment to enact policy preferences from the bench?"
Judge Sotomayor, who sits on the Federal Court of Appeals in New York, has a long record of statements about the proper role of judges, many of which raise important questions. Heritage constitutional scholar Robert Alt explains:
Judge Sotomayor's statements about judges as policymakers, her questioning of whether judges can be objective in most cases, and her insensitive statement that the ethnicity of some judges somehow makes them better at doing their job than judges of different ethnicity—raise serious questions about her view of judging which must be carefully and fully explored by the Senate.
Some of her thoughts on judges' role in shaping policy were captured on video.
President Obama has established an "aggressive confirmation timetable," writes Heritage senior policy analyst Andrew Grossman. But his push to complete all hearings and vote before Congress' August recess may be hasty and "risks shortchanging the Constitution's commands."
The Senate "should not delay" the confirmation process, Grossman argues, "but nor should it be rushed."
- Amanda Reinecker
Friday, May 29, 2009
Criminals Hired For 2010 Census : ACORN
ACORN is under investigation in 15 states for voter fraud since just this last election. One has to ask how the Obama administration can allow this organization to be anywhere near this new census?
Maybe the answer is 'that's just a foolish question' - Obama knows exactly what is going on, and knows that ACORN will commit fraud to change the outcome of the census in favor of the liberal Marxists. The commerce department released this information only under threat of a law suit, but in reality, why should they care who knows what they are trying to do.
Nobody cares anyway. Not the press or a majority of the population, that is until they wake up one morning and find they are living in a cardboard box next to the local dump. They will wonder how did this happened to us? The worst part of all this, of course, is these people will have no idea how or why it all happened!
Keep the faith - the battle rages on!
Judicial Watch: ACORN Used in 2010 Census
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:32 PM
By: Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the U.S. Census Bureau detailing the substantial involvement of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the 2010 Census.
Included among the 126 pages of documents, obtained by Judicial Watch under threat of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, is ACORN's original Census partnership application. The document describes 18 different areas of responsibility requested by the community organization, which is under investigation in multiple states for illegal activity during the 2008 election, including voter registration fraud.
The documents also list the types of organizations ineligible for partnering with the U.S. Census. They include: "...Hate groups, Law enforcement, anti-immigrant groups, any groups that might make people fearful of participating in the Census..." The release of these Obama Commerce Department documents comes in the wake of an Obama Department of Homeland Security report released in April linking opposition to illegal immigration to "rightwing extremist radicalization."
In its official statement responding to the ACORN controversy, the Obama Commerce Department downplayed ACORN's participation in the Census, and labeled "baseless" the notion that ACORN would be involved in any Census count. However, the Census Bureau offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count.
Moreover, as an "executive level" partner, ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns."
According to its application ACORN also signed up to: "Encourage employees and constituents to complete and mail their questionnaire; identify job candidates and/or distribute and display recruiting materials; appoint a liaison to work with the Census Bureau; provide space for Be Counted sites and/or Questionnaire Assistance Centers; sponsor community events to promote participation in the 2010 Census," among 18 requested areas of responsibility.
The documents also show the decision to add ACORN as a partner occurred in February, long after the January 15th Census partnership application deadline. (One Census official had bet "it was under Bush.")
Among other conclusions from the documents:
The Census Bureau requested that ACORN "help us highlight [ACORN's] innovation and hard work and share best practices so other organizations can learn from your experiences."
Members of the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staff assigned to organize the 2010 Census were unaware of when the decision to involve ACORN was made, how the Census Bureau choose and defined partners, or whether partners received payment.
The Census Bureau did not conduct background checks on the 3.7 million people hired to conduct the 2000 Census, unless a preliminary name check provided a match.
Overall, 8% of the applicants, or over 300,000 people, were considered risks for hire.
According to the U.S. Census documents, among other things, census data is used to allocate $300 billion in federal funds. Census data also "determines how many seats each state will have in the House of Representatives as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils, and voting districts."
"Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And shame on the Obama Commerce Department for continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping together law enforcement and anti-immigration groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed, these documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration is politicizing the 2010 Census."
Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Census on March 23, 2009. After the Obama Commerce Department stonewalled, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on May 14, 2009. The documents were released to Judicial Watch on May 15, 2009.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Maybe the answer is 'that's just a foolish question' - Obama knows exactly what is going on, and knows that ACORN will commit fraud to change the outcome of the census in favor of the liberal Marxists. The commerce department released this information only under threat of a law suit, but in reality, why should they care who knows what they are trying to do.
Nobody cares anyway. Not the press or a majority of the population, that is until they wake up one morning and find they are living in a cardboard box next to the local dump. They will wonder how did this happened to us? The worst part of all this, of course, is these people will have no idea how or why it all happened!
Keep the faith - the battle rages on!
Judicial Watch: ACORN Used in 2010 Census
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:32 PM
By: Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the U.S. Census Bureau detailing the substantial involvement of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the 2010 Census.
Included among the 126 pages of documents, obtained by Judicial Watch under threat of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, is ACORN's original Census partnership application. The document describes 18 different areas of responsibility requested by the community organization, which is under investigation in multiple states for illegal activity during the 2008 election, including voter registration fraud.
The documents also list the types of organizations ineligible for partnering with the U.S. Census. They include: "...Hate groups, Law enforcement, anti-immigrant groups, any groups that might make people fearful of participating in the Census..." The release of these Obama Commerce Department documents comes in the wake of an Obama Department of Homeland Security report released in April linking opposition to illegal immigration to "rightwing extremist radicalization."
In its official statement responding to the ACORN controversy, the Obama Commerce Department downplayed ACORN's participation in the Census, and labeled "baseless" the notion that ACORN would be involved in any Census count. However, the Census Bureau offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count.
Moreover, as an "executive level" partner, ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns."
According to its application ACORN also signed up to: "Encourage employees and constituents to complete and mail their questionnaire; identify job candidates and/or distribute and display recruiting materials; appoint a liaison to work with the Census Bureau; provide space for Be Counted sites and/or Questionnaire Assistance Centers; sponsor community events to promote participation in the 2010 Census," among 18 requested areas of responsibility.
The documents also show the decision to add ACORN as a partner occurred in February, long after the January 15th Census partnership application deadline. (One Census official had bet "it was under Bush.")
Among other conclusions from the documents:
The Census Bureau requested that ACORN "help us highlight [ACORN's] innovation and hard work and share best practices so other organizations can learn from your experiences."
Members of the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staff assigned to organize the 2010 Census were unaware of when the decision to involve ACORN was made, how the Census Bureau choose and defined partners, or whether partners received payment.
The Census Bureau did not conduct background checks on the 3.7 million people hired to conduct the 2000 Census, unless a preliminary name check provided a match.
Overall, 8% of the applicants, or over 300,000 people, were considered risks for hire.
According to the U.S. Census documents, among other things, census data is used to allocate $300 billion in federal funds. Census data also "determines how many seats each state will have in the House of Representatives as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils, and voting districts."
"Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And shame on the Obama Commerce Department for continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping together law enforcement and anti-immigration groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed, these documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration is politicizing the 2010 Census."
Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Census on March 23, 2009. After the Obama Commerce Department stonewalled, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on May 14, 2009. The documents were released to Judicial Watch on May 15, 2009.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Gleen Beck To Limbaugh : Compassionate Conseratism Must Die
Beck is on the mark here stating that the GOP must stand on the solid ground of conservative principles or the whole party is lost - not to mention the country, as we know it, will be lost to socialism. Most people today still can't believe that this is actually happening in this country. At the same time, many believe it is a good thing and welcome the loss of freedom in exchange for a false sense of security.
Freedom to choose one's own destiny is only important when it's gone.
Remember, " freedom means having nothing else to lose".
Keep the faith - the fight is heating up!
Glenn Beck: Bush's Compassionate Conservatism Must 'Die Violent Death'
Monday, May 25, 2009
If the Republican Party has any chance of regaining its leading position, it must put to "death" George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism," says top talker Glenn Beck.
Beck, a rising ratings star at Fox News and one the nation's leading talk hosts, has earned his popularity taking on some of the most cherished shibboleths of the Republican establishment.
During a Fox News interview with top radio talker Rush Limbaugh this past Thursday, Beck used the occasion to slam Bush's policies as inherently detrimental to core Republican principles.
Beck asked Limbaugh: "Rush, will you — help me out on this, because you always get thrown under the bus, that — well, you know, where were you when George Bush was spending, et cetera, et cetera. Address — because I — I have to tell you, the Republican Party doesn't get it. You just said, echoed again what I was saying about the progressive Republicans. George Bush, this compassionate conservative movement has got to die a violent death."
Limbaugh agreed with Beck's assessment that Bush had gone off the GOP reservation.
Limbaugh responded: "Yes, Glenn, let me tell you something. I don't — personally, I don't mind people asking me that question, 'Where were you with all the spending?' I remember — I don't want to mention any names — I was getting phone calls from people in the White House angry because I was opposed to every attempt they made to amnesty. I was opposed to the Medicare expansion. . . And they have found a way and called me mad as he can be. 'What do you mean this is good — good in the private sector?' I said, 'No, it's an entitlement and Republicans don't do that.' . . . but the elected Republicans — here's the problem with it — when you're a Republican and your president is a Republican, you have to go along with it. If you break from him, then you got party disunity and so forth."
President George W. Bush was the largest social spender in history, according to a recent report by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. In his first term Bush increased discretionary spending 19 percent. During Bush's second term federal spending increased 49 percent. The Mercatus Center said Bush's spending made President Bill Clinton's administration look conservative.
The Center noted: "Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent."
Beck suggested the stakes are high unless the GOP gets back to its roots.
He told Limbaugh: "And I'll tell you, they keep making the argument that if you vote for a conservative — oh, well, we're going to round up, you know, all of the unwed mothers and throw them in furnaces or whatever it is. That's not what this movement is about, at all. You're right on the social aspect. What this movement is about is they are destroying our children's future.
Look, I don't care what you do in your own bedroom. You — we won't have a bedroom left anymore. We're all going to be living in Hooverville or Obamaville if we don't stop the spending."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Freedom to choose one's own destiny is only important when it's gone.
Remember, " freedom means having nothing else to lose".
Keep the faith - the fight is heating up!
Glenn Beck: Bush's Compassionate Conservatism Must 'Die Violent Death'
Monday, May 25, 2009
If the Republican Party has any chance of regaining its leading position, it must put to "death" George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism," says top talker Glenn Beck.
Beck, a rising ratings star at Fox News and one the nation's leading talk hosts, has earned his popularity taking on some of the most cherished shibboleths of the Republican establishment.
During a Fox News interview with top radio talker Rush Limbaugh this past Thursday, Beck used the occasion to slam Bush's policies as inherently detrimental to core Republican principles.
Beck asked Limbaugh: "Rush, will you — help me out on this, because you always get thrown under the bus, that — well, you know, where were you when George Bush was spending, et cetera, et cetera. Address — because I — I have to tell you, the Republican Party doesn't get it. You just said, echoed again what I was saying about the progressive Republicans. George Bush, this compassionate conservative movement has got to die a violent death."
Limbaugh agreed with Beck's assessment that Bush had gone off the GOP reservation.
Limbaugh responded: "Yes, Glenn, let me tell you something. I don't — personally, I don't mind people asking me that question, 'Where were you with all the spending?' I remember — I don't want to mention any names — I was getting phone calls from people in the White House angry because I was opposed to every attempt they made to amnesty. I was opposed to the Medicare expansion. . . And they have found a way and called me mad as he can be. 'What do you mean this is good — good in the private sector?' I said, 'No, it's an entitlement and Republicans don't do that.' . . . but the elected Republicans — here's the problem with it — when you're a Republican and your president is a Republican, you have to go along with it. If you break from him, then you got party disunity and so forth."
President George W. Bush was the largest social spender in history, according to a recent report by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. In his first term Bush increased discretionary spending 19 percent. During Bush's second term federal spending increased 49 percent. The Mercatus Center said Bush's spending made President Bill Clinton's administration look conservative.
The Center noted: "Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent."
Beck suggested the stakes are high unless the GOP gets back to its roots.
He told Limbaugh: "And I'll tell you, they keep making the argument that if you vote for a conservative — oh, well, we're going to round up, you know, all of the unwed mothers and throw them in furnaces or whatever it is. That's not what this movement is about, at all. You're right on the social aspect. What this movement is about is they are destroying our children's future.
Look, I don't care what you do in your own bedroom. You — we won't have a bedroom left anymore. We're all going to be living in Hooverville or Obamaville if we don't stop the spending."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Obama Administration Hypocrisy : Big Gov. Efficiency
When did the federal government ever do anything that didn't end up a catastrophe - that is cost a hundred times more than estimated and causing more damage that good?
Obama knows exactly what he is doing and he knows what damage his policies will cause the American public. This is his intent - he will use the fall out to take finial control of our lives. The question remains - will we let him?
Keep the faith.
The Used Car Industry Salesman
by Bill Bonner
London, England
Yesterday was a holiday in the US. Little news from that quarter. But while Americans were enjoying their backyard barbecues, the rest of the world turned."Obama plans 'leaner' car industry," says the BBC.While most readers will focus on the last three words of that sentence, we direct your attention to the first two.
The subject is the important part...not the predicate. That the car industry may or may not get 'leaner' is of little interest to us. It will do what it needs to do. But that the president of the United States of America is now creating the business plan for an automobile company is surely a sign of something big.
The world has already turned...perhaps more than we realize. It was only a few months ago...we're almost sure...that a private company figured out for itself how it would compete. If it was well- managed - and lucky - it would grow. If it made a serious mistake, it would go out of business...leaving the premises vacant for another entrepreneur.
Americans not only accepted this model, they applauded it. They thought the "free enterprise" system was the best in the world. They believed it was responsible for their wealth...their progress...and their place in the world. Now, they seem to have come to believe something else: that the president of the United States - an elected politician - should have a direct say in how individual private enterprises are organized and run. But these are the same people who elected Bill Clinton and George W. Bush - twice!
They'll believe anything..."Power Pendulum Swings Toward Washington," says another paper. People think capitalism has failed them. They never understood what capitalism was...and wouldn't have wanted it at all if they had known what it was all about. Still, that doesn't mean they won't come up with something worse...Capitalism is full of what Galbraith called "innocent frauds."
The capitalists try to exploit the workers. The workers try to take advantage of the capitalists. And the managers try to put one over on them both. But now, the innocent frauds of capitalism are being replaced by the brute force of government. Now, the Obama team is calling the shots itself. What does Barack Obama know about the car business? Ha...ha...ha...Oh, you and your silly questions...
The role of government is commonly misunderstood. It is thought to be an impartial judge...an objective arbiter between competing interests, always asserting the common interest over the narrow interests of the competitors themselves. It is nothing of the sort.
It has its own interests...its own delusions of competence...its own lusts for power and money. When the pendulum swings towards Washington it is always bad news. For no matter how big a mess GM's owners, managers and workers made of the auto business...Washington is sure to make a bigger one.
Obama knows exactly what he is doing and he knows what damage his policies will cause the American public. This is his intent - he will use the fall out to take finial control of our lives. The question remains - will we let him?
Keep the faith.
The Used Car Industry Salesman
by Bill Bonner
London, England
Yesterday was a holiday in the US. Little news from that quarter. But while Americans were enjoying their backyard barbecues, the rest of the world turned."Obama plans 'leaner' car industry," says the BBC.While most readers will focus on the last three words of that sentence, we direct your attention to the first two.
The subject is the important part...not the predicate. That the car industry may or may not get 'leaner' is of little interest to us. It will do what it needs to do. But that the president of the United States of America is now creating the business plan for an automobile company is surely a sign of something big.
The world has already turned...perhaps more than we realize. It was only a few months ago...we're almost sure...that a private company figured out for itself how it would compete. If it was well- managed - and lucky - it would grow. If it made a serious mistake, it would go out of business...leaving the premises vacant for another entrepreneur.
Americans not only accepted this model, they applauded it. They thought the "free enterprise" system was the best in the world. They believed it was responsible for their wealth...their progress...and their place in the world. Now, they seem to have come to believe something else: that the president of the United States - an elected politician - should have a direct say in how individual private enterprises are organized and run. But these are the same people who elected Bill Clinton and George W. Bush - twice!
They'll believe anything..."Power Pendulum Swings Toward Washington," says another paper. People think capitalism has failed them. They never understood what capitalism was...and wouldn't have wanted it at all if they had known what it was all about. Still, that doesn't mean they won't come up with something worse...Capitalism is full of what Galbraith called "innocent frauds."
The capitalists try to exploit the workers. The workers try to take advantage of the capitalists. And the managers try to put one over on them both. But now, the innocent frauds of capitalism are being replaced by the brute force of government. Now, the Obama team is calling the shots itself. What does Barack Obama know about the car business? Ha...ha...ha...Oh, you and your silly questions...
The role of government is commonly misunderstood. It is thought to be an impartial judge...an objective arbiter between competing interests, always asserting the common interest over the narrow interests of the competitors themselves. It is nothing of the sort.
It has its own interests...its own delusions of competence...its own lusts for power and money. When the pendulum swings towards Washington it is always bad news. For no matter how big a mess GM's owners, managers and workers made of the auto business...Washington is sure to make a bigger one.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Democrat "Culture of Corruption" Catching Harry Reid
Does anyone in Nevada really know who Harry Reid is? Knowing that he did everything in his power to lose the war in Iraq, why would anyone in their right mind vote for Harry? Can anyone explain what Harry brings to this country in the way of leadership?
Does 'influences pleading' and misuse of campaign funds as well as taking money for under the table from a criminal lobbyist, and outright lies that he has professed make a difference in how the voters in Nevada see Mr. Reid? It appears Obama thinks this isn't a problem. And, of course. Obama finds no problem with tax cheats either.
Do you think Obama will ride to rescue of Pelosi and Murtha? They are lyers and criminals too. Hey, wait a minute, Obama will have to come the rescue of all Democrats as they all seem to be part of the Democrat 'culture of corruption'.
Keep the faith - the battle goes on!
Obama Rides to the Rescue of Harry Reid
Republicans are styling President Barack Obama’s fundraising trip next week to Las Vegas as a desperate measure to save the bacon of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has precipitously fallen in the polls, according to a report by The Hill.
What the opposition is hoping for is a reprise of the rise and fall of another leader – former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
While Democrats emphasize that the presidential trip has been planned for a long time and is not related to any perceived imminent danger of Reid, D-Nev., losing his seat, the numbers game indicates otherwise.
The latest poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal contains little good news for the veteran politician. Nearly half of Nevadans have had enough of Reid as the powerful Democrat heads into his re-election campaign.
About a third of the state’s voters would re-elect Reid if the 2010 election were held today, according to the poll, but 45 percent say they would definitely vote to replace him. Seventeen percent would consider another candidate.
Half of Nevada voters had an unfavorable view of Reid, while 38 percent had a favorable view and 11 percent a neutral opinion.
The Review-Journal noted further that Reid’s approval ratings at home have been subpar for years -- particularly since he ascended to Democratic leader in 2004 and to majority leader in 2006.
What’s more, hopes that things might take an uptick with the departure of President George W. Bush have not come to fruition. The Review-Journal described the poll as indicating voters bullish on Obama -- even as they are unhappy with Reid.
Much ado about nothing argue Reid loyalists, who point to the fact that the leader has already raised more than $5 million this quarter – after raising $2.2 million in the first quarter, according to The Hill. Meanwhile, a Reid spokesman said they expect next week’s fundraiser to add “at least $1 million.”
“Don’t be tempted to Daschle-ize Reid,” one Democratic official told The Hill. “Nevada 2010 is not South Dakota 2004: George Bush not is at the head of the ticket, Barack Obama won Nevada by double digits and Reid has kept a very watchful eye on his own state.”
But others smell blood in the water.
Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee was quick to lambaste the forthcoming Obama-Reid love-fest.
“Unfortunately for the majority leader, one night of rubbing elbows with President Obama and celebrity elites at a glitzy fundraiser is not going to mask a long voting record that’s increasingly out of step with Nevada,” Walsh said.
Walsh added that the big event, featuring such luminaries as Bette Midler and Sheryl Crow, “actually plays into Sen. Reid’s biggest problem facing reelection, which is the well-deserved feeling among his constituents that he consistently places Washington and special interests above the views and values of Nevadans.”
All pundit sparing aside, there’s still a very bright lining in the clouds for Reid – he still has no opponent in the race.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Does 'influences pleading' and misuse of campaign funds as well as taking money for under the table from a criminal lobbyist, and outright lies that he has professed make a difference in how the voters in Nevada see Mr. Reid? It appears Obama thinks this isn't a problem. And, of course. Obama finds no problem with tax cheats either.
Do you think Obama will ride to rescue of Pelosi and Murtha? They are lyers and criminals too. Hey, wait a minute, Obama will have to come the rescue of all Democrats as they all seem to be part of the Democrat 'culture of corruption'.
Keep the faith - the battle goes on!
Obama Rides to the Rescue of Harry Reid
Republicans are styling President Barack Obama’s fundraising trip next week to Las Vegas as a desperate measure to save the bacon of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has precipitously fallen in the polls, according to a report by The Hill.
What the opposition is hoping for is a reprise of the rise and fall of another leader – former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
While Democrats emphasize that the presidential trip has been planned for a long time and is not related to any perceived imminent danger of Reid, D-Nev., losing his seat, the numbers game indicates otherwise.
The latest poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal contains little good news for the veteran politician. Nearly half of Nevadans have had enough of Reid as the powerful Democrat heads into his re-election campaign.
About a third of the state’s voters would re-elect Reid if the 2010 election were held today, according to the poll, but 45 percent say they would definitely vote to replace him. Seventeen percent would consider another candidate.
Half of Nevada voters had an unfavorable view of Reid, while 38 percent had a favorable view and 11 percent a neutral opinion.
The Review-Journal noted further that Reid’s approval ratings at home have been subpar for years -- particularly since he ascended to Democratic leader in 2004 and to majority leader in 2006.
What’s more, hopes that things might take an uptick with the departure of President George W. Bush have not come to fruition. The Review-Journal described the poll as indicating voters bullish on Obama -- even as they are unhappy with Reid.
Much ado about nothing argue Reid loyalists, who point to the fact that the leader has already raised more than $5 million this quarter – after raising $2.2 million in the first quarter, according to The Hill. Meanwhile, a Reid spokesman said they expect next week’s fundraiser to add “at least $1 million.”
“Don’t be tempted to Daschle-ize Reid,” one Democratic official told The Hill. “Nevada 2010 is not South Dakota 2004: George Bush not is at the head of the ticket, Barack Obama won Nevada by double digits and Reid has kept a very watchful eye on his own state.”
But others smell blood in the water.
Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee was quick to lambaste the forthcoming Obama-Reid love-fest.
“Unfortunately for the majority leader, one night of rubbing elbows with President Obama and celebrity elites at a glitzy fundraiser is not going to mask a long voting record that’s increasingly out of step with Nevada,” Walsh said.
Walsh added that the big event, featuring such luminaries as Bette Midler and Sheryl Crow, “actually plays into Sen. Reid’s biggest problem facing reelection, which is the well-deserved feeling among his constituents that he consistently places Washington and special interests above the views and values of Nevadans.”
All pundit sparing aside, there’s still a very bright lining in the clouds for Reid – he still has no opponent in the race.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Memorial Day Tribute : A Trumpet Solo Video
This might take a few minutes to load but it is worth every second!! vedio
This is truly the most fantastic rendition of Taps that I have heard, and what a fitting tribute to those that have given everything for our country.
Take a few minutes and remember what it's like to be free, and then just try and imagine what it would be like if we didn't have it - remember the song lyrics from Bobby Magee - " - freedom means having nothing else to lose" !!
America is facing cross roads on her freedom now - what road we take depends on us. Our future, and that of our offspring, depends on making the right decision.
Enjoy the day and remember the greatness that is America.
The Slickster!
Friday, May 22, 2009
Moral AND Ethical Corruotion : Democrats Vote Against Murtha Investigation :
Is this a surprise to anyone? Democrats voting to protect corrupt members of their party, Murtha or William Jefferson to mention just a few, but attacking, in mass, when a Republican does the 'toe tap' or tells a joke about another member at a party, or uses a long forgotten word, 'makaka', that the liberals and the press put on the front pages of every publication in the country for weeks until that member had to resign his position.
What about Diane Feinstein directing millions of military contracts to her husband's company as she sat on the apparitions committee for military spending? Nobody cared - corruption? Of course, but they are Democrats, so it's okay. The bigger the corruption the better it will look on their resume.
After all, if a Democrat wants to run for high office and has no history of corruption, the rest of the party will think they are Republicans in disguise.
There are two standards for all of us to observe - one that allows the liberal to do and say anything about their enemy that will destroy them no matter how untrue, and one for all the rest of us - that is, we are to be seen and not heard. Just vote liberal and shut up! Remember what Barack said,"we won so we will do what ever we want". And they are!
Keep the faith
Top Democrats Fight Push for Murtha Probe
Democratic leaders in Congress are pressuring newer members of the House not to back a resolution by Rep. Jeff Flake calling for an ethics investigation involving Rep. John Murtha.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sent an e-mail to staffers for first-and second-term Democrats with the subject line: "Don't be a Flake."
The message said Democrats would again be voting to table another Flake resolution and warned that leadership "would have its eyes on any Democrat even thinking about defecting," Politico reports.
Flake, an Arizona Republican, wants an ethics investigation into the relationships that Pennsylvania Democrat Murtha and other veteran Democratic legislators had with the PMA Group.
The offices of PMA, a military-oriented lobbying firm, were raided by the FBI in November. The New York Times reported that investigators were looking for evidence that PMA made illegitimate campaign contributions to Murtha.
PMA allegedly directed tens of millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers while steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarked contracts back to PMA clients.
Murtha, chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, earmarked millions of dollars for the Electro-Optics Center at Penn State University, which then rerouted the money to clients of PMA, according to Politico.
As the House prepared to vote on Flake's resolution, House Minority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina sent an e-mail warning Democrats: "If the Flake resolution is referred to the Ethics Committee, members can expect attack ads to be run against them alleging members to be 'under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.'"
On Tuesday, Democrats did again vote overwhelmingly to table Flake's resolution. But 29 Democrats — the highest number yet — voted in favor of the measure, providing "further evidence of a generational divide that's pitting newer House members who want to 'drain the swamp' against veteran members who don't want to see their colleagues investigated," Politico observed.
The newer Democrats reportedly are concerned about appearing hypocritical for vowing during the campaign to clean up Congress and then declining to do so once in office.
What about Diane Feinstein directing millions of military contracts to her husband's company as she sat on the apparitions committee for military spending? Nobody cared - corruption? Of course, but they are Democrats, so it's okay. The bigger the corruption the better it will look on their resume.
After all, if a Democrat wants to run for high office and has no history of corruption, the rest of the party will think they are Republicans in disguise.
There are two standards for all of us to observe - one that allows the liberal to do and say anything about their enemy that will destroy them no matter how untrue, and one for all the rest of us - that is, we are to be seen and not heard. Just vote liberal and shut up! Remember what Barack said,"we won so we will do what ever we want". And they are!
Keep the faith
Top Democrats Fight Push for Murtha Probe
Democratic leaders in Congress are pressuring newer members of the House not to back a resolution by Rep. Jeff Flake calling for an ethics investigation involving Rep. John Murtha.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sent an e-mail to staffers for first-and second-term Democrats with the subject line: "Don't be a Flake."
The message said Democrats would again be voting to table another Flake resolution and warned that leadership "would have its eyes on any Democrat even thinking about defecting," Politico reports.
Flake, an Arizona Republican, wants an ethics investigation into the relationships that Pennsylvania Democrat Murtha and other veteran Democratic legislators had with the PMA Group.
The offices of PMA, a military-oriented lobbying firm, were raided by the FBI in November. The New York Times reported that investigators were looking for evidence that PMA made illegitimate campaign contributions to Murtha.
PMA allegedly directed tens of millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers while steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarked contracts back to PMA clients.
Murtha, chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, earmarked millions of dollars for the Electro-Optics Center at Penn State University, which then rerouted the money to clients of PMA, according to Politico.
As the House prepared to vote on Flake's resolution, House Minority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina sent an e-mail warning Democrats: "If the Flake resolution is referred to the Ethics Committee, members can expect attack ads to be run against them alleging members to be 'under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.'"
On Tuesday, Democrats did again vote overwhelmingly to table Flake's resolution. But 29 Democrats — the highest number yet — voted in favor of the measure, providing "further evidence of a generational divide that's pitting newer House members who want to 'drain the swamp' against veteran members who don't want to see their colleagues investigated," Politico observed.
The newer Democrats reportedly are concerned about appearing hypocritical for vowing during the campaign to clean up Congress and then declining to do so once in office.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Obama Health Care Plan : A Train Wreck!
The Heritage Foundation has some great information on the disaster that is coming to town in the form of the Obama heath care program.
The Obama plan to give health care to everyone will crush the American health care system that now covers more that 85% of the nation with excellent care. The remaining 15% is hard to identify in that many are young and don't care about health care now which makes up a large portion of the uninsured population. Lumped in with this youngsters are those that are under insured but listed as those that have no insurance.
The others are also hard to identify but this never stops the liberals from toting out the bogus number of the 40 million poor souls that don't have insurance. The socialists can't identify just who is uninsured except those on welfare. But it sure feels good to use the huge number and motivates so many to deny common sense and the need for actual facts. All we need is to believe and feel good about ourselves while someone else says they will do the heavy lifting on our health care, all the population needs to do now is shut up and stop asking questions -
Keep the faith -
Health care fairy tale
"Taxpayers take note: The true cost of the Obama reform is expected to be well in excess of $1 trillion over the next ten years," warns Heritage Foundation health care expert Bob Moffit in Human Events.
Government spending already accounts for half of all health care spending. But the Obama administration wants it to grow larger still. They're proposing vast expansions of government health care programs -- on top of those in the "stimulus" bill.
The President has impressed many on the Left with his proposed reforms. For example, one plan arranged with big health care firms would allegedly save up to $2 trillion over ten years by reducing health care costs by 1.5 percent a year. But these are "phony savings predictions," Moffit argues, based on conveniently-absent details about coordinating care and streamlining costs. The proposal is a "photo op with lofty promises and little substance," writes Heritage expert Brian Darling, and "might be used to justify…a Washington takeover of the health care system."
Many in the health care industry think a government takeover is inevitable, leading them to rally in support of the President. But "nothing is inevitable," Moffit argues, which is why now is the time for conservatives to stand up for what they believe.
As Congressional health care debates draw near, Moffit says "much depends upon how the American people will react to the details of the reform [or the lack thereof] and what exactly it means for them."
It is imperative that the American people get all the information on this issue, and that's where Heritage comes in. We've launched a comprehensive site with all the facts on the Obama health care plan. Visit the site today!
— Amanda Reinecker
The Obama plan to give health care to everyone will crush the American health care system that now covers more that 85% of the nation with excellent care. The remaining 15% is hard to identify in that many are young and don't care about health care now which makes up a large portion of the uninsured population. Lumped in with this youngsters are those that are under insured but listed as those that have no insurance.
The others are also hard to identify but this never stops the liberals from toting out the bogus number of the 40 million poor souls that don't have insurance. The socialists can't identify just who is uninsured except those on welfare. But it sure feels good to use the huge number and motivates so many to deny common sense and the need for actual facts. All we need is to believe and feel good about ourselves while someone else says they will do the heavy lifting on our health care, all the population needs to do now is shut up and stop asking questions -
Keep the faith -
Health care fairy tale
"Taxpayers take note: The true cost of the Obama reform is expected to be well in excess of $1 trillion over the next ten years," warns Heritage Foundation health care expert Bob Moffit in Human Events.
Government spending already accounts for half of all health care spending. But the Obama administration wants it to grow larger still. They're proposing vast expansions of government health care programs -- on top of those in the "stimulus" bill.
The President has impressed many on the Left with his proposed reforms. For example, one plan arranged with big health care firms would allegedly save up to $2 trillion over ten years by reducing health care costs by 1.5 percent a year. But these are "phony savings predictions," Moffit argues, based on conveniently-absent details about coordinating care and streamlining costs. The proposal is a "photo op with lofty promises and little substance," writes Heritage expert Brian Darling, and "might be used to justify…a Washington takeover of the health care system."
Many in the health care industry think a government takeover is inevitable, leading them to rally in support of the President. But "nothing is inevitable," Moffit argues, which is why now is the time for conservatives to stand up for what they believe.
As Congressional health care debates draw near, Moffit says "much depends upon how the American people will react to the details of the reform [or the lack thereof] and what exactly it means for them."
It is imperative that the American people get all the information on this issue, and that's where Heritage comes in. We've launched a comprehensive site with all the facts on the Obama health care plan. Visit the site today!
— Amanda Reinecker
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
AAA - Always Ready To Help
Triple A will go when and where it is needed to help you out of difficult situations - just give a call, if you are a member, and they will be there in minutes.
Union Rules Must Always Apply - No exceptions
Any good union member will concur that they always rely on union rules to guide them through lifes more difficult saturations. This next story is a good example of how things got so screwed up in Detroit due to 'rules' fixation.
Union Rules & Hookers
A dedicated Teamsters union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels. When he got to the first one, he asked the Madam, ' Is this a union house? ' 'No,' she replied, ' I'm sorry it isn't. ' 'Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get? ''The house gets $80 and the girls get $20,' she answered.
Offended at such unfair dealings, the union man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop. His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madam responded,' Why yes sir, this is a union house. ' We observe all union rules.'
The man asked,' And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?' 'The girls get $80 and the house gets $20.' 'That's more like it!' the union man said. He handed the Madam $100, looked around the room, and pointed to a stunningly attractive green-eyed blonde .
'I'd like her,' he said. 'I'm sure you would, sir, said the Madam. Then she gestured to a 92-year old woman in the corner,' and said, 'but Ethel here has 67 years seniority and according to union rules, she's next.'
Now you know what's wrong with the AUTO industry
And why they got a BAILOUT!
Union Rules & Hookers
A dedicated Teamsters union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels. When he got to the first one, he asked the Madam, ' Is this a union house? ' 'No,' she replied, ' I'm sorry it isn't. ' 'Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get? ''The house gets $80 and the girls get $20,' she answered.
Offended at such unfair dealings, the union man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop. His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madam responded,' Why yes sir, this is a union house. ' We observe all union rules.'
The man asked,' And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?' 'The girls get $80 and the house gets $20.' 'That's more like it!' the union man said. He handed the Madam $100, looked around the room, and pointed to a stunningly attractive green-eyed blonde .
'I'd like her,' he said. 'I'm sure you would, sir, said the Madam. Then she gestured to a 92-year old woman in the corner,' and said, 'but Ethel here has 67 years seniority and according to union rules, she's next.'
Now you know what's wrong with the AUTO industry
And why they got a BAILOUT!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Joe Biden : "Gaff Master" Supreme
Never in the history of our country has one man been this unaware of who he is or what his responsibilities are. Just imagine what it would be like if he were president? We would replace a Marxist socialist tyrant bent on destroying America with high taxes and a crushing energy policy with a guy that will simply 'give' America away with his loose tongue.
What do you think the reaction would be from the media if this was Dick Cheney?
Who voted for these guys? Why would anyone have thought a Democrat could actually care what happens to our country? Their history tells the story clearly!! They don't care what happens to this country as long as they have power!!
What in God's good name does it take to make people see this?
Biden Reveals Location of Secret 'Undisclosed Location'
Vice President Joe Biden has done it again.
Biden, who has a history of verbal blunders, has revealed the existence of a secret bunker intended to house the vice president in case of a national emergency or attack.
According to Newsweek magazine's Eleanor Clift, Biden let the secret slip at the recent Gridiron Club dinner, and annual event attended by media members and high-power politicians. Clift reports that Biden admitted to those at his table that the bunker is located beneath the vice president's official residence, located at the U.S. Naval Observatory near Washington, D.C.
It is likely that former Vice President Dick Cheney was hidden in the bunker - referred to as an "undisclosed location" - in the confusing aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
Newsweek's story asserts that Biden "said a young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment.
"The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn't be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."
This is hardly the first time Biden has raised eyebrows with an off-the-cuff remark. Most recently, he was criticized for encouraging Americans to avoid airline travel during the swine flu scare.
What do you think the reaction would be from the media if this was Dick Cheney?
Who voted for these guys? Why would anyone have thought a Democrat could actually care what happens to our country? Their history tells the story clearly!! They don't care what happens to this country as long as they have power!!
What in God's good name does it take to make people see this?
Biden Reveals Location of Secret 'Undisclosed Location'
Vice President Joe Biden has done it again.
Biden, who has a history of verbal blunders, has revealed the existence of a secret bunker intended to house the vice president in case of a national emergency or attack.
According to Newsweek magazine's Eleanor Clift, Biden let the secret slip at the recent Gridiron Club dinner, and annual event attended by media members and high-power politicians. Clift reports that Biden admitted to those at his table that the bunker is located beneath the vice president's official residence, located at the U.S. Naval Observatory near Washington, D.C.
It is likely that former Vice President Dick Cheney was hidden in the bunker - referred to as an "undisclosed location" - in the confusing aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
Newsweek's story asserts that Biden "said a young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment.
"The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn't be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."
This is hardly the first time Biden has raised eyebrows with an off-the-cuff remark. Most recently, he was criticized for encouraging Americans to avoid airline travel during the swine flu scare.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Michael Steele : Obama Degree Inapproiate
What will the Catholics do now? They have awarded a degree to a person that advocates abortion, socialism and, for all intents, is anti-Constitutional in that he is against individual rights. Yet they honor him.
How will the average Catholic come down on this after the Pope has always been against abortion and individual rights for all humanity? Are the Catholics ready to give the abortion stand up to become anti-Christian in a total socialist secular state designed by Obama? hmmmm
Steele: N. Dame Degree for Obama 'Inappropriate'
Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:10 AM
Article Font Size
The chairman of the Republican Party says the University of Notre Dame should not award an honorary degree to President Barack Obama.
GOP Chairman Michael Steele says Notre Dame is right to be honored that Obama is speaking at Sunday's commencement. But he says granting Obama an honorary degree is "inappropriate."
Obama supports abortion rights while the Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion. Notre Dame is the nation's largest Catholic university.
Steele spoke Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
How will the average Catholic come down on this after the Pope has always been against abortion and individual rights for all humanity? Are the Catholics ready to give the abortion stand up to become anti-Christian in a total socialist secular state designed by Obama? hmmmm
Steele: N. Dame Degree for Obama 'Inappropriate'
Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:10 AM
Article Font Size
The chairman of the Republican Party says the University of Notre Dame should not award an honorary degree to President Barack Obama.
GOP Chairman Michael Steele says Notre Dame is right to be honored that Obama is speaking at Sunday's commencement. But he says granting Obama an honorary degree is "inappropriate."
Obama supports abortion rights while the Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion. Notre Dame is the nation's largest Catholic university.
Steele spoke Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Weddings Organized by Men : Short, Sweet AND Fun!
Did you ever wonder how a wedding would work if the guys did all the work? This is something the gals should ponder before they sit down and design the next wonder of the world and call it a wedding day.
I like how this is done - short and sweet with just the right touches that will bring back memories for years to come. But given the climate of the prevailing winds in our society, I fear this won't happen any time soon. Sigh - - -
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Fed Refuses to Release Bank Data On Emergency Credit
I don't see the point in not letting all of us that are paying the bill in the recovery program to have access to who and to what we lent all this money - the lawsuit that is in progress, Bloomberg, will shed some light on the dark corners of the federal banking system.
"Govt by the the people and for the people"? No! The Govt no longer serves us, we serve it. If we make money and pay taxes that is.
Fed Refuses to Release Bank Data,Insists on Secrecy
March 5, 2009 (Bloomberg) – The Federal Reserve Board of Governors receives daily reports on bailout loans to financial institutions and won’t make the information public, the central bank said in a reply in a Bloomberg News lawsuit.
The Fed refused yesterday to disclose the names of the borrowers and the loans, alleging that it would cast “a stigma on recipients of more than $1.9 trillion of emergency credit from US taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
The public had been cozened into believing:
That disclosing the identities of the recipients would poorly reflect upon their public image and therefore their ability to function. Secrecy, on the other hand, allowed them to continue making disastrous decisions, while bamboozling clients who would not know they were dealing with incompetents – who stayed in business only because of huge taxpayer-financed infusions of corporate welfare.
The “too big to fail” had to be bailed out by taxpayers in order to keep “the credit markets from seizing up.”
But the consequences of seized up credit were rarely if ever spelled out.
Many financial analysts no less “expert” than those pushing through the bailouts were convinced that allowing the credit markets to seize up would, in the long run, prove far less costly than endlessly printing money and pouring it down a plush-lined sink hole.
Buffett was wrong.
It wasn't a "war" at all. It was a criminal case, or should have been, but the accused took a financial Fifth Amendment, the right to remain silent, since any statement made could be used as evidence against them, and got away with it.
When, at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was asked, "Will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?" He answered, "No".
"Govt by the the people and for the people"? No! The Govt no longer serves us, we serve it. If we make money and pay taxes that is.
Fed Refuses to Release Bank Data,Insists on Secrecy
March 5, 2009 (Bloomberg) – The Federal Reserve Board of Governors receives daily reports on bailout loans to financial institutions and won’t make the information public, the central bank said in a reply in a Bloomberg News lawsuit.
The Fed refused yesterday to disclose the names of the borrowers and the loans, alleging that it would cast “a stigma on recipients of more than $1.9 trillion of emergency credit from US taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
The public had been cozened into believing:
That disclosing the identities of the recipients would poorly reflect upon their public image and therefore their ability to function. Secrecy, on the other hand, allowed them to continue making disastrous decisions, while bamboozling clients who would not know they were dealing with incompetents – who stayed in business only because of huge taxpayer-financed infusions of corporate welfare.
The “too big to fail” had to be bailed out by taxpayers in order to keep “the credit markets from seizing up.”
But the consequences of seized up credit were rarely if ever spelled out.
Many financial analysts no less “expert” than those pushing through the bailouts were convinced that allowing the credit markets to seize up would, in the long run, prove far less costly than endlessly printing money and pouring it down a plush-lined sink hole.
Buffett was wrong.
It wasn't a "war" at all. It was a criminal case, or should have been, but the accused took a financial Fifth Amendment, the right to remain silent, since any statement made could be used as evidence against them, and got away with it.
When, at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was asked, "Will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?" He answered, "No".
Friday, May 15, 2009
Liberal Marxists In Senate Seek Gun Confiscation
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) is taking the lead in the fight to stop the Marxist left members or our senate from stealing our right under the Second Amendment to own and bear arms in defense of our selves and our property.
The questions everyone has to ask now is " what are the liberals afraid of?" Why are so many of congress so intent in disarming the law abiding citizen? Maybe they see the armed citizen as a threat to their power grab - maybe they think the citizens will rise up against a Marxist socialists agenda that people like Lautenberg, Schumer, Kerry, Durbin and Feinstein have in store all of us? All Democrats - All liberals
I believe the liberal left will do anything that's necessary to crush all personal freedom that exist in America today. This must be done to secure a total dominate socialist government control of the population. As we all can atest, Obama is leading the charge. Our personal freedom is under attack right now!!
CCRKBA has a great place to register your protest - just highlight the site and vote. Keep the faith.
Anti-Gun Senate to Ban Private Gun Sales
Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation's "gun show loophole."
YOU ARE IRRATIONAL IF YOU SUPPORT PRIVATE GUN SALES
"There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it's still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington" Sen. Lautenberg said ignoring the Constitution.
Select Here to Reject All Gun Bans and Fax All 99 Senators
Lautenberg went on to add still more to the "90% Obama Mexican Gun Lie":
"Thirty percent of the guns that go to Mexico are bought at gun shows." With NO supporting evidence Lautenberg continued, "We don't know whether they're bought from unlicensed dealers, but logic would say let's have some idea who it is that bought those guns and what their intentions might be."
Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are also lying about the Virginia Tech gunman who had a background check at a legal gun store to justify themselves. There were abundant warning signs that he posed a serious threat to the campus. Yet he was running loose because the gun check system failed.
NO SUCH THING AS 'GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE'
Independence Institute researcher David Kopel has written about the "gun show loophole," concluding that it is a myth: Says Kopel:
"Despite what some media commentators have claimed, If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its "instant" background check"
CRIME GUNS DO NOT COME FROM GUN SHOWS
The Bureau of Justice Statistics report entitled "Firearms Use by Offenders" found that less than one percent - 0.7%, to be exact - of guns used in crimes originated at gun shows. NICS: DEFACTO GUN REGISTRATION New York (D) Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand proposed computerized background checks be retained creating a de facto gun registration system and Lautenberg's Bill proposes private transactions be added to this registration system.
LAUTENBERG'S MOTIVES
Motives for eliminating gun shows are twofold: First, gun shows are a powerful tool in defeating gun control legislation. Second, eradicate the gun show and gun culture altogether. All that seems to be on the minds of the Anti-Gun Senators and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to exploit tragedy to erode and eventually destroy the right, and the means, of self-defense.
Select Here to Reject All Gun Bans and Fax All 99 Senators
Now the Anti-Gun Coalitions are trying to use tragic events to destroy gun shows and the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves under the law. They are attacking and hiding behind an Anti-Terrorist Agenda while getting political and financial support from: George Soros a Hungarian-born billionaire bank rolling efforts with his check book and spending more that $100 million to destroy the Constitution.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) admitted that "guns would be banned and confiscated" if she could have her way. The United Nations actively pushes globalism seeking to disarm all Americans.
We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support. Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates! Select Here to Reject All Gun Bans and Fax All 99 Senators Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill, slap it down hard.
The legislation is cosponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Charles Schumer (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). I
n order to stop Schumer, Kerry and Kennedy and there fellow gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone. Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation…and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands. So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution. Help me flood the U.S. Senate with a sea of FAXES big enough to drown each and every Senator willing to vote away the Second Amendment. Please, send your Donation and FAX TODAY! Select Here to Reject All Gun Bans and Fax All 99 Senators
Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include
1-877-851-6437 and
1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU'RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!
CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS. DO NOT BE SILENCED -
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
The questions everyone has to ask now is " what are the liberals afraid of?" Why are so many of congress so intent in disarming the law abiding citizen? Maybe they see the armed citizen as a threat to their power grab - maybe they think the citizens will rise up against a Marxist socialists agenda that people like Lautenberg, Schumer, Kerry, Durbin and Feinstein have in store all of us? All Democrats - All liberals
I believe the liberal left will do anything that's necessary to crush all personal freedom that exist in America today. This must be done to secure a total dominate socialist government control of the population. As we all can atest, Obama is leading the charge. Our personal freedom is under attack right now!!
CCRKBA has a great place to register your protest - just highlight the site and vote. Keep the faith.
Anti-Gun Senate to Ban Private Gun Sales
Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation's "gun show loophole."
YOU ARE IRRATIONAL IF YOU SUPPORT PRIVATE GUN SALES
"There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it's still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington" Sen. Lautenberg said ignoring the Constitution.
Select Here to Reject All Gun Bans and Fax All 99 Senators
Lautenberg went on to add still more to the "90% Obama Mexican Gun Lie":
"Thirty percent of the guns that go to Mexico are bought at gun shows." With NO supporting evidence Lautenberg continued, "We don't know whether they're bought from unlicensed dealers, but logic would say let's have some idea who it is that bought those guns and what their intentions might be."
Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are also lying about the Virginia Tech gunman who had a background check at a legal gun store to justify themselves. There were abundant warning signs that he posed a serious threat to the campus. Yet he was running loose because the gun check system failed.
NO SUCH THING AS 'GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE'
Independence Institute researcher David Kopel has written about the "gun show loophole," concluding that it is a myth: Says Kopel:
"Despite what some media commentators have claimed, If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its "instant" background check"
CRIME GUNS DO NOT COME FROM GUN SHOWS
The Bureau of Justice Statistics report entitled "Firearms Use by Offenders" found that less than one percent - 0.7%, to be exact - of guns used in crimes originated at gun shows. NICS: DEFACTO GUN REGISTRATION New York (D) Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand proposed computerized background checks be retained creating a de facto gun registration system and Lautenberg's Bill proposes private transactions be added to this registration system.
LAUTENBERG'S MOTIVES
Motives for eliminating gun shows are twofold: First, gun shows are a powerful tool in defeating gun control legislation. Second, eradicate the gun show and gun culture altogether. All that seems to be on the minds of the Anti-Gun Senators and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to exploit tragedy to erode and eventually destroy the right, and the means, of self-defense.
Select Here to Reject All Gun Bans and Fax All 99 Senators
Now the Anti-Gun Coalitions are trying to use tragic events to destroy gun shows and the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves under the law. They are attacking and hiding behind an Anti-Terrorist Agenda while getting political and financial support from: George Soros a Hungarian-born billionaire bank rolling efforts with his check book and spending more that $100 million to destroy the Constitution.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) admitted that "guns would be banned and confiscated" if she could have her way. The United Nations actively pushes globalism seeking to disarm all Americans.
We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support. Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates! Select Here to Reject All Gun Bans and Fax All 99 Senators Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill, slap it down hard.
The legislation is cosponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Charles Schumer (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). I
n order to stop Schumer, Kerry and Kennedy and there fellow gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone. Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation…and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands. So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution. Help me flood the U.S. Senate with a sea of FAXES big enough to drown each and every Senator willing to vote away the Second Amendment. Please, send your Donation and FAX TODAY! Select Here to Reject All Gun Bans and Fax All 99 Senators
Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include
1-877-851-6437 and
1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU'RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!
CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS. DO NOT BE SILENCED -
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
What Pelosi Knew and When : Pelosi Is Lying Again
Pelosi, and the other liberal Marxist Democrats, know they can say and do anything to cover their tracks because the main stream media will say and do everything they can to cover for the liberal Marxist Democrats. One hand washes the other. Both are driven by the socialist agenda.
But what is the tragedy is, most of the voting public will have no knowledge of what the truth is as all of the information that the liberal public gets is from the liberal media. The whole socialists idea is to tell the majority of the voters only what is necessary, manage the news with misinformation and out right lies, to keep them ignorant and voting the liberal Marxists back into power. Eventually, of course, the Marxists won't need votes to do what they want as the public won't have the vote.
Lying to the voters is a way of life for the Marxists socialists - the Marxist knows that if they can lie long enough, and often enough, the lie will become truth. Little wonder why the liberal Democrats rely so heavily on the media to carry their message of total government control over all aspects of life in America. Also it's no wonder why so many of our countrymen believe that total control by the government is a good thing. Individual freedom is hogwash.
Little wonder than that the employment in the government is growing at a rate 15% higher than in the private sectors of our economy, and unemployment in the private sectors of our economy will reach 10% by the end of summer. I wonder who is being hired and for what job? I also wonder who will pay the salaries of all these new employees? By the year 2012, it's estimated the new hires for the federal government will reach over 600,000.
Again, wake up America, the only way to stop and reverse this madness is to vote out the socialists in 2010!! Get involved. Be ready to go door to door, work phones or what ever you can do - we must get control of congress to stop the destruction of our country.
Keep the faith -
Pelosi Briefed On Waterboarding Repeatedly
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
By: Jim Meyers
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was using waterboarding to interrogate a terrorist detainee, an inside source has told Politico.
The assertion refutes Pelosi's statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding.
Pelosi has disputed a CIA document released last week showing she was briefed in September 2002 that interrogators were waterboarding terrorist Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi, who was then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has said she was told only that the Bush administration was considering using certain interrogation techniques in the future.
But Politico maintains that "there's no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after Pelosi's September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman . . . on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding."
Harman, who was by then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, drafted a letter to the CIA's general counsel to express her concerns with the interrogation tactic and asking if waterboarding had been approved by the president.
According to the Politico source, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing and later informed her that Harman was drafting the letter. Pelosi asked Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the sentiments expressed in the letter, but did not ask to be listed as a signatory.
The source, who spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity, said: "She felt that the appropriate response was the letter from Harman, because Jane was the one who was briefed." Pelosi "never got briefed on it personally, and when Harman got a 'no response' from the CIA, there was nothing more that could be done."
Republicans "aren't buying it," Politico observed.
"If Nancy was so concerned about the waterboarding, why did she let someone else write the letter?" asked Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee.
Hoekstra last week said he wasn't ruling out hearings to find out what members of congress knew and when they knew it.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
But what is the tragedy is, most of the voting public will have no knowledge of what the truth is as all of the information that the liberal public gets is from the liberal media. The whole socialists idea is to tell the majority of the voters only what is necessary, manage the news with misinformation and out right lies, to keep them ignorant and voting the liberal Marxists back into power. Eventually, of course, the Marxists won't need votes to do what they want as the public won't have the vote.
Lying to the voters is a way of life for the Marxists socialists - the Marxist knows that if they can lie long enough, and often enough, the lie will become truth. Little wonder why the liberal Democrats rely so heavily on the media to carry their message of total government control over all aspects of life in America. Also it's no wonder why so many of our countrymen believe that total control by the government is a good thing. Individual freedom is hogwash.
Little wonder than that the employment in the government is growing at a rate 15% higher than in the private sectors of our economy, and unemployment in the private sectors of our economy will reach 10% by the end of summer. I wonder who is being hired and for what job? I also wonder who will pay the salaries of all these new employees? By the year 2012, it's estimated the new hires for the federal government will reach over 600,000.
Again, wake up America, the only way to stop and reverse this madness is to vote out the socialists in 2010!! Get involved. Be ready to go door to door, work phones or what ever you can do - we must get control of congress to stop the destruction of our country.
Keep the faith -
Pelosi Briefed On Waterboarding Repeatedly
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
By: Jim Meyers
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was using waterboarding to interrogate a terrorist detainee, an inside source has told Politico.
The assertion refutes Pelosi's statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding.
Pelosi has disputed a CIA document released last week showing she was briefed in September 2002 that interrogators were waterboarding terrorist Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi, who was then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has said she was told only that the Bush administration was considering using certain interrogation techniques in the future.
But Politico maintains that "there's no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after Pelosi's September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman . . . on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding."
Harman, who was by then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, drafted a letter to the CIA's general counsel to express her concerns with the interrogation tactic and asking if waterboarding had been approved by the president.
According to the Politico source, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing and later informed her that Harman was drafting the letter. Pelosi asked Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the sentiments expressed in the letter, but did not ask to be listed as a signatory.
The source, who spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity, said: "She felt that the appropriate response was the letter from Harman, because Jane was the one who was briefed." Pelosi "never got briefed on it personally, and when Harman got a 'no response' from the CIA, there was nothing more that could be done."
Republicans "aren't buying it," Politico observed.
"If Nancy was so concerned about the waterboarding, why did she let someone else write the letter?" asked Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee.
Hoekstra last week said he wasn't ruling out hearings to find out what members of congress knew and when they knew it.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Obama Administration's GPS Tracking: A Census Nightmare for America
What more can one say except this government means to do us harm. We see it every day of the week but we seem to not care. Obama knows he has to move fast before people wake up to his true intent. His true intent is to gain control of every aspect of our lives for total and absolute power. How can so many Americas have such a short memory.
World War II wasn't that long ago. Remember what happened in Germany? Russia? And have we completely forgot what Mao did to millions of Chinese? Or what Hugo Chavez is doing right now in Venezuela? Woha - you say - can't happen here, right? Do you know what freedom is? Can you describe it?
I still can't comprehend this could happen in this country, but here we are - we are in fact being taken over by people that mean to destroy the American dream. And so many of us just sit, fat, dumb and unconcerned.
It's up to us to make the difference - wake up America, your coffee is cold.
Coordinates being taken for every residence in nation
Posted: May 05, 2009
By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily
GPS satellite
According to an online Yahoo program, the Global Position System coordinates for the White House, probably one of the best-known publicly owned buildings in the world, are 38.898590 Latitude and -77.035971 Longitude. And since you know that, it's no big deal for the White House to know the coordinates for your front door, is it?
Some people think it is, and are upset over an army of some 140,000 workers hired in part with a $700 million taxpayer-funded contract to collect GPS readings for every front door in the nation.
The data collection, presented as preparation for the 2010 Census, is pinpointing with computer accuracy the locations and has raised considerable concern from privacy advocates who have questioned why the information is needed. The privacy advocates also are more than a little worried over what could be done with that information.
Enhancing the concerns is the Obama administration's recent decision to put White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in an oversight role over the census, which will be used to determine a reapportionment of congressional seats and could be used to solidify a single political party's control over the nation, its budget, military and future.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently told the Washington Post: "The census director reports to me, and, of course, I serve at the pleasure of the president." He added the White House told him "it has no interest in politicizing [the census]."
But at American Daily Review, blogger Douglas Gibbs had more than a few doubts.
"GPS coordinates of your front door will make it easier for the government to monitor you," he said. "The U.S. Census Bureau is simply an excuse – a harmless looking means of obtaining the front door coordinates. The creation of GPS coordinates for front doors has nothing to do with the census, in all honesty, no matter how much the United States government tries to convince you that it does."
Learn what America means, get "The Patriot's Handbook: A Citizenship Primer for a New Generation of Americans"
He recalled wondering why, just weeks ago, the Obama administration announced its oversight of the census, "literally taking control of the census away from the Commerce Department."
He put that together with Obama's longtime push for national service.
"The Obamites, thirsty to serve their new messianic figure, have lost enough of their objectivity to be willingly recruited into such an insidious program like gaining these coordinates for the U.S. government. … I ask again, what would be the purpose of shooting the GPS coordinates of American doorways?" he wrote.
The answer he provided was alarming.
"Imagine, if you will, that there are a number of people in a neighborhood that could not find the addresses they are tasked with finding. They are not locals, maybe are unable to read a map, or perhaps do not have the time to pull out a map, and they need to find you with specific GPS coordinates. Their devices would lead them to your front door with these coordinates. Imagine a crisis is afoot, and martial law is put into place. U.S. troops need to round up particular folks," he wrote.
"Let's take this a step further. After all, with Barack Obama desiring to decrease the number of folks in the military, and with forces committed worldwide, we may not have sufficient military forces at home to deal with a rising national emergency. If the government decided to rely on foreign troops, perhaps United Nations personnel, most of which may not understand the street signs, much less know the lay of the land, they could use GPS devices to direct them to your front door," he wrote.
According to the Census Bureau's website, the GPS technology "allows us to reduce the amount of time spent by census workers in locating addresses. … Most importantly, by adding a GPS coordinate to each housing unit, the Census Bureau is able to ensure that residents are counted in the right location."
At Canada Free Press, commentator J.B. Williams said, "I can't resist the urge to question the authority and purpose behind such a BIG BROTHER initiative, when the official census itself is not due to be taken until 2010…
"No imagination is required to think up a whole laundry list of evil that could be done with a nationwide GPS grid of coordinate's markers painted on every private home across the country. But I was having trouble thinking up one good reason for it, even one legitimate use that would justify what must be a very expensive undertaking," he said.
"Why does the Obama administration need or want the latitude and longitude coordinates for every home in America? Why the rush to GPS paint every home in the next 90 days? Why must the marker be within 40 feet of every front door? For what possible purpose does the Fed need GPS coordinates for every home, and under what authority do they have the right? Census workers, whom I asked, had the same holy-crap look on their faces that I had by then," he wrote. Then he cited the cooperative effort that the U.S. Census Bureau has reached with ACORN, the organization of community activists with which Obama worked.
"Obama's interest in an ACORN-controlled 2010 Census, for the purpose of redistricting to the advantage of Democrats before the 2010 mid-term elections, comes as NO shock from a regime known for their heavy handed Rules for Radicals political strategies. But what does this have to do with GPS marking every home in the country?" he questioned.
Ask those who have served military duty, he said. They are very familiar with the most common use of GPS target painting, and the rest might want to read books such as "The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare."
Online sources noted that Google Maps already probably has listed most homes in the nation.
"But the front door? Sounds like a jackboot convenience to me," said RightSoup.com.
Added Williams, "What I do know is this … Coincidences of this number and magnitude don't happen. … I also know that people had better start asking the right people the right questions and demanding answers fast. Begin with asking the mainstream press why there has been no public notification of the federal governments GPS marking your front door?"
A number of concerned citizens have contacted WND about the program, and repeatedly have cited warnings delivered by the GPS squad members that their failure to allow the readings would result in fines and possibly imprisonment under Title 13, which allows the census to be taken. But repeatedly they've gotten no answers when asked what a GPS reading has to do with the number of people living at the home – which isn't supposed to be subject to questions until 2010 anyway.
One WND reader raised these questions to a local census office.
"What authority does the U.S. Census Bureau have for sending anyone to my front door in April of 2009 to mark it with GPS coordinates? This is unacceptable. The census is not due until 2010, and the usurpation of the census by the White House is unconstitutional. … This citizen will not answer census questions until the year they are due, and demands that my GPS coordinates be removed from all government records."
The census response?
"Address canvassing should conclude by mid-July. The operation will use new hand-held computers equipped with GPS to increase geographic accuracy. The ability to capture GPS coordinates for most of the nation's housing units will greatly reduce the number of geographic coding errors caused by using paper maps in previous counts. … During the address canvassing operation, census workers may ask to verify a housing structure's address and whether there are additional living quarters on the property. All census workers carry official government badges marked with just their name. You also may ask them for a picture ID from another source to confirm their identity. In addition, some census workers might carry a 'U. S. Census Workers' bag."
Another WND reader, from Washington state, reported he is having his attorney look into the legality of the GPS data collection and hopes to have enough support for a legal challenge.
The reader, whose name was withheld because of his concerns over repercussions, said a government home data collector ignored his no trespassing sign, and he was threatened by the collector for wanting to refuse to provide "census" information.
He said GPS mapping nowhere is authorized for census workers.
Census spokesman Stephen Buckner told WND the activity is, in fact, proper, and even necessary. There are homes being built and torn down constantly, and the census needs such information. Local building records and other government databases such as tax records would not suffice, he said.
"There are 140,000 workers walking every street of America," he told WND, in order to document 145 million addresses with GPS coordinates.
He assured WND that all such personal information is confidential, because employees of contractors doing the work are subject to a $250,000 fine or imprisonment for five years for revealing personal information. He also confirmed that the last case that was prosecuted under the law was nearly 50 years ago.
"We have to verify every single address," he said.
World War II wasn't that long ago. Remember what happened in Germany? Russia? And have we completely forgot what Mao did to millions of Chinese? Or what Hugo Chavez is doing right now in Venezuela? Woha - you say - can't happen here, right? Do you know what freedom is? Can you describe it?
I still can't comprehend this could happen in this country, but here we are - we are in fact being taken over by people that mean to destroy the American dream. And so many of us just sit, fat, dumb and unconcerned.
It's up to us to make the difference - wake up America, your coffee is cold.
Coordinates being taken for every residence in nation
Posted: May 05, 2009
By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily
GPS satellite
According to an online Yahoo program, the Global Position System coordinates for the White House, probably one of the best-known publicly owned buildings in the world, are 38.898590 Latitude and -77.035971 Longitude. And since you know that, it's no big deal for the White House to know the coordinates for your front door, is it?
Some people think it is, and are upset over an army of some 140,000 workers hired in part with a $700 million taxpayer-funded contract to collect GPS readings for every front door in the nation.
The data collection, presented as preparation for the 2010 Census, is pinpointing with computer accuracy the locations and has raised considerable concern from privacy advocates who have questioned why the information is needed. The privacy advocates also are more than a little worried over what could be done with that information.
Enhancing the concerns is the Obama administration's recent decision to put White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in an oversight role over the census, which will be used to determine a reapportionment of congressional seats and could be used to solidify a single political party's control over the nation, its budget, military and future.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently told the Washington Post: "The census director reports to me, and, of course, I serve at the pleasure of the president." He added the White House told him "it has no interest in politicizing [the census]."
But at American Daily Review, blogger Douglas Gibbs had more than a few doubts.
"GPS coordinates of your front door will make it easier for the government to monitor you," he said. "The U.S. Census Bureau is simply an excuse – a harmless looking means of obtaining the front door coordinates. The creation of GPS coordinates for front doors has nothing to do with the census, in all honesty, no matter how much the United States government tries to convince you that it does."
Learn what America means, get "The Patriot's Handbook: A Citizenship Primer for a New Generation of Americans"
He recalled wondering why, just weeks ago, the Obama administration announced its oversight of the census, "literally taking control of the census away from the Commerce Department."
He put that together with Obama's longtime push for national service.
"The Obamites, thirsty to serve their new messianic figure, have lost enough of their objectivity to be willingly recruited into such an insidious program like gaining these coordinates for the U.S. government. … I ask again, what would be the purpose of shooting the GPS coordinates of American doorways?" he wrote.
The answer he provided was alarming.
"Imagine, if you will, that there are a number of people in a neighborhood that could not find the addresses they are tasked with finding. They are not locals, maybe are unable to read a map, or perhaps do not have the time to pull out a map, and they need to find you with specific GPS coordinates. Their devices would lead them to your front door with these coordinates. Imagine a crisis is afoot, and martial law is put into place. U.S. troops need to round up particular folks," he wrote.
"Let's take this a step further. After all, with Barack Obama desiring to decrease the number of folks in the military, and with forces committed worldwide, we may not have sufficient military forces at home to deal with a rising national emergency. If the government decided to rely on foreign troops, perhaps United Nations personnel, most of which may not understand the street signs, much less know the lay of the land, they could use GPS devices to direct them to your front door," he wrote.
According to the Census Bureau's website, the GPS technology "allows us to reduce the amount of time spent by census workers in locating addresses. … Most importantly, by adding a GPS coordinate to each housing unit, the Census Bureau is able to ensure that residents are counted in the right location."
At Canada Free Press, commentator J.B. Williams said, "I can't resist the urge to question the authority and purpose behind such a BIG BROTHER initiative, when the official census itself is not due to be taken until 2010…
"No imagination is required to think up a whole laundry list of evil that could be done with a nationwide GPS grid of coordinate's markers painted on every private home across the country. But I was having trouble thinking up one good reason for it, even one legitimate use that would justify what must be a very expensive undertaking," he said.
"Why does the Obama administration need or want the latitude and longitude coordinates for every home in America? Why the rush to GPS paint every home in the next 90 days? Why must the marker be within 40 feet of every front door? For what possible purpose does the Fed need GPS coordinates for every home, and under what authority do they have the right? Census workers, whom I asked, had the same holy-crap look on their faces that I had by then," he wrote. Then he cited the cooperative effort that the U.S. Census Bureau has reached with ACORN, the organization of community activists with which Obama worked.
"Obama's interest in an ACORN-controlled 2010 Census, for the purpose of redistricting to the advantage of Democrats before the 2010 mid-term elections, comes as NO shock from a regime known for their heavy handed Rules for Radicals political strategies. But what does this have to do with GPS marking every home in the country?" he questioned.
Ask those who have served military duty, he said. They are very familiar with the most common use of GPS target painting, and the rest might want to read books such as "The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare."
Online sources noted that Google Maps already probably has listed most homes in the nation.
"But the front door? Sounds like a jackboot convenience to me," said RightSoup.com.
Added Williams, "What I do know is this … Coincidences of this number and magnitude don't happen. … I also know that people had better start asking the right people the right questions and demanding answers fast. Begin with asking the mainstream press why there has been no public notification of the federal governments GPS marking your front door?"
A number of concerned citizens have contacted WND about the program, and repeatedly have cited warnings delivered by the GPS squad members that their failure to allow the readings would result in fines and possibly imprisonment under Title 13, which allows the census to be taken. But repeatedly they've gotten no answers when asked what a GPS reading has to do with the number of people living at the home – which isn't supposed to be subject to questions until 2010 anyway.
One WND reader raised these questions to a local census office.
"What authority does the U.S. Census Bureau have for sending anyone to my front door in April of 2009 to mark it with GPS coordinates? This is unacceptable. The census is not due until 2010, and the usurpation of the census by the White House is unconstitutional. … This citizen will not answer census questions until the year they are due, and demands that my GPS coordinates be removed from all government records."
The census response?
"Address canvassing should conclude by mid-July. The operation will use new hand-held computers equipped with GPS to increase geographic accuracy. The ability to capture GPS coordinates for most of the nation's housing units will greatly reduce the number of geographic coding errors caused by using paper maps in previous counts. … During the address canvassing operation, census workers may ask to verify a housing structure's address and whether there are additional living quarters on the property. All census workers carry official government badges marked with just their name. You also may ask them for a picture ID from another source to confirm their identity. In addition, some census workers might carry a 'U. S. Census Workers' bag."
Another WND reader, from Washington state, reported he is having his attorney look into the legality of the GPS data collection and hopes to have enough support for a legal challenge.
The reader, whose name was withheld because of his concerns over repercussions, said a government home data collector ignored his no trespassing sign, and he was threatened by the collector for wanting to refuse to provide "census" information.
He said GPS mapping nowhere is authorized for census workers.
Census spokesman Stephen Buckner told WND the activity is, in fact, proper, and even necessary. There are homes being built and torn down constantly, and the census needs such information. Local building records and other government databases such as tax records would not suffice, he said.
"There are 140,000 workers walking every street of America," he told WND, in order to document 145 million addresses with GPS coordinates.
He assured WND that all such personal information is confidential, because employees of contractors doing the work are subject to a $250,000 fine or imprisonment for five years for revealing personal information. He also confirmed that the last case that was prosecuted under the law was nearly 50 years ago.
"We have to verify every single address," he said.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Does Obama Care About Education? : NO!
If something works in education but doesn't benefit the NEA, Obama will kill it! The school choice program in DC works but the NEA hates the program, so it must go!!
Never mind, it's just one more lie from Barack - he's just feeding another support group at the expense of others.
He is not one of us - He doesn't believe in the founding of this country. What other reason would he want such radical changes for our country?
Speaking out for school choice in D.C.
Heritage Foundation - Amanda Reinecker
When it comes to education, the Obama administration has promised to "fund what works." So why does the administration continue to hedge on whether to fund the popular and visibly successful school choice program for disadvantaged kids in the nation's capital?
This past Wednesday, over 1,000 concerned Americans rallied in support of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, which allows 1,700 children to attend private schools instead of the failing city schools.
» Learn more about education choice in the nation's capital
Heritage Foundation education expert Dan Lips reports that program participants and their parents criticized the "hypocrisy of Congress bailing out failing corporations but taking scholarships away from D.C. students."
Statistics demonstrate the effectiveness of voucher and scholarship programs that allow underprivileged students to attend private schools. Members of Congress have drawn the same conclusions: a recent Heritage report reveals that a third of lawmakers have chosen to send their kids to private schools. Perhaps they will consider allowing disadvantaged families to do the same.
Never mind, it's just one more lie from Barack - he's just feeding another support group at the expense of others.
He is not one of us - He doesn't believe in the founding of this country. What other reason would he want such radical changes for our country?
Speaking out for school choice in D.C.
Heritage Foundation - Amanda Reinecker
When it comes to education, the Obama administration has promised to "fund what works." So why does the administration continue to hedge on whether to fund the popular and visibly successful school choice program for disadvantaged kids in the nation's capital?
This past Wednesday, over 1,000 concerned Americans rallied in support of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, which allows 1,700 children to attend private schools instead of the failing city schools.
» Learn more about education choice in the nation's capital
Heritage Foundation education expert Dan Lips reports that program participants and their parents criticized the "hypocrisy of Congress bailing out failing corporations but taking scholarships away from D.C. students."
Statistics demonstrate the effectiveness of voucher and scholarship programs that allow underprivileged students to attend private schools. Members of Congress have drawn the same conclusions: a recent Heritage report reveals that a third of lawmakers have chosen to send their kids to private schools. Perhaps they will consider allowing disadvantaged families to do the same.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Supreme Court Justices Decide Law NOT Agenda
The Heritage Foundation weighs in on the nomination process for Supreme Court Justice selection.
by Amanda Reinecker HF
This week, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement, providing President Barack Obama with his first opportunity to nominate someone to the high court.
Liberal groups are already pressuring the administration to name a left-wing activist to the court. But they should remember that judges are not in the business of writing laws or twisting it to serve their policy preferences. "Obama should seek judges who will apply the law as it was written, not how they would like it to be written to address the particular parties before them,"
Heritage Foundation legal scholar Robert Alt writes in the New York Post. "To do otherwise in replacing Souter will surely shift the Court further to the left, and further away from the rule of law."
"Americans don't want judges who will bend the law toward the side they favor," writes Heritage Foundation Ronald Reagan Fellow and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese. "They want a fair judge who will apply the law in the same way -- as the people's representatives in the legislature wrote it -- regardless of who is before the court."
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, then-Senator Obama said, "I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record." Conservatives agree with this, which is why it's important to closely examine the future nominee.
Conservatives must also remember that Justice Souter was not a consistent liberal activist, and replacing him is "not a zero-sum game," argues Heritage senior legal policy analyst Andrew Grossman. While Justice Souter is a far cry from an originalist — one who applies the original meaning of the Constitution — Heritage legal experts agree that his record demonstrates a rather conservative approach in certain areas, including crime, punishment, lawsuit abuse, and various social issues.
by Amanda Reinecker HF
This week, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement, providing President Barack Obama with his first opportunity to nominate someone to the high court.
Liberal groups are already pressuring the administration to name a left-wing activist to the court. But they should remember that judges are not in the business of writing laws or twisting it to serve their policy preferences. "Obama should seek judges who will apply the law as it was written, not how they would like it to be written to address the particular parties before them,"
Heritage Foundation legal scholar Robert Alt writes in the New York Post. "To do otherwise in replacing Souter will surely shift the Court further to the left, and further away from the rule of law."
"Americans don't want judges who will bend the law toward the side they favor," writes Heritage Foundation Ronald Reagan Fellow and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese. "They want a fair judge who will apply the law in the same way -- as the people's representatives in the legislature wrote it -- regardless of who is before the court."
During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, then-Senator Obama said, "I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record." Conservatives agree with this, which is why it's important to closely examine the future nominee.
Conservatives must also remember that Justice Souter was not a consistent liberal activist, and replacing him is "not a zero-sum game," argues Heritage senior legal policy analyst Andrew Grossman. While Justice Souter is a far cry from an originalist — one who applies the original meaning of the Constitution — Heritage legal experts agree that his record demonstrates a rather conservative approach in certain areas, including crime, punishment, lawsuit abuse, and various social issues.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Obama Administration, Major Media Backing Terrorists in Afghanistan
Of course, this isn't anything new given what went on in Vietnam with the one sided press coverage and how the anti-war nut jobs screamed for the cameras that our troops were baby killers and assorted monsters.
Remember John Kerry's statements about how our troops were kicking in doors in the middle of the night and killing women and children? Remember Murtha's statements and how the press had a field day with these lies? Remember Dan Rather's philosophy, "it's not true but it should be" so CBS went ahead with the lies about George Bush. If it weren't for the bloggers, the lies would have passed as truth!!
But now our esteemed president, and the main stream media, are openly siding with the terrorists in Afghanistan against our troops. How can this happen in America? Who voted for just a man? What are Obama's motives for such actions? Why would anyone believe anything they read or hear in the main stream press?
As usual, Ralph Perters is on the mark. Keep the faith
THE CASUALTY CON
By RALPH PETERS/May 8, 2009/ --
THE most effective weapon terrorists have found to wield against us isn't the headline-grabbing suicide bomber or even the deadly roadside bomb, the IED.Such weapons can harm us, but they can't stop us. Terror's super-weapon is the /lie./
Lying about civilian casualties is the one sure way to impede or even halt US (or Israeli) operations, to force such tight restrictions on our troops that they can't win.The casualty con's so effective as both propaganda and tactic that terrorists everywhere have adopted the technique. It's been so successful that our enemies long ago transitioned to the next phase: /creating/ civilian casualties and blaming us.It works.
The media /love/ the charge. Our troops and pilots are /always/ guilty -- even if proven innocent. Because so many on the left /want/ us to be guilty. Few journalists bother to investigate. If the Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas says it, it must be so. In Media Wonderland, terrorists never lie. Now /every/ successful strike on a Taliban target generates the instant claim that the dead were all civilians. And it isn't just the media who back the Taliban.
The Obama administration -- a case study in instant foreign-policy ineptitude -- signs up, too. This week, Taliban terrorists publicly beheaded three civilians in Afghanistan's Farah province, then herded women and children into compounds from which they fought government forces and US advisers. With a vicious ground battle under way, the Talibs knew attack aircraft would appear. According to military sources, they set up the target. And, just in case, they slaughtered those women and children with grenades before any aircraft appeared. The entire massacre was a planned media event. And who gets blamed? Not the Taliban. Before the smoke cleared, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was apologizing. (Apologizing is one thing this administration does with real enthusiasm.)
Our SecState played right into the Taliban's hands. It was instinctive on her part. Clinton and her new Cabinet peers /know/ that our military's evil. No need to say a single word about the Taliban's atrocity. A few hours later, President Obama stepped up to his mike and read a prewritten statement about his meeting with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's bookie-in-chief, President Asif Ali Zardari.
We'd need to comb the historical records, but it's just possible that no American president ever read a statement so out of touch with on-the-ground reality. The platitudes were thick, the substance was thin and the vision was pure fantasy. No criticism of Karzai for /consistently/ playing the populist card and backing Taliban claims. No criticism of Zardari for cowering while the Taliban overruns his country and its huge military twiddles its thumbs, dreaming of a war with India.
No, our president announced that he's going to bring /civilian/ resources to bear now, sending $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan. Yet self-impoverished Pakistan has more than 170 million angry Muslims. Our president's going to make them our pals for an annual nine bucks a head?It wouldn't matter if we poured in $90K for every Pak.
Multi-year development projects are useless against an insurgency that's 60 miles from the capital. We're turning a home fire extinguisher on an inferno.The Pakistanis have to /fight/. If they're not willing to fight to save their own country, there's nothing we can do.
Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, the Taliban strategy of creating civilian casualties -- and lying about who the casualties are -- is undercutting any potential effectiveness of the 21,000 more troops we're sending to that worthless, hopeless country.
At the end of the day, the Taliban strategy works because our own government sides with the terrorists against our troops. Instead of begging for forgiveness, Clinton needed to take a firm position. She should have said: "The deaths in Farah province were entirely the fault of the Taliban. To punish these terrorists and better protect Afghan civilians, we're /loosening/ our rules of engagement. We will not tolerate this cynical use of women and children as unwilling weapons of war. These war criminals will be hunted down and killed."
Instead, Hillary blamed our military. Again.This is /war/, Madame Secretary. Tragic mistakes happen, but the incident in Farah province wasn't an error -- it was a brutal, cynical set-up. And you stabbed our troops in the back. Again.If the Obama administration doesn't want to fight, it should bring our troops home now. And let's see how much good those civilian-aid workers do.
/Ralph Peters is Fox News' strategic analyst and the author of "Looking for Trouble."/Home <http://www.nypost.com/>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember John Kerry's statements about how our troops were kicking in doors in the middle of the night and killing women and children? Remember Murtha's statements and how the press had a field day with these lies? Remember Dan Rather's philosophy, "it's not true but it should be" so CBS went ahead with the lies about George Bush. If it weren't for the bloggers, the lies would have passed as truth!!
But now our esteemed president, and the main stream media, are openly siding with the terrorists in Afghanistan against our troops. How can this happen in America? Who voted for just a man? What are Obama's motives for such actions? Why would anyone believe anything they read or hear in the main stream press?
As usual, Ralph Perters is on the mark. Keep the faith
THE CASUALTY CON
By RALPH PETERS/May 8, 2009/ --
THE most effective weapon terrorists have found to wield against us isn't the headline-grabbing suicide bomber or even the deadly roadside bomb, the IED.Such weapons can harm us, but they can't stop us. Terror's super-weapon is the /lie./
Lying about civilian casualties is the one sure way to impede or even halt US (or Israeli) operations, to force such tight restrictions on our troops that they can't win.The casualty con's so effective as both propaganda and tactic that terrorists everywhere have adopted the technique. It's been so successful that our enemies long ago transitioned to the next phase: /creating/ civilian casualties and blaming us.It works.
The media /love/ the charge. Our troops and pilots are /always/ guilty -- even if proven innocent. Because so many on the left /want/ us to be guilty. Few journalists bother to investigate. If the Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas says it, it must be so. In Media Wonderland, terrorists never lie. Now /every/ successful strike on a Taliban target generates the instant claim that the dead were all civilians. And it isn't just the media who back the Taliban.
The Obama administration -- a case study in instant foreign-policy ineptitude -- signs up, too. This week, Taliban terrorists publicly beheaded three civilians in Afghanistan's Farah province, then herded women and children into compounds from which they fought government forces and US advisers. With a vicious ground battle under way, the Talibs knew attack aircraft would appear. According to military sources, they set up the target. And, just in case, they slaughtered those women and children with grenades before any aircraft appeared. The entire massacre was a planned media event. And who gets blamed? Not the Taliban. Before the smoke cleared, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was apologizing. (Apologizing is one thing this administration does with real enthusiasm.)
Our SecState played right into the Taliban's hands. It was instinctive on her part. Clinton and her new Cabinet peers /know/ that our military's evil. No need to say a single word about the Taliban's atrocity. A few hours later, President Obama stepped up to his mike and read a prewritten statement about his meeting with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan's bookie-in-chief, President Asif Ali Zardari.
We'd need to comb the historical records, but it's just possible that no American president ever read a statement so out of touch with on-the-ground reality. The platitudes were thick, the substance was thin and the vision was pure fantasy. No criticism of Karzai for /consistently/ playing the populist card and backing Taliban claims. No criticism of Zardari for cowering while the Taliban overruns his country and its huge military twiddles its thumbs, dreaming of a war with India.
No, our president announced that he's going to bring /civilian/ resources to bear now, sending $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan. Yet self-impoverished Pakistan has more than 170 million angry Muslims. Our president's going to make them our pals for an annual nine bucks a head?It wouldn't matter if we poured in $90K for every Pak.
Multi-year development projects are useless against an insurgency that's 60 miles from the capital. We're turning a home fire extinguisher on an inferno.The Pakistanis have to /fight/. If they're not willing to fight to save their own country, there's nothing we can do.
Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, the Taliban strategy of creating civilian casualties -- and lying about who the casualties are -- is undercutting any potential effectiveness of the 21,000 more troops we're sending to that worthless, hopeless country.
At the end of the day, the Taliban strategy works because our own government sides with the terrorists against our troops. Instead of begging for forgiveness, Clinton needed to take a firm position. She should have said: "The deaths in Farah province were entirely the fault of the Taliban. To punish these terrorists and better protect Afghan civilians, we're /loosening/ our rules of engagement. We will not tolerate this cynical use of women and children as unwilling weapons of war. These war criminals will be hunted down and killed."
Instead, Hillary blamed our military. Again.This is /war/, Madame Secretary. Tragic mistakes happen, but the incident in Farah province wasn't an error -- it was a brutal, cynical set-up. And you stabbed our troops in the back. Again.If the Obama administration doesn't want to fight, it should bring our troops home now. And let's see how much good those civilian-aid workers do.
/Ralph Peters is Fox News' strategic analyst and the author of "Looking for Trouble."/Home <http://www.nypost.com/>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Obama's View For America : New Poster
I believe this tells the story of just where Obama is going with out country - but one has to wonder just how this can happen to us. This can only happen to other countries, not America.
How is it that one person can cause so much destruction and chaos in a republic founded on principles of "of the people, by the people and for the people"?
How can so many senators and representatives in our government all believe that it is time to change the course of history by voting to crush American Democracy?
Please explain this to me!! You decide - Keep the faith
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Obama's ACORN Organization Charged With Voter Fraud
This makes a lot of sense for Obama as this is the organization that he help get started in Chicago, and is responsible for much of the housing crash which has lead to the collapse of the financial markets. Obama loves chaos.
ACORN is under investiagation in 15 other states for voter fraud as well. This is who Obama is and has always been. Do you really think anyone cares?
With the 3 billion tax dollars that he is giving to ACORN, Obama is making sure they can steal all the votes that he will need to get reelected and maybe even remove the 14th, I thnk this is the term limits amendment, from the Constitution so he can be president for life. This has already been discussed by members of his staff.
Just think about that for a few seconds and if it doesn't scare you out of your wits then you are the problem and not the solution.
ACORN Charged with Vote Fraud
Monday, May 4, 2009 4:10 PM
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada authorities are accusing the political advocacy group ACORN and two former employees of illegally paying canvassers to sign up new voters last year.
Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed charges Monday alleging the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now had policies requiring employees in Las Vegas to sign up 20 new voters per day or be fired.
Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller and Masto say that's voter registration fraud, and it violates state law banning quotas for registering new voters.
A criminal complaint filed in Las Vegas Justice Court accuses ACORN and two former employees of 39 low-level felonies.
ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson in New York blames rogue former employees for the allegations. He says ACORN will fight the charges in court.
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
ACORN is under investiagation in 15 other states for voter fraud as well. This is who Obama is and has always been. Do you really think anyone cares?
With the 3 billion tax dollars that he is giving to ACORN, Obama is making sure they can steal all the votes that he will need to get reelected and maybe even remove the 14th, I thnk this is the term limits amendment, from the Constitution so he can be president for life. This has already been discussed by members of his staff.
Just think about that for a few seconds and if it doesn't scare you out of your wits then you are the problem and not the solution.
ACORN Charged with Vote Fraud
Monday, May 4, 2009 4:10 PM
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada authorities are accusing the political advocacy group ACORN and two former employees of illegally paying canvassers to sign up new voters last year.
Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed charges Monday alleging the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now had policies requiring employees in Las Vegas to sign up 20 new voters per day or be fired.
Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller and Masto say that's voter registration fraud, and it violates state law banning quotas for registering new voters.
A criminal complaint filed in Las Vegas Justice Court accuses ACORN and two former employees of 39 low-level felonies.
ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson in New York blames rogue former employees for the allegations. He says ACORN will fight the charges in court.
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Limbaugh Receives First Amendment "Freedom of Speech" Award
Rush earned this award for standing on his right to free speech that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Even when major government officials, including the president, attacked him for exercising this freedom.
Thanks Rush for saying the things that need to be said and the things that the rest of want to say about how we fear for our great country.
Keep the faith -
Rush Limbaugh to Get Freedom of Speech Award
Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:15 AM
Top-rated radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh will be honored with Talkers magazine’s Freedom of Speech Award at its upcoming New Media Seminar, becoming the first media personality to receive the award twice.
Limbaugh will be lauded at the June 5-6 event “for the massive attention he garnered in the mainstream press as a result of statements made on the air critical of the President of the United States and particular branches of the Federal government that went on to spark a national dialogue and debate — a process that reflects the very heart of the First Amendment,” Talkers announced.
Talkers also issued a statement saying the award recognizes “the recipient’s contribution during the past year to keeping the principles of the First Amendment viable through highly visible example and practice.”
The 12th annual New Media Seminar will be held at the Concierge Conference Center in New York. Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity will deliver the keynote address. The more than 60 other scheduled speakers include talk radio’s Montel Williams, Ed Schulz, Monica Crowley, Mancow, and Curtis Sliwa.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thanks Rush for saying the things that need to be said and the things that the rest of want to say about how we fear for our great country.
Keep the faith -
Rush Limbaugh to Get Freedom of Speech Award
Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:15 AM
Top-rated radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh will be honored with Talkers magazine’s Freedom of Speech Award at its upcoming New Media Seminar, becoming the first media personality to receive the award twice.
Limbaugh will be lauded at the June 5-6 event “for the massive attention he garnered in the mainstream press as a result of statements made on the air critical of the President of the United States and particular branches of the Federal government that went on to spark a national dialogue and debate — a process that reflects the very heart of the First Amendment,” Talkers announced.
Talkers also issued a statement saying the award recognizes “the recipient’s contribution during the past year to keeping the principles of the First Amendment viable through highly visible example and practice.”
The 12th annual New Media Seminar will be held at the Concierge Conference Center in New York. Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity will deliver the keynote address. The more than 60 other scheduled speakers include talk radio’s Montel Williams, Ed Schulz, Monica Crowley, Mancow, and Curtis Sliwa.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Pirate Hunting Adventure Cruise : Limited Ticket Sales
Who would have thought this would be something people would want to do, but here you are - it just goes to show, when there is an opportunity to make a buck, someone will be there to take advantage of it - the real world at work.
Somali Coastal Adventure Cruise
Cruise Tickets for Sale --- Only for the true adventurer -
I found a Somali cruise package that departs from Sawakin (in the Sudan )and docks at Bagamoya (in Tanzania ). The cost is a bit high @ US$800 perperson, per day, double occupancy, but I didn't find that offensive. What I found enticing is that the cruise company is encouraging people to bring their own 'High powered weapons' along on the cruise.
If you don't have weapons you can rent them right there on the boat. They claim to have a master gunsmith on board and will have reloading parties every afternoon.The cruise lasts from 4-8 days and nights and costs a maximum of $3200 per person double occupancy (4 days).
All the boat does is sail up and down the coast of Somalia waiting to get hijacked by pirates. Here are some of the costs and claims associated with the package.
$800.00 US/per day double occupancy (4 day max billing)
M-16 full auto rental $ 25.00/day including 3, 30 round magazines.
Ammo, 100 rounds of 5.56, armor piercing, $15.95.
Ak-47 rifle @ No charge. Ammo at 100 rounds of 7.62 x 39 Communist block 147 grain ball at 14.95.
Barrett M-107 .50 cal sniper rifle. Rental is $55.00/day. Ammo costs $9.95 for 25 rounds armor piercing.
Save the empty cartridges and reload on-board the boat, $10 per 50 rounds. Your choice of several powders, primers, and bullets, including tracer. Crew members can double as spotters for 30.00 per hour (spotting scope included).
Chinese manufactured RPG's are available for $75 for the launcher, and $200 for 3 standard rounds. Dud rounds can be exchanged. Everyone gets use of free complimentary night vision equipment and coffee and snacks on the top deck from 7pm-6am.
Meals are not included but seem reasonable. Most cruises offer a mini-bar... these gung ho entrepreneurs offer.......... get this..... a deck mounted Dillon 7.62 x 51 cal minigun available for $450.00 per 30 seconds of sustained fire!
For the black powder fan, deck-mounted, brass, nine-pound long toms, or 12-pound brass Napoleons are available for $200/day. Powder is $5.00/pound, and igniters are $5.00 each. Nine pound solid shot is $25 per ball, 12 pound solid shot is $50 per ball. Grape shot and cannister loads are available for only $75.00 each, (12 pounder only.) Bring your own gun crew.
Sign up now slots are going fast!!They give group rates and corporate discounts, and even claim "FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY" They even offer a partial money back if not satisfied....here's some text from the ad."We guarantee that you will experience at least two hijacking attempts by pirates or we will refund back half your money including gun rental charges and any unused ammo (mini gun charges not included). How can we guarantee you will experience a hijacking? We operate at 5 knots within 12 miles of the coast of Somalia. If an attempted hijacking does not occur, we will turn the boat around and cruise by at 4 knots. We will repeat this for up to 8 days making three passes a day along the entire length of Somalia.
At night the boat is fully lit and bottle rockets are shot off at intervals and loud disco music beamed shore side to attract attention.
Cabin space is limited so respond quickly. Reserve your package before May 29 and get 100 rounds of free tracer ammo in the caliber of your choice."As if all that isn't enough to whet your appetite, there were a few testimonials"I got three confirmed kills on my last trip. I'LL never hunt big game in Africa again. I felt like the Komandant in Schindlers list!"---- Lars , Hamburg Germay.
"Six attacks in 4 days was more than I expected. I bagged three pirates and my 12 year old son sank two rowboats with the minigun. PIRATES 0 -PASSENGERS-32! Well worth the trip. Just make sure your spotter speaks English" ----Ned, Salt Lake city , Utah USA
"I haven't had this much fun since flying choppers in NAM . Don't worry about getting shot by pirates as they never even got close to the ship with those weapons they use and their shitty aim--reminds me of a drunken 'juicer' door gunner we picked up from the motor pool back in Nam" ----"chopper' Dan, Toledo USA.
"Like ducks in a barrel. They turned the ship around and we saw them bleed and cry in the water like little girls. Saw one wounded pirate eaten by sharks--what a laugh riot!! This is a must do. --- Zeke-Minnahaw Springs Kentucky USA
SIGN UP NOW! MILITARY DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE!*NO BAG LIMITS! ** **Reasonably priced life insurance available (In case the pirates get “lucky”)*
Somali Coastal Adventure Cruise
Cruise Tickets for Sale --- Only for the true adventurer -
I found a Somali cruise package that departs from Sawakin (in the Sudan )and docks at Bagamoya (in Tanzania ). The cost is a bit high @ US$800 perperson, per day, double occupancy, but I didn't find that offensive. What I found enticing is that the cruise company is encouraging people to bring their own 'High powered weapons' along on the cruise.
If you don't have weapons you can rent them right there on the boat. They claim to have a master gunsmith on board and will have reloading parties every afternoon.The cruise lasts from 4-8 days and nights and costs a maximum of $3200 per person double occupancy (4 days).
All the boat does is sail up and down the coast of Somalia waiting to get hijacked by pirates. Here are some of the costs and claims associated with the package.
$800.00 US/per day double occupancy (4 day max billing)
M-16 full auto rental $ 25.00/day including 3, 30 round magazines.
Ammo, 100 rounds of 5.56, armor piercing, $15.95.
Ak-47 rifle @ No charge. Ammo at 100 rounds of 7.62 x 39 Communist block 147 grain ball at 14.95.
Barrett M-107 .50 cal sniper rifle. Rental is $55.00/day. Ammo costs $9.95 for 25 rounds armor piercing.
Save the empty cartridges and reload on-board the boat, $10 per 50 rounds. Your choice of several powders, primers, and bullets, including tracer. Crew members can double as spotters for 30.00 per hour (spotting scope included).
Chinese manufactured RPG's are available for $75 for the launcher, and $200 for 3 standard rounds. Dud rounds can be exchanged. Everyone gets use of free complimentary night vision equipment and coffee and snacks on the top deck from 7pm-6am.
Meals are not included but seem reasonable. Most cruises offer a mini-bar... these gung ho entrepreneurs offer.......... get this..... a deck mounted Dillon 7.62 x 51 cal minigun available for $450.00 per 30 seconds of sustained fire!
For the black powder fan, deck-mounted, brass, nine-pound long toms, or 12-pound brass Napoleons are available for $200/day. Powder is $5.00/pound, and igniters are $5.00 each. Nine pound solid shot is $25 per ball, 12 pound solid shot is $50 per ball. Grape shot and cannister loads are available for only $75.00 each, (12 pounder only.) Bring your own gun crew.
Sign up now slots are going fast!!They give group rates and corporate discounts, and even claim "FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY" They even offer a partial money back if not satisfied....here's some text from the ad."We guarantee that you will experience at least two hijacking attempts by pirates or we will refund back half your money including gun rental charges and any unused ammo (mini gun charges not included). How can we guarantee you will experience a hijacking? We operate at 5 knots within 12 miles of the coast of Somalia. If an attempted hijacking does not occur, we will turn the boat around and cruise by at 4 knots. We will repeat this for up to 8 days making three passes a day along the entire length of Somalia.
At night the boat is fully lit and bottle rockets are shot off at intervals and loud disco music beamed shore side to attract attention.
Cabin space is limited so respond quickly. Reserve your package before May 29 and get 100 rounds of free tracer ammo in the caliber of your choice."As if all that isn't enough to whet your appetite, there were a few testimonials"I got three confirmed kills on my last trip. I'LL never hunt big game in Africa again. I felt like the Komandant in Schindlers list!"---- Lars , Hamburg Germay.
"Six attacks in 4 days was more than I expected. I bagged three pirates and my 12 year old son sank two rowboats with the minigun. PIRATES 0 -PASSENGERS-32! Well worth the trip. Just make sure your spotter speaks English" ----Ned, Salt Lake city , Utah USA
"I haven't had this much fun since flying choppers in NAM . Don't worry about getting shot by pirates as they never even got close to the ship with those weapons they use and their shitty aim--reminds me of a drunken 'juicer' door gunner we picked up from the motor pool back in Nam" ----"chopper' Dan, Toledo USA.
"Like ducks in a barrel. They turned the ship around and we saw them bleed and cry in the water like little girls. Saw one wounded pirate eaten by sharks--what a laugh riot!! This is a must do. --- Zeke-Minnahaw Springs Kentucky USA
SIGN UP NOW! MILITARY DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE!*NO BAG LIMITS! ** **Reasonably priced life insurance available (In case the pirates get “lucky”)*
Monday, May 04, 2009
State Secession Supported by US Constitution
Is secession a real possibility? When a state governor brings up the idea, it's important. The governor of Taxes has no illusions about where Obama administration is taking our country and he wants no part of it. Little wonder people are beginning to wonder how it is that one person can have this much power and not be a tyrant. hmmmm
This article is a little long but has such good information and moves right alone it's hard not to go through the entire read.
Keep the faith and stay informed on all aspects of the attempted dismantling of our country and way of life.
Secession Is in Our Future*
Mises Daily* by Clifford F. Thies
<http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=718> Posted on 4/28/2009
Can states secede? There are three levels on which this question can be answered:
1. the inalienable right of secession <http://mises.org/story/3427#part1>,
2. the international law of secession <http://mises.org/story/3427#part2>, and
3. the US law of secession <http://mises.org/story/3427#part3>.
All three say yes.
The Inalienable Right of Secession
The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America invokes the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that governments are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the right — no, it is the /duty/ — of the people to alter or abolish that government.
To say governments were formed to protect the rights of men would be historically incorrect. Almost all governments were formed by ruthless men exerting their will over others through the use of force. Some governments, over time, evolved toward the rule of law, perhaps only because their rulers saw that this would sanction their own continued enjoyment of the wealth that they possessed. In some instances, this evolution involved one or more "revolutions" in which those who were governed were able to better establish the rule of law.The language of the Declaration should not be construed as an argument about the historical origins of government but, rather, as what would be true and just to an enlightened person, namely, that as persons and as communities of persons, we have the right and the duty to alter or abolish governments that become abusive of our rights.
As Benjamin Franklin once put it, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." The concept of an inalienable right of secession was not original to the American Revolution. It can be traced to the scholastics, to Reformation politics, and to the most ancient Greek and Hebrew writings. Without going into a dissertation on the subject, let me simply point to the flag of the state of Virginia, which was designed by Thomas Jefferson. It depicts a female warrior (Athena) standing atop a slain tyrant (Zeus). According to legend, Zeus, the greatest and most terrible of the gods, was supposed to be the god of law, yet he was himself lawless. When he heard that he would sire a child who would destroy him, he swallowed his wife whole to prevent it. But the child grew within him and then burst from him fully grown. This child was Athena, the goddess of victory, liberty, and peace. And, she did indeed slay her father.
It should be easy to see, in this legend, how the rule of law might be established from a government formed through the use of force. Now, does a massive increase in taxes, in spending, and in the federal deficit constitute such an abuse of the rights of men as to justify secession under the doctrine of an inherent right to secede? I don't think so. Ask me about the inherent right to secede when the government starts to restrict our freedom of speech, to shut down the independent media, to confiscate our guns, and to take away our children.
The International Law of Secession
The international law of secession is in the process of emerging at this very time. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated status, such as by being citizens or subjects of a country from which they are alienated.
Now, as a practical matter, consideration has to be given to whether an identifiable people exist in an identifiable place. At least, this is the current thinking. But, if these several elements come together: an identifiable people in an identifiable place that grouse under the subjugation of the larger nation, there is a growing consensus that this people and place can be severed from the larger nation, even by rebellion and with support from outside the larger nation. East Timor, Eritrea, and the devolutions of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (including the ongoing situation in Kosovo) illustrate the development of the international law of secession.
Turning to the United States, it is now well established that the country consists of so many "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democrat) states, along with a few "purple" (battleground) states. Even in a so-called landslide, like 2008, only a few states "flip" from Republican to Democrat, and these states go from close Republican to close Democrat. Furthermore, the whole purpose of elections has become to decide whether Democrats get to raise taxes on Republicans while adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax so as to minimize the impact on themselves, and whether Democrats get to force acceptance of gay marriage onto Republicans or whether Republicans get to force unwanted pregnancies onto Democrats. In other words, there no longer is any pretense of federalism in which domestic policy is left to the states of the Union.
Under these conditions, it can be argued that, were either party to fall into permanent minority status, and the other party to establish hegemonic control over the so-called federal government, the people in the other party could be said to be an alienated, identifiable people in an identifiable place, and could assert a right to secede under emerging international law.The argument for secession under emerging international law might be strongest for Alaska. Geographically, the place is disjoint from the other states of the Union, making it an identifiable place. Furthermore, under their state constitution's explicit right of privacy, possession of small amounts of marijuana is a right; yet, the so-called federal government imposes the costs of its war on drugs onto the citizens of Alaska.
Furthermore, the people of Alaska have been long frustrated in developing their natural resources because of the opposition by majorities in the "lower 48." Indeed, as a separate nation, Alaska might be the freest place in the world, with zero taxes because of its wealth in natural resources, well-established civil liberties, and a socially tolerant, live-and-let-live attitude among its people.
Following Alaska, states such as Florida and Texas would have the next best arguments for secession under international law, since they are themselves on a seacoast and their secession would not much disrupt the road, transmission wire, pipeline or other infrastructure networks of the other states.States such as Utah and Kentucky, being landlocked "enclaves," would have a relatively weak argument. On the other hand, it would be relatively easy for these states to join with other states that have already seceded or are in the process of seceding, and form a patchwork of independent republics that develop compacts to facilitate interstate travel, commerce, water flow, transmission of electricity, and so forth.
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."– Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase speaking for the U.S. Supreme Court in /White v. Texas/
US Law of Secession
The US law of secession is thought to have been decided by the US Supreme Court in /White v. Texas/, following the Civil War. The actual matter to be decided was relatively insignificant. The Court used the occasion to issue a very broad decision. Chief Justice Chase, speaking for the Court, said,The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Notice that the second sentence appears to totally contradict the first sentence.The first sentence I just quoted invokes words such as "perpetual," and in so doing may create the impression that the Supreme Court decreed that no state could ever secede from the Union. But, on careful reading, the relationship between Texas and the other states of the Union is merely "as indissoluble as the union between the original States." In other words, Texas, having been a nonoriginal state, has no greater right of secession than do the original states.
As to how states might secede, the second sentence says, "through revolution or through consent of the States."As to why a state might secede, either through revolution or through consent, Chief Justice Chase presciently discusses the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, which reserve to the states and to the people thereof all powers not expressly granted to the federal government, and that the design of the Union, implicit in the very name "United States," is the preservation of the states as well as of the Union: the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.
The so-called United States of America ceases to exist when the political majority of the country attempts to rule the entire country as a nation instead of as a federal government. In such a circumstance, the "indestructible union of indestructible states" of which the Court speaks is already dissolved.
As to whether "Texas" continued as a state and, furthermore, as a state of the United States during the period of rebellion, the Court made clear that it continued as both although certain rights that normally accrue to states of the United States fell into suspension. Presumably, if Texas had seceded "with the consent of the States," Texas would have been able to free itself from the Union described as the "United States," and could have considered joining into another Union described as the "Confederate States."
Also presumably, if the Confederate States of America had been able to impose their will onto the other states of the United States through force or had been able to induce the other states to consent, Texas and the other states of the Confederate States could have seceded from one Union and joined into another. But, the outcomes of wars are problematic.
How Do "the States" Consent to Secession?
The wide-ranging discussion of the Court in /White v. Texas/ contains a lot of intriguing and obtuse comments. How, for example, do "the States" give consent to the secession of a state? The Constitution, as the Court says, does not envision such a thing, and does not provide a process. What if the legislatures of "the States" sent delegates to a convention that drafted a constitution for a more perfect union, which would take effect for those states that ratified it, providing that at least a two-thirds majority of them did so? For those who were not home schooled, it may be necessary to point out that this was the process through which the Constitution of 1789 was created and through which eleven states seceded from the union provided by the Articles of Confederation, leaving Rhode Island and North Carolina as the only two states in that prior union. (Those two states eventually also seceded from the prior union, thereupon making it a nullity, and joined into the new union.)
While the Constitution of 1789 required the secession of 9 out of 13 states, does this mean that a supermajority of the states would be necessary for consent? It seems to me that a supermajority would not be necessary, but only a simple majority, for a US version of what is called the "Velvet Revolution" in the former Czechoslovakia, now the Czech and Slovak Republics. In that country, dissolution involved nothing more earth shattering than a bunch of accountants who scurried about the country, totting up the value of the assets of the national government that would fall into the possession of each succeeding government so as to determine how to fairly apportion the national debt to the succeeding governments.
Of course, in that case, both succeeding governments transitioned to membership in the European Union, guaranteeing the free flow of goods, labor and capital between them and the other members of the E.U., as well as guaranteeing certain civil liberties and democratic processes to the persons in each of the succeeding republics.Looking at the electoral maps of the United States of recent presidential elections, it appears that the potentially disaffected red states of a socially liberal, economically socialist blue nation constitute a nearly compact, self-contained block from the southeast coast to the Rocky Mountain west, plus Alaska. Indiana and Ohio appear as two purple states jutting into an otherwise blue Great Lakes region.New Hampshire is a purple state in a deeply blue New England (but, being a coastline state, it would not matter much that it was not connected by land to other breakaway states). Contrariwise, Colorado and New Mexico are two purple or blue states in the Rocky Mountain region that might wind up as enclaves of Old America amidst the independent republics of New America.
<http://www.mises.org/store/Secession-State-Liberty-P88.aspx>
Of course, once it becomes clear that a majority of the states — and specifically those that are the most productive — are seceding, the remaining states of Old America will have to consider their options. Would they want to bail out the corporations, the unionized public-school teachers, municipal workers, and the UAW, and the bankrupt states of California and New Jersey, among others, when the burden falls much more heavily onto them?
A state like Minnesota, with a solid work ethic, which tends to vote Democratic in presidential elections, might think it could do better with New America than with the moochers of Old America. Even Iowa, where they bury farmers only three feet deep nowadays, so they can still get their hand out, will have to weigh the pros of the ethanol subsidies they receive versus the cons of the taxes they will have to pay to subsidize everybody else. Possibly, once the rush gets underway, the only "state" that will be left in Old America will be the District of Columbia.
This article is a little long but has such good information and moves right alone it's hard not to go through the entire read.
Keep the faith and stay informed on all aspects of the attempted dismantling of our country and way of life.
Secession Is in Our Future*
Mises Daily* by Clifford F. Thies
<http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=718> Posted on 4/28/2009
Can states secede? There are three levels on which this question can be answered:
1. the inalienable right of secession <http://mises.org/story/3427#part1>,
2. the international law of secession <http://mises.org/story/3427#part2>, and
3. the US law of secession <http://mises.org/story/3427#part3>.
All three say yes.
The Inalienable Right of Secession
The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America invokes the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that governments are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the right — no, it is the /duty/ — of the people to alter or abolish that government.
To say governments were formed to protect the rights of men would be historically incorrect. Almost all governments were formed by ruthless men exerting their will over others through the use of force. Some governments, over time, evolved toward the rule of law, perhaps only because their rulers saw that this would sanction their own continued enjoyment of the wealth that they possessed. In some instances, this evolution involved one or more "revolutions" in which those who were governed were able to better establish the rule of law.The language of the Declaration should not be construed as an argument about the historical origins of government but, rather, as what would be true and just to an enlightened person, namely, that as persons and as communities of persons, we have the right and the duty to alter or abolish governments that become abusive of our rights.
As Benjamin Franklin once put it, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." The concept of an inalienable right of secession was not original to the American Revolution. It can be traced to the scholastics, to Reformation politics, and to the most ancient Greek and Hebrew writings. Without going into a dissertation on the subject, let me simply point to the flag of the state of Virginia, which was designed by Thomas Jefferson. It depicts a female warrior (Athena) standing atop a slain tyrant (Zeus). According to legend, Zeus, the greatest and most terrible of the gods, was supposed to be the god of law, yet he was himself lawless. When he heard that he would sire a child who would destroy him, he swallowed his wife whole to prevent it. But the child grew within him and then burst from him fully grown. This child was Athena, the goddess of victory, liberty, and peace. And, she did indeed slay her father.
It should be easy to see, in this legend, how the rule of law might be established from a government formed through the use of force. Now, does a massive increase in taxes, in spending, and in the federal deficit constitute such an abuse of the rights of men as to justify secession under the doctrine of an inherent right to secede? I don't think so. Ask me about the inherent right to secede when the government starts to restrict our freedom of speech, to shut down the independent media, to confiscate our guns, and to take away our children.
The International Law of Secession
The international law of secession is in the process of emerging at this very time. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated status, such as by being citizens or subjects of a country from which they are alienated.
Now, as a practical matter, consideration has to be given to whether an identifiable people exist in an identifiable place. At least, this is the current thinking. But, if these several elements come together: an identifiable people in an identifiable place that grouse under the subjugation of the larger nation, there is a growing consensus that this people and place can be severed from the larger nation, even by rebellion and with support from outside the larger nation. East Timor, Eritrea, and the devolutions of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (including the ongoing situation in Kosovo) illustrate the development of the international law of secession.
Turning to the United States, it is now well established that the country consists of so many "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democrat) states, along with a few "purple" (battleground) states. Even in a so-called landslide, like 2008, only a few states "flip" from Republican to Democrat, and these states go from close Republican to close Democrat. Furthermore, the whole purpose of elections has become to decide whether Democrats get to raise taxes on Republicans while adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax so as to minimize the impact on themselves, and whether Democrats get to force acceptance of gay marriage onto Republicans or whether Republicans get to force unwanted pregnancies onto Democrats. In other words, there no longer is any pretense of federalism in which domestic policy is left to the states of the Union.
Under these conditions, it can be argued that, were either party to fall into permanent minority status, and the other party to establish hegemonic control over the so-called federal government, the people in the other party could be said to be an alienated, identifiable people in an identifiable place, and could assert a right to secede under emerging international law.The argument for secession under emerging international law might be strongest for Alaska. Geographically, the place is disjoint from the other states of the Union, making it an identifiable place. Furthermore, under their state constitution's explicit right of privacy, possession of small amounts of marijuana is a right; yet, the so-called federal government imposes the costs of its war on drugs onto the citizens of Alaska.
Furthermore, the people of Alaska have been long frustrated in developing their natural resources because of the opposition by majorities in the "lower 48." Indeed, as a separate nation, Alaska might be the freest place in the world, with zero taxes because of its wealth in natural resources, well-established civil liberties, and a socially tolerant, live-and-let-live attitude among its people.
Following Alaska, states such as Florida and Texas would have the next best arguments for secession under international law, since they are themselves on a seacoast and their secession would not much disrupt the road, transmission wire, pipeline or other infrastructure networks of the other states.States such as Utah and Kentucky, being landlocked "enclaves," would have a relatively weak argument. On the other hand, it would be relatively easy for these states to join with other states that have already seceded or are in the process of seceding, and form a patchwork of independent republics that develop compacts to facilitate interstate travel, commerce, water flow, transmission of electricity, and so forth.
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."– Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase speaking for the U.S. Supreme Court in /White v. Texas/
US Law of Secession
The US law of secession is thought to have been decided by the US Supreme Court in /White v. Texas/, following the Civil War. The actual matter to be decided was relatively insignificant. The Court used the occasion to issue a very broad decision. Chief Justice Chase, speaking for the Court, said,The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Notice that the second sentence appears to totally contradict the first sentence.The first sentence I just quoted invokes words such as "perpetual," and in so doing may create the impression that the Supreme Court decreed that no state could ever secede from the Union. But, on careful reading, the relationship between Texas and the other states of the Union is merely "as indissoluble as the union between the original States." In other words, Texas, having been a nonoriginal state, has no greater right of secession than do the original states.
As to how states might secede, the second sentence says, "through revolution or through consent of the States."As to why a state might secede, either through revolution or through consent, Chief Justice Chase presciently discusses the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, which reserve to the states and to the people thereof all powers not expressly granted to the federal government, and that the design of the Union, implicit in the very name "United States," is the preservation of the states as well as of the Union: the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.
The so-called United States of America ceases to exist when the political majority of the country attempts to rule the entire country as a nation instead of as a federal government. In such a circumstance, the "indestructible union of indestructible states" of which the Court speaks is already dissolved.
As to whether "Texas" continued as a state and, furthermore, as a state of the United States during the period of rebellion, the Court made clear that it continued as both although certain rights that normally accrue to states of the United States fell into suspension. Presumably, if Texas had seceded "with the consent of the States," Texas would have been able to free itself from the Union described as the "United States," and could have considered joining into another Union described as the "Confederate States."
Also presumably, if the Confederate States of America had been able to impose their will onto the other states of the United States through force or had been able to induce the other states to consent, Texas and the other states of the Confederate States could have seceded from one Union and joined into another. But, the outcomes of wars are problematic.
How Do "the States" Consent to Secession?
The wide-ranging discussion of the Court in /White v. Texas/ contains a lot of intriguing and obtuse comments. How, for example, do "the States" give consent to the secession of a state? The Constitution, as the Court says, does not envision such a thing, and does not provide a process. What if the legislatures of "the States" sent delegates to a convention that drafted a constitution for a more perfect union, which would take effect for those states that ratified it, providing that at least a two-thirds majority of them did so? For those who were not home schooled, it may be necessary to point out that this was the process through which the Constitution of 1789 was created and through which eleven states seceded from the union provided by the Articles of Confederation, leaving Rhode Island and North Carolina as the only two states in that prior union. (Those two states eventually also seceded from the prior union, thereupon making it a nullity, and joined into the new union.)
While the Constitution of 1789 required the secession of 9 out of 13 states, does this mean that a supermajority of the states would be necessary for consent? It seems to me that a supermajority would not be necessary, but only a simple majority, for a US version of what is called the "Velvet Revolution" in the former Czechoslovakia, now the Czech and Slovak Republics. In that country, dissolution involved nothing more earth shattering than a bunch of accountants who scurried about the country, totting up the value of the assets of the national government that would fall into the possession of each succeeding government so as to determine how to fairly apportion the national debt to the succeeding governments.
Of course, in that case, both succeeding governments transitioned to membership in the European Union, guaranteeing the free flow of goods, labor and capital between them and the other members of the E.U., as well as guaranteeing certain civil liberties and democratic processes to the persons in each of the succeeding republics.Looking at the electoral maps of the United States of recent presidential elections, it appears that the potentially disaffected red states of a socially liberal, economically socialist blue nation constitute a nearly compact, self-contained block from the southeast coast to the Rocky Mountain west, plus Alaska. Indiana and Ohio appear as two purple states jutting into an otherwise blue Great Lakes region.New Hampshire is a purple state in a deeply blue New England (but, being a coastline state, it would not matter much that it was not connected by land to other breakaway states). Contrariwise, Colorado and New Mexico are two purple or blue states in the Rocky Mountain region that might wind up as enclaves of Old America amidst the independent republics of New America.
<http://www.mises.org/store/Secession-State-Liberty-P88.aspx>
Of course, once it becomes clear that a majority of the states — and specifically those that are the most productive — are seceding, the remaining states of Old America will have to consider their options. Would they want to bail out the corporations, the unionized public-school teachers, municipal workers, and the UAW, and the bankrupt states of California and New Jersey, among others, when the burden falls much more heavily onto them?
A state like Minnesota, with a solid work ethic, which tends to vote Democratic in presidential elections, might think it could do better with New America than with the moochers of Old America. Even Iowa, where they bury farmers only three feet deep nowadays, so they can still get their hand out, will have to weigh the pros of the ethanol subsidies they receive versus the cons of the taxes they will have to pay to subsidize everybody else. Possibly, once the rush gets underway, the only "state" that will be left in Old America will be the District of Columbia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
