According to Dr. Leana Wen, speaking on CNN regarding Biden's new "vaccine" mandates for 100,000,000 (or more) people, Biden should have included travel bans for the unwashed masses, also known as "those who refuse to be jabbed".
She says that travel in the US is a privilege that the government can revoke for its citizens. WTAF? Since when? So if you haven’t taken the jab does this witch want your name added to the no-fly list? It sort of seems like it to me.
Forget the fact that the virus is more than 99.5% survivable. Forget the fact that close to 2/3 of the current cases worldwide are for those who are fully vaccinated. Just let it sink in, that THEY are doing to those who want to exercise prudence in their decision regarding the "vaccine" - which we used to be allowed to do - what the Nazis did to the Jews in the lead up to WWII.
Imagine being all for the government imposing mandates and supporting the creation of "the other" in society while believing you are fighting against fascism. That's where we are.
ulysses s. grant, former union general and potus, once said " Labor disgraces no man, but occasionally men disgrace labor." i think we have reached a point as a society where political correctness has disgraced the notion of right and wrong...
i have often attempted to have logical conversations with people who say that the "undocumented workers" do not take away from our society but add to it. i hate that term "undocumented worker". it ignores the entire reason that the person is "undocumented". they are "undocumented workers" because they are here ILLEGALLY. and if they are here ILLEGALLY then, by definition they cannot be GOOD people.
this is not an esoteric conversation like with my fourth amendment case, there is no question of whether or not they are legally in this country. if they did not come here in the manner prescribed by law, they are here illegally. and if they came here illegally, than they are teaching their kids that no law matters so long as you're trying make a better life for yourself. how can any good come of that for our society or our country?
today i received an email that broke it down so well, that i knew i had to share it. it was titled "joe legal vs. jose illegal" and it went like this:
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in the same area of Southern California.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a legal Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax and now has: $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year, pays no taxes and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year and now has: $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare, so he pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year, and now has: $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year and now has: $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy, pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 per year for insurance and now has: $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has: $31,200.00.
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.
Joe Legal's children go home after school each day where Joe pays for child care out of that $7,231.00 he had left.
Jose Illegal's children have a FREE after school ESL program provided by the U.S. tax payers.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Do you get it, now? If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens or amnesty for illegals then YOU are part of the problem!
this morning my wonderful client in nowhere's-ville mississippi (right next to where my daddy's family is from) sent me an email of a blog post from one jim mcmahon of chicago. no, not THAT mcmahon - this one can actually string a couple sentences together and seems to be highly intelligent (i've now read several of his blog posts) and he's a conservative at that. not sure how well he can throw a football, though...
in his post, titled "who's really running the show" mr. mcmahon puts forth a premise that many of my friends and i have been discussing since obama showed up strong on the campaign trail. there is simply no way that anyone - let alone a relative no one - can move up the ladder this quickly. it MUST be orchestrated. the post starts as follows:
"I have been having a nagging intuition lately that something is not quite right about Barack Obama. I am not suggesting there is something wrong with the man, per se. Nor am I talking about the crazy, even dangerous, policies coming out of the White House. No, lately, I have been wondering if Barack Obama is, in fact, the person who is actually functioning as President of the United States.
"I mean, there's no doubt that he fills the position of POTUS but is he really the one in command? The man actually seems lost at times. He seems to be reacting to ideas about which he does not really have a clue. He has left the writing of this health care bill to Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives and she, in turn, has farmed the writing out to several fairly radical community action groups. When questioned about health care, he seems not to know or understand the details and even with his silver-tongue seems unable to demonstrate any leadership on the issue."
and further down in his post:
"We know that he has been and remains surrounded by life-long radicals, professed communists and anti-capitalists, some of whom he has even appointed as czars in his administration. Thirty six czars, to date. But is it Obama who is picking the czars or is it the czars who are running the show and propping up Obama as their front man?
"I know all this may sound crazy but, really, when you look at the man without the idolatry and media worship, does he really look like he knows what he is doing? Does he seem to have a direction? Firm convictions? Something he deeply believes in? The more he talks now, the more his words seems empty of content. Platitudes about America and the American people which, when he says them, simply do not ring true. They are words being mouthed but not believed by him."
sort of like watching someone smile or laugh when the smile never quite reaches his eyes. he comes off as plastic man - not just to me, but too so many others whom i have spoken with lately. several of whom voted for him and now are ASHAMED of having done so.
it really is a great post and i highly recommend that you go read the whole thing. and share the knowledge - spread this piece around. it's well written and NEEDS to be read by everyone and anyone professing to love this country. especially if they're thinking something "off" but were thinking maybe it was just their own perception that was wrong. it's not.
mr. mcmahon finishes his post:
In my view, Obama has been trained and used as a puppet by others for a long time. His successes seem to have come too easily, as if they have been orchestrated. His life appears to have been pre-planned. I mean, Harvard Law Review without publishing a single paper of note. That is unusual. A community organizer for a short time, a State legislator for a few years, a freshman US Senator, a convention key-note speaker, and then POTUS. How does that happen? A person with zero governmental administrative experience is running the entire government of the United States.
How do 1,017 page documents get developed and put out in such short order? Who is writing all these proposals? Does it not seem that something is just not quite right here? Forget about the specifics of the policies for the moment. Have you seen this level of activity in the first few months of any other administration in your lifetime? Does Obama seem like the kind of person that could manage this level of activity in so short a time? Too much does not make sense here. So, slowly but surely, I am becoming convinced that it’s not Barack Obama who is running the show. The White House has been captured by a group of people who are using Barack Obama as their front man. He is nothing but an articulate but empty suit. We have to start looking behind the curtains to find out who is really controlling the "great and powerful Obama."
pre-planned. orchestrated. yep - this whole thing definitely has that feeling to me. starting with john mccain as the gop candidate. and a virtual nobody with no background to speak of for dnc candidate. is it any real surprise to anyone that mccain didn't win? he is, after all, the candidate that the gop was allowed to have. obama's presidency was inevitable because of the power in control who manipulated this entire scenario.
some say that the massive missives being vended as legislation were written by lobbyists who stood to gain the most from their passage. i'm not buying it. i cannot believe that any private industry lobbying firm would look at the health care reform opportunity and think "wow! that's how we can make our bucks!" i know, i know - the ama and the pharmaceutical companies have made golden deals with the obama administration in exchange for backing the legislation - but those deals were cut AFTER the fact, not ahead of it.
i'm going to take jim's paranoia just a step farther and put forth the thought that these bills were pre-written by whomever is really in control of the administration at this point. these bills were designed for exactly the situation we find ourselves in now and the puppet masters have just been waiting for the correct stars to align in order to push this legislation through.
what do y'all think?
*with heartfelt apologies to my dear friend, mr. hart, for stealing his line.
so says lloyd marcus about the president's "stimulus" policy in his 'tea party anthem' written for the tea parties. aside from being a great songwriter, mr. marcus is the president of the 'national association for the advancement of conservative people of color'. wow, now that's a group that i hope grows by leaps and bounds in the next few weeks, months, and years - i'm certain it's already happening.
it's a great piece of music and you can hear it in part above when he was on fox news just after the first orlando tea party. you can check out both of his songs (and videos), 'we the people' and the 'american tea party anthem' at his webiste. through these songs and his fox news interview you begin to get a good sense of what this man is all about.
last week, on 27 august 2009 to be exact, mr. marcus wrote an 'open letter to white liberals' which was published at renew america's website. it's a well written, extremely sarcastic letter from a black man who's clearly fed up with watching the liberal elite treating he and his brethren as if they are second class citizens. please follow the renew america link and read it in its entirety - it's worth the few minutes of your time.
his letter starts with:
Thank you very, very much. You see us poor helpless inferior blacks, oh forgive me, I must be politically correct, "African Americans," and you want to help us using your superior intellect. After all, we could not possibly succeed in this racist, homophobic and greedy country without your assistance.
and continues with:
So, now you former hippie boomers are in total control of government, colleges and public schools, still selling your Utopian message of peace and love. Thanks for getting rid of black dads in the home via your welfare programs. I mean, everyone knows dads are cruel chauvinists who beat and molest their kids.
and finishes with:
In closing, you libs, please keep up the good work. With your continued diligence, we minorities and most Americans will not have to work or be responsible for anything. Your president is in the process of confiscating the wealth from those greedy rich white SOBs and redistributing it to us. Right on!
Now, if I can just figure out how to tie my shoes all by myself. But if I can't, I know you libs are there for me. Fighting back tears of overwhelming gratitude, again, I thank you.
did i mention that he is a very proud black man who loves this country and he doesn't want a hand out? i'm certain he must be racially confused or something else he wouldn't feel this way - much like clarence thomas or condoleeza rice or michael steele or larry elders or star parker and so on and so forth.
i have never been able to understand how denigrating one group of people makes another group of people feel better. i will never understand how taking from those who are producing - regardless of color - and giving to "those folks who won't get out of their easy chairs..." is supposed to increase the prosperity of all. the only thing that accomplishes is to decrease the overall wealth and morale of the country as a whole.
i wish i knew this man and were able to thank him personally for being willing to speak out and say the things that he is saying. i can't help but think that his is precisely the type of voice that congress will seek to silence (along with we conservative bloggers) with rockefeller's 'cyber security' bill. so i find myself championing him and helping to make his voice heard in the only way i can - by sharing him with my readers. i hope y'all will do the same...
UPDATE - CHECK OUT THIS POST FROM DI AND MIRADENA. it's a a great tie-in for what marcus lloyd is saying and an extremely well written article in its own right.
sixty years ago, avowed and confirmed socialist george orwell released his brilliantly bitter novel 1984. the novel was orwell's warning of what happens when state power is unabated and unchecked - and the premise novel is no less nightmarish now than when it was first released.
set in the fictional police state of oceana where the image of "big brother" - the personification of "the party" - and the "thought police" ruthlessly suppressed any hint of dissent. in the book control is realized through constant surveillance, relentess propaganda and quick, sure annihilation of anyone who rebels against its authority, even if only in private thoughts or conversation. winston smith, the unheroic and unlikely hero of the story engaged in dissent from the party - in both thought and written word and he was eventually arrested, interrogated, tortured and broken.
shortly after the book was published, mr. orwell wrote "I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe . . . that something resembling it could arrive," and further "I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences." boy did he ever say a mouthful!
my good friend, z, from golly geeeez sent me a great little story - written by god knows who - that i think ties nicely into the above:
Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.
I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.
The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.
"Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."
"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp.
"And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President.
I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind.
My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.
"Eric's children are also quite hungry."
With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.
"And their grandmother can't stand for long."
I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.
"Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."
I wanted to shout- that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.
"Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."
My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.
"By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars."
I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his creme brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.
What had I done wrong?
As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.
"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.
what a perfect analogy for what is going on now. and if we don't do something to stop it - sooner rather than later - we will be way too far down the road to turn the ship and avoid the iceberg that threatens to sink us.
some of our politicians are waking up. check out representative michele bachman (r-minn) on the floor of the house taking congress, in general, to task. in part she says "Now weve moved into the realm of gangster government. We have gangster government when the Federal Government has set up a new cartel and private businesses now have to go begging with their hand out to their local hopefully well
politically connectedCongressman or their Senator so they can buy a peace offering for that local business. Is that the kind of country we are going to have in the future?"
it is time to wake up people. the tea parties aren't enough. we must go further. at what point does civil unrest become the right thing? i think we're close to that point now - if not already there.
it's time to stop him/them. it's time to shut down the power grab. it's time to BRIDGE the gap that separates all freedom loving americans and restore our constitution. it's time to be responsible americans.
i leave you with another quote from orwell: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end."
back in january - in fact barely two days after his inaugration as president of the united states of america - bho signed an executive order requiring that the guantanamo bay facility be closed within 12 months. at the time of his signing the order, the president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."
and all the world rejoiced.
um, yeah, not so much.
you see, obama and the other leftists around the world did not take into consideration that no one wants the detainees from gitmo. not here in the united states and certainly not in europe.
initially, obamah's decision to close the gitmo facility received a speedy backing from obama's presidential election opponent, john mccain (clueless arizona) when he made a joint statement with senator lindsey graham (rino, sc) saying they supported obama's move to "reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees."
then "larry king live," john-boy said he thought that perhaps the new president may have been a tad bit hasty in his decision to close gitmo. that maybe he should have taken a little more time to consider everything associated with closing the camp before laying out a timetable for adherence.
specifically, mclame said he thought bho needed to consider what would need to be done with enemy combatants held at G=guantanamo before ordering the facility to be closed. saying, "So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America."
ya think? so johnny supported obama's closing of the gitmo facility before he warned him against the closing of the facility. all seems a little too much like the dems after the start of the iraq war, doesn't it?
so, now, fast forward five months and today - this evening, really - obama's white house has drafted an order that would "reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations."
according to dafna linzer and peter finn of the washington post, the order was drafted because of fears of a battle-royal with congress that would stall plans to close gitmo.
so let me get this straight. it was so important to close the guantanamo bay facility that it couldn't even wait two full days after the one's coronation, but it's not important enough that he's willing to fight congress on it? hmmm, i smell a rat (well actually more than one, but we'll reserve the others for another day).
his advisors appear to be worried that embracing another legacy of gwb's will put him on weaker footing with the courts and key supporters. uh-huh. of the two groups, whom do you think the advisors are more concerned about. yep, me too.
from the wapo article:
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order.
"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.
why does anyone care what civil liberties groups think about long-term detention? if they feel so strongly about this, why don't they invite them to live in their homes?
in reality, the people who have been to gitmo all seem agree that life at guantanamo is pretty good. in fact, the patriot post digest from today had this to say about the whole thing:
The Guantanamo detainee merry-go-round continues to turn and churn. On the detainee transfer front, the European Union, a harsh critic of detainee treatment, allegedly made its most explicit promise to date on accepting some Gitmo detainees... well, kind of, maybe. In a rather foggy, diplo-speak statement, the EU pledged to cooperate with the U.S. on legal strategies that will "help the U.S. turn the page" on past detention policies. Naturally, the statement did not specify how many detainees would be sent to Europe or which countries would accept them, although apparently Italy has agreed to accept three detainees. So much for the "explicit" promise.
Speaking of transferred detainees, the four Chinese Muslim Uighurs released from Gitmo and sent to Bermuda last week were found by the swimming pool outside of their pink bungalow. Questioned by a Fox News reporter, the well-tanned detainees said that living in China is worse than life at Guantanamo, saying there is no guarantee of human rights in China. We're shocked -- shocked -- to find that this is the case.
yeah, me too.
in short, obama is back tracking once again. and just like with the whole iranian election thing (we can't meddle in their affairs. oh by the way stop doing what you're doing), obama's reversal doesn't make him look strong or presidential or even manly. it simply shows him as the spineless jelly fish that he is. and our enemies have taken notice.
about 50 years ago the extension department of harding college produced this mid-length cartoon as part of a series of films. the purpose of the series was to help to illustrate to, and create a deeper understanding with, the general public of what made america the finest place in the world to live.
in this film, "make mine freedom", we go from the opening lines acknowledgement that 'america is many things to many people' to the listing of several of our guaranteed freedoms to the statement that "it is these freedoms that have made america strong, to the disagreement between management and labor, politicians and regular folk. same old same old, eh?
enter dr. utopia's sensational new discovery "ism". the answer to all the problems. how prophetic a cartoon this is. how sad that it is so prophetic and that we americans didn't fight against this tide harder. too bad so many signed the "itty bitty scrap of paper" without the permission of the rest of us and we did nothing.
no, our system of free enterprise wasn't perfect, but it sure served us well for a good many years. it made not only our industry but our educational system the envy of the world! can you imagine anyone envying our education system today?
john q. public was right when he said "anyone who preaches disunity; tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred or religious intolerence you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives." this is exactly what has happened over the course of the last 40 years.
especially in the last presidential election. no matter where you look or who you listen to in the msm all you hear is the obamantra of "everything is fine. everything is fine." fine for who? not fine for me, and i'm betting not fine for you either.
we used to know what to do about those who would rob us of our freedom and destroy our country. i wonder do we still? i wonder is it too late to chase the usurpers out of town?
The dictum finally came down from the lord Barack Obama, the messiah, the most merciful that all the land should be taxed and part of the proceeds would be used to fund socialized car care.
Mac the mechanic, who had been an auto mechanic for at least 30 years received notice in the mail that he would no longer be able to bill people directly for his services, but would rather have to send a monthly claim to the administration of car care and auto repair. Mac had always pretty much run a cash and carry service...
to the last lines of the piece:
Eventually, Mac went bankrupt and was forced into early retirement. His only means of support now is social security which turned out not to be as much as he had hoped since the gubment raised the full benefit age to 88 shortly before he retired. Also, Mac found that his 401K money had been spent by Barack Obama to fund his new healthcare plan.
So that vile, greedy, auto mechanic Mac, finally got his just rewards.
For those of you that are smiling at my work of pure fiction, realize that this is exactly the way that the gubment deals with doctors and hospitals. And the Dimocrats wonder why we look at them with so much disdain when they suggest a gubment run healthcare program.
i was filled with an amazing sense of wonderment at shuch a brilliant, satirical analogy. very, well done thomas. this is the best analogy i've ever seen on the subject. right down to the great addition you made in the comments section.
...realize that this thing has been going on with us for a very long time in the form of Medicare. As Medicare runs out of money, then the gubment will put the squeeze on us more and more with reduced payments and more and more burdensome regulations which actually increase the cost even further.
I did not specifically allude to the malpractice, tort reform crisis in healthcare. I guess Mac the Mechanic probably was forced to buy malpractice insurance too under the hope and change plan.
Barack told the AMA the other day he was against tort reform. So there ya go!
go read the whole post - linked here and above. be sure to leave comments here and there so people know what you think!
or maybe it's more accurate to say there are gypsies in the palace (my apologies to jimmy buffet, although he probably LOVES the current administration). barely four months into this administration and nearly everything that defined this country as different from all the other nations on the face of the earth has either been decimated or it is about to be.
apparently those who are currently in power in washington have never learned the things that the rest of us did in kindergarten. things like "bullies do not respond in kind to people being nice to them, they back down only when confronted with a force that is equal to or greater than their own." things like "there is no guarantee of "fairness" in this world, only the equal application of rules." things like "people CHOOSE their feelings on any given day, but logic is always the same and testable." things like "socialism, or redistribution of wealth (property, awards, etc.) has never been successful in all the history of the world, but the free market always succeeds."
apparently, because they have never learned these lessons, the rest of us are to be condemned to the hell they are busy creating for us. the only good thing about it is that they will be living in that hell with us - but that's dang small consolation.
i have long been silent here because it seems like there is nothing but negativism. i KNOW how i feel about things and it's all been so overwhelming. that is what has been keeping me quiet, and that is what now compels me to make an offering of my blog once again.
things i've noticed (and are driving me crazy) about the current crop of liberals in our country and especially those illustrious folks who make up the current administration:
they believe that if we just join hands and sing kum-bay-ah in the right key with those who would do grave harm to americans around the world that they will like us, but do not believe that anyone could find fault with any of the policies and beliefs they put forth.
essentially, if someone expresses hatred or contempt for america or americans, we MUST pause and ask "what have we done to make him (or her or them) feel this way?", but if anyone expresses a like sentiment about what liberals are doing (or trying to do) to this country, then that person must be some combination of stupid, racist or truly evil.
2. the democrats love to take credit for the balanced budget while bill clinton was cic (it was a republican congress), love(d) to denegrate george bush for his "out of control spending", but now that The One has been spending money faster than you can say "bob's your uncle", it's necessary in order for the country to recover. huh?
i can't be the only one who's noticed that obama's spending theatrics are nothing more than an extension of the spending that fdr engaged in in the 30's. if this type of spending were truly a stimulus then why did the u.s. fall into a great depression while the rest of the world had a recession and recovered? well, except for the weimar republic, but they were busy spending and preparing a way for the rise of adolf hitler. the spending of neither country resulted in unprecedented prosperity - nor any real prosperity for that matter - but rather a great sharing of misery and lack of funds for even basic necessities across all classes.
in a recent posting from dick morris he comments on quotes from caroline glick (editor and op-ed writer for the jerusalem post) and comes to the very real conclusion that we may well be witnessing the death of israel. ms. glick is well connected in netanyahu's government and she cites sources (most likely from within that same government) who say:
"...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the U.S. will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy."
what's most concerning to me is that her sources also say that obama's administration is "desparate" to stop israel from attacking iran. further noting that the u.s. administration has told netanyahu's government that anything that happens to any u.s. interests as a result of israel attacking nuclear sites in iran would be viewed "as israel's doing, not iran's." so let me make certain i have this straight:
a.) there are several u.n. resolutions and sanctions agains iran pertaining to nuclear weapons. b.) iran has promised to wipe israel off the map should they actually gain nuclear weapons. c.) obama has given a deadline of end-of-year 2009 for iran to engage in, and comply with, talks aimed at stopping iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. d.) if israel does anything to thwart iran's progress in the realm of nuclear weapons, the jews are the bad guys.
let's set aside the fact that obama has said there is no military action behind his threats - let's concentrate on his promise of more u.n. sanctions if they don't bend to the will of israel and the u.s. - uh yeah, because those have worked so well thus far. and what of russia and china - does anyone really think they'll lift a finger to impose more sanctions against iran? really?
if iran gets the bomb, we are witnessing an end to israel. and make no mistake, the end has been hastened on by those jews who voted FOR obama. there is no excuse. these folks are no different than those jews who voted for adolf hitler (yes, there were some) - or anyone else who voted for hitler for that matter. they are no different than the jews who championed fdr as the new messiah (sound familiar anyone?) and then did nothing to pressure fdr to DO SOMETHING - even to taking jewish refugees into the united states.
mr. morris closes out his column with an analysis of which i cannot find any error:
"...If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.
Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.
Obama may have held the first White House seder, but he's not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem."
for the past eight years, most of those on the left have been yelling "no litmus test for judges, no litmus test for judges." today, obama nominated sonia sotomayer to the replace justice david souter on the highest court in the land. for those of you who have been asleep for the past few weeks, he has been publicly announcing his criteria for his nomination: compassionate, empathetic, female, minority - can someone out there please explain how this criterion is NOT a litmus test? my good friend z has more on this subject, but i wanted to add my two cents worth, too.
while it IS true that sonia sotomayer's certification will NOT change the current make-up of the supremes, she should never have been considered a candidate for scotus. the only thing i will offer in defense of my words is this video where sotomayer scoffs at the constitution, says judges make policies and posits that as a latina she's wiser than white males:
i'm so disgusted with what is happening. it's demoralizing and damaging. and wrong. so now what? all of this puts me in mind of some of the final words george washington spoke as president of this nation. in his farewell address he said "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." a wise man he was to know that THEY would come.
yesterday, cub reporter priscilla scooped the msm and brought z and her readers information about a political rally (a tea party of sorts) that took place yesterday in fullerton, california. the estimate is that there were about 8,000 participants there to object to california proposition 1a which is on the ballot for 19 may 2009.
if it passes successfully it will extend the tax increase that our fearless leaders in sacramento passed as part of the 2009/2010 budget for another two years. yippee!!
one commenter (pat jenkins) wondered who should take on this issue nationally and pris thought perhaps laura ingraham or david horowitz; z thought perhaps we needed someone non-partisan. however, i have to agree with pris that no one is really non-partisan. the comments attached to the post are myriad and insightful and got me to thinking.
for this to be truly successful it has to be a bigger-than-big movement. but where to start?
a few weeks ago, rick santelli called for a new tea party, from the trading floor, in response to obama's "pay your neighbor's mortgage whether you want to or not" scheme. you can see his "rant" here:
after a real quick brouhaha (i mean if you skipped the news one night you missed it), the msm decides to just ignore it. even as others started calling for regional tea parties, the msm pretended that everyone in the country (well except for a very few of us radical conservatives) was loving the obama bailouts. and that false representation of sentiments continues to this day.
anyhow, across the country in february there were several of these tea parties held, but none garnered any media exposure to speak of. this one, yesterday, in fullerton didn't even make the evening news here in l.a. my guess is the same is true of [at least] most of the tea parties that have been held thusfar.
well now there's a new call out for an organized, national tea party. as posted by bobby eberle, yesterday, over at gopusa:
When the colonists threw boxes of tea into Boston Harbor, their message was clear: no taxation without representation. The frustration had built to the boiling point and action needed to be taken.
A similar movement is building across America. President Obama is moving his socialist agenda through Congress and into American life, and it needs to be stopped. Faster than any president in American history, Obama has just spent over a trillion dollars that America does not have, and now he wants to pay for it by raising taxes. Enough is enough!
Obama has only been in office less than two months and has already signed on for over a trillion dollars in spending. There is the "stimulus" bill, the mortgage bill, and on and on. Every time there is a problem in this country, the Obama administration calls for more spending. Do he and his fellow liberals have so little faith in the American people? Given more of our own money in our pockets, I'm sure the American people could figure out how to get the economy going. We don't need government telling us how our money will be spent, what charities are "worthy," and what projects are more important.
To call attention to all this spending (and the taxes that will follow), the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party is being organized by a collaboration of grassroots organizations, and GOPUSA is doing its job to help spread the word.
check out the link here and sign up for the fun. from their recent press release:
Building on the success of the Nationwide Chicago Tea Parties held [in February] in multiple cities around the nation, conservative grassroots organizations and free market activists will once again come together on April 15th to protest out-of-control government spending. Timed to coincide with the date by which Americans must pay their federal income taxes, the Tax Day Tea Party effort will be coordinated by Smart Girl Politics, Top Conservatives on Twitter and the DontGo Movement (www.dontgomovement.com), in addition to other center-right activist groups.
Plans are under way for rallies to take place in nine American cities, with more sites to be added in the coming weeks. The goal of these protests is to call attention to the unprecedented wasteful spending by Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration.
When asked about the need for nationwide rallies based on the Boston Tea Party of 1773, Eric Odom, Chairman of the DontGo Movement, remarked, "Building on the free market ideas of our founding fathers, and embracing the passion they shared to bring them to light, the Nationwide Tea Party Movement is giving voice to tens of thousands of Americans." Added Stacy Mott, President of Smart Girl Politics, "Average Americans do not support mortgaging away our children's futures, and the time to speak out against it is now."
what better day than tax day to hold a rally protesting taxation without equal representation? i certainly don't feel that i have any real representation for my tax dollars, do you?
please help to spread the word. please join us on tax day to make this something the msm can no longer ignore. please help us to make history again.
one more thing - great reminder from my good friend "z":
And make sure you watch Glenn Beck on Friday, March 13....5 pm EST. That should give us some hope. Remember, the pen might be mightier than the sword sometimes, but our swords need to get sharp; our 'swords' are those tea parties, writing our politicians, demanding that our leaders pay attention to both sides of every issue, writing to the media venues and demanding honesty. And our blogs are our pens. Don't give up! We have a heck of a fight on our hands..............sharpen your pens............and your swords.
once again i found myself COMPELLED to address the lunatic remarks of one of the obama faithful, even though i know that it is an exercise in futility. at best it turns them away to never be heard from again, but at worst they will make an attempt to engage me on subjects for which they have no education or knowledge - both are in typical liberal fashion.
my good friend 'sh' since three lifetimes ago, in high school, found an awesome post from iain martin's blog and created a link to it from her facebook page. the premise of his post - titled "President Barack Obama dislikes Britain, but he's keen to meet the Queen"was that obama treated england's prime minister, gordan brown, as if he were beneath him while being all excited and worked up over the prospect of meeting the queen.
the opening salvo of the article sets the stage for the larger argument:
"President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain this week. His handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling."
as he continues in how the obama's slighted the brown's i got more and more embarrassed for our president and our country. i mean, this should have been in the most basic training lessons for obama and his clan - like in a "how to treat foreign dignitaries 101" class or something to that effect.
but apparently, according to the post from mr. martin, it's not all british officials that the obamassiah holds in such disregard - seems he's all aflutter at the prospect of tea with the queen when he's there for the g20 next month. in the words of mr. martin obama is:
"...in through the front door of Buckingham Palace faster than a Harley Davidson roaring along Route 66.
Note how the coolness of Team Obama disappears when a bit of regal glamour is introduced into the equation. He might not like the Brits, but he can recognise a global superstar when he encounters one. He wants to be associated with her. He's shameless."
and shameless is a good description in this writer's opinion. nothing to comment on for this blog post from mr. martin - unless it's to give him kudos for calling a spade a spade - right? right.
enter the idiocy of the unknowing, uninformed liberal who posted a comment on the post link on sh's facebook page:
from d o'f:
I bet the Brown boys loved the helicopter models - most boys would at least. It's the adults who for some reason have a problem with it.
sh's response:
well, I don't think the article's focus was on the (vain) gifts for the boys... the focus was more on the insincerity of our Commander-in-Chief.. from the point of view of a Brit... a journalist from a country who has been avid Obama supporters. hmmmm
and then d o'f responded again:
The article is about (at least this part) this being a rude gesture because Michelle didn't go out on a big shopping spree - when in fact she really didn't need to... As for your extra insertion, like it or not (obviously you do not), this man is our President, and he has a huge mess to clean up. Instead of griping about his every move, people need to lay off and give the man a chance.
at that point i could not contain myself any longer and was compelled to respond. my response was as follows:
lay off the man and give him a chance? please tell me how spending more money in the first 30 days in office than all of the other commander-in-chiefs in the history of our republic COMBINED. please explain to me how it is possible to spend your way out of debt - can YOU do this in your household? no? well guess what, it doesn't work with government either.
obama and his ilk maintain that the reason the "spend our way out of the situation" didn't work with fdr is because fdr didn't spend enough. hogwash. do you realize that in the whole of the rest of the world, when we were having our "great depression" the market was allowed to right itself everywhere but here? in the rest of the world they had a recession that lasted less than two years - here in our country our great depression lasted HOW LONG???
fdr was the first president to be heralded as the new saviour. you might be interested in knowing that fdr campaigned on smaller government, reduction in taxes and spending and less interference with the market. as soon as he got into office, he pulled the ole switcheroo. and boy did we pay for it - we're still paying for it - but even fdr drew the line at out and out welfare.
there is very little in the stimulus bill that will actually generate a single job. interestingly the bulks of jobs that will be generated will not happen for more than three years and they will primarily be government jobs. government jobs DO NOT help the economy - in fact they hurt it as they drain money from the producing sector of society and give it to the leeches who are fueling the beauracracy.
it was our founding father's intention that those who worked and/or were supported by the state would not be permitted to vote. their rationale was that if you derived your livlihood from the state you would vote only for those things that would prolong and/or increase your well being without giving proper weight to what is best for the republic as a whole. that whole thing got turned around in the middle of the last century in an attempt to make things more fair. yeah, we see how THAT's working out. more fair means that the more i work and earn the less i get to keep of it because people who aren't as resourceful or as talented or as smart as i can't/don't earn what i earn.
obama is ostensibly our president - i have some serious doubts about that - but as such he is the one calling most of the shots now. however, that doesn't mean that he should get a blank check so we can see how he handles things. good lord, man, by your comments it seems we should only be judging this man AFTER he totally bankrupts the country and puts us so firmly on the path of socialism that there will need to be another revolution to contermand it.
you might be interested in noting that socialism - in myriad forms - has been tried AND failed many, many times over the course of human history. the utopia of socialism is such a wonderful concept - isn't it? however, as margaret thatcher so aptly observed: "the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples' money." in short, drew, there is no RIGHT WAY to do socialism. the market works when it is not interfered with.
the market did not fail here, the market was failed. congress (and its handmaidens) forced banks to issue credit to people who were not credit worthy or be fined for "racist policies". then when it didn't work out they way they HOPED it would they blamed the market. when the market was in charge, the banks weren't failing. and i might add that obama was one of the attorneys representing ACORN and other groups who lobbied congress and its handmaidens to force the banks to hand out bad loans.
i suggest you do some studying of history and get an understanding of what these types of policies have done to this country and other countries throughout history. i also highly recommend that you read the declaration of independence, the u.s. constitution and the federalist and anti-federalist papers.
all of these will help you to understand what our government is supposed to be - or not be as the case may be. our country is NOT a democracy, it is a representational republic - our founding fathers KNEW the inherent dangers of democracies and shied away from the creation of that for us. thomas jefferson's words still rings true "government governs best which governs least."
what have years and years and years of income redistribution done to help the poor? do we have fewer poor now than we did when lbj launched his great society? do we have a lower level of divorce, broken families, and children born out of wedlock? perhaps drug abuse in our society has been reduced? maybe we can point to our children and say "they're educated at a higher level than ever before in our nation."? no on all of these points? indeed, no on all of these points.
i would caution you to think that by continuing to throw good money after bad, we are giving obama and his ilk "a chance" to right the wrongs of the rich. our country guarantees equal OPPORTUNITY to everyone, not equality of outcome. if someone wants something bad enough, then they can figure out a way to get it without theft. and make no mistake, income redistribution is nothing other than theft.
i intend to give mr. obama every bit of respect he deserves. i also intend to give him every bit of respect that those on the left gave to gwb. i love my country and so by default i hate what obama and the rest of the leftards are trying to do to it through judicial diktat.
one final note: reread the article and perhaps this time you could start with the opening two sentences: "President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain this week. His handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling." and then come back and tell me this article wasn't about how ineptly obama handled the whole visit.
at that point, d'of came back again:
Wow, Hiedi [sic], I didn't mean to get into all this! I will be the first to admit that I do not keep up with all this... Family, career, etc. just don't leave me with the time or energy - I barely get to catch any news - seriously. With that in mind, here's how I see it (and I think how alot of people see it)... for 8 years, our country has been deteriorating...In the past year or so, this downward slide has excellerated...We were in a recession for nearly a year before the government recognized that fact - although it was obvious. Bush's policies obviously were not working. Obama's may not either, but at least he's hitting the problems at a different angle than the policies that were not working. One of the small quips that I did hear Obama say was to the effect that "if it doesn't work, if you end up not satisfied, you can replace me in four years"... I guess this is why I say give it a chance...That's the great thing about our democracy, we can always change.
i had one final response:
d o'f - again, we do not have a democracy - well except in the minds of the uninformed and the media - or is that a redundant statment? please get it through your head that we do not have the right, per our constitution, to take from one and give to another under the guise of benevolence or bailouts or whatever euphemism the kids are calling it these days.
the constitution, a legal binding document, sets rules and limits on how the government can wield power and what we see happening is completely against that document. yeah, great idea.
actually we were heading into a recession for about 20 months before the government rolled out it's first "bailout" plan back in september. however, it wasn't the cause of bush. the bailout was required because of the laws that the democrats (admittedly with some help of a few rino's) put into place telling the banks and credit companies how to run their businesses. had the glass stegall act never been repealed, we would not be in this mess today.
if we wait to counteract the one's policies for four years, it may very well be too late for our republic. just doing "something from a different angle" is a dangerous and stupid approach.
there isn't an actual economist who supports what obama is doing. he's not doing it to help the country, he's doing this to help those who got him elected. ultimately that will hurt those who elected him AND the country as a whole.
did you ever consider not voicing an opinion on things where you have no backstory or history or understanding?
what do y'all think - was i too hard on him in my attempt to educate him? do you think there's any hope in education for those who are drinking the obama kool-aid? how should we best go about countermanding the idiocy that these people are eschewing?
In 1970 a KGB operative from the USSR, an expert in Indian culture and languages, found himself disgusted with the Soviet system and made his way to the West. His migration was at great personal risk, but he had decided he must be free and so he defected to the United States.
In 1984, G. Edward Griffin conducted an indepth interview of the ex-KGB operative, Yuri Bezmenov, which was essentially a study of comparison and contrast between the United States and the USSR. A portion of that interview is in the video below. It's important, as you watch this video, to remember that this interview is from 1984 - amazing how no one heeded his warnings and we are so much further down the path to total communism/socialism than we were then.
In 1984, Mr. Griffin billed Mr. Bezmenov as "one of the world’s outstanding experts on the subject of Soviet propaganda and disinformation and active measures." And while I've been unable to find anything on or from Mr. Bezmenov within the past few years - IF he is still alive, I have to believe that this moniker would still stand.
In November of last year, Useless Dissident transcribed a different part of this same interview. It's a great read that gives you a little bit of Yuri's background and where he's coming from in making the statements he makes in the above mentioned interview.
Very early in that interview - remember this was 25 years ago - Mr. Griffin put forth the following question:
"In this country, at the university level primarily, we read and hear that the Soviet system is different from ours, but not that different. And that there is a convergence developing between all of the systems of the world, and that really it doesn’t make an awful lot of difference what system you live under because you have corruption and dishonesty and tyranny and all that sort of thing. From your personal experience, what is the difference between life under Communism and life in the United States?"
It's clear that, although few of us realized it at the time, we were already well down the path to the one world 'convergence', let alone collectivism, that Mr. Griffin mentions in his question. And today we're running down that road with the [uninformed] blessing of a good percentage of the population.
It's obvious that we never did heed bezmenov's recommendations for the proper, America-appreciating education
of our youth and our citizens - So is it now too late for the U.S.?
What of the "force" he speaks of? Obama has been in office less than 30 days and we are further down the road to complete socialism than any could have thought would be possible after 30 months.
The constitution is worse than, as Thomas Jefferson warned, a 'mere thing of wax' in the hands of the Judiciary - It is now nothing even worse than that in the hands of the most horrible Congress in the history of our country. The graceless bunglers making up this current Congress is working hard to reduce our country to a country of collectivism.
Presidential Character Some people argue that domestic issues are of far greater importance than any discussion of character. I could not disagree more. All elections are about character. If we cannot trust the honor, patriotism, and fidelity of our elected representatives, then the issues don’t matter because whatever a candidate of low character shall say about political issues cannot matter.
I believe we each must consider the character of the two men who want us to elect them as our next president. Some may argue “What more is there to know about either candidate?” after a campaign that has lasted far too long. Ordinarily, at this point in the campaign, I would say, “nothing more.” Except in this election, “We the People” have found the press (as guardians of American democracy) seriously deficient. Rather than remaining impartial, the media has fallen head-over-heels in love with one of the candidates; we must excuse them from the jury of the court of public opinion. This year, the American people have not witnessed a fair trial.
Samuel Adams once said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men,” but this was long before the Obama Era. Political correctness and liberal bias have led us to outcries of racism for even asking questions not even remotely related to race.. The press castigated our friend “Joe the Plumber” for daring to ask about income redistribution. According to one radio report, the Secret Service visited a woman because she told an Obama Campaign worker that she would vote for Barack Obama, “over her dead body.” This kind of attention applied to citizens for merely expressing an opinion is patently un-American, but it is also reminiscent of the intimidation used to silence dissent in communist countries. Character matters all right, especially if suppression of the right of expression is what we can expect from an Obama presidency.
In order to assess the character of our presidential contenders, we must decide upon an appropriate exemplar. On the democratic side of the aisle, the obvious notables are Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Jefferson may be too far back in time to serve as our role model. Roosevelt was a patent socialist. Truman left office as one of the most unpopular of all our presidents. Lyndon Johnson gave us too many scars. Mr. Carter was a buffoon and Bill Clinton . . . well, I wonder if we aren’t just a little too tired of hearing about him. Kennedy seems to qualify as the best Democratic Party exemplar, even if he was a womanizer; no one is perfect.
In the twentieth Century, notable Republican presidents have included Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Of these, Roosevelt was impetuous, Eisenhower cautious, Nixon resigned in disgrace, and Reagan was the great communicator. I therefore propose Reagan as our Republican Party exemplar.
In 1961, John Kennedy issued this mandate to the American people: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John Kennedy became the darling of the American people; many around the world shared this view. We called his presidency Camelot. He was young, relatively inexperienced, but he excited the people about America’s future. He believed in the rights of man, a strong national defense, and the protection of liberty throughout the world. He believed that nuclear deterrence was insufficient to maintain peaceful coexistence. He believed the United States should be a beacon of hope, and he argued for increased world trade. He sought to achieve working partnerships with other world leaders to achieve dignity, justice, and liberty for all the people of the world. He sought to attain solidarity among the western (Atlantic) nations; he refuted communism as doomed to failure. He set forth an economic policy of unshackled enterprise, industrial leadership, and vibrant capitalism. He sought to lower interest rates in order to increase the flow of money, reduced government spending, and lower taxes. He also vowed to help small businesses through government loans and fair trade policy. Mr. Kennedy was a fiscal conservative.
Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. He said, “I didn’t leave my party; my party left me.” We assume he spoke about the party of John Kennedy, a platform designed to inspire the American people to greatness. This was also the platform of Ronald Reagan. He repudiated the policy of Jimmy Carter; looking forward, he said, “Democratic politicians are without programs or ideas to reverse economic decline and despair. They are divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility.”
Reagan brought the American people a new pride in their country and themselves, their achievements and future possibilities. He wanted the American people to have liberty and freedom of choice, low taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. He repudiated the so-called Great Society because it created low human productivity. He fought for an expansion of private property ownership, committed himself to improved economic opportunities for black Americans, rights and equality for every minority, and equal opportunities for women. He was committed to the rights of unborn children.
Modern Democrats have turned Kennedy’s ideal upside down; now the cry is “Ask what your country can do for you.” Today’s Democrat pursues the politics of dependency, the essential breaking point between civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson. King wanted black Americans to realize the reality of equality, while Jackson’s policies pursue racism, separatism, and demands for greater gifts from the government. King wanted black Americans judged according to their character; Jackson views character as secondary concern because the means justifies the end. King fought for unity, Jackson has dedicated his entire life to reverse-segregation.
Modern Republicans have broken faith with the American people. They broke their Contract with America. Much of what has happened since mid-2005 is the result of this failure. As a Republican, I bemoan a Democratically controlled Congress, but I realize that men such as Duke Cunningham brought it to fruition. But, before anyone starts gloating, we should note that the United States Congress today has achieved the low point of popular opinion; it cannot possibly get worse. Or, can it?
It is time to ask ourselves where Barack Obama and John McCain stand with regard to our exemplars of presidential character. We should assume that “Country First” is a sentiment that every patriotic American deeply subscribes; that all of us want to see positive changes for the future. That said, let us dispense with bumper-sticker ideology, and investigate the actual character of each candidate. Let us consider the deeds of these men rather than their words.
Before announcing his candidacy for the highest office, Barack Obama associated himself with socialist organizations, a peculiar philosophy that supports state or collective ownership of all property and the means of production. Since we achieve personal and national wealth through property and the means of production, Mr. Obama apparently believes than an egalitarian society is only possible when the state controls property and wealth. By extension, the State will distribute wealth according to its own priorities, and the State will achieve this through any number of programs, including taxation. Socialist programs relieve individuals of responsibility, for themselves, and for their families. We see this clearly in Mr. Obama’s platform;
Economic Policy · An immediate energy rebate to American families · An expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the economy · Federal assistance to states and localities in education, health care, and infrastructure · Implement the Congressional housing bill through state and local spending · Federal investment in infrastructure to replenish highways and bridges · Expenditures in education to replace and repair schools · Immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs. · Increase employment and implementing shared prosperity. · National health care initiatives
We should perhaps note at this point that governments do not create wealth, people do. Governments may facilitate productivity through sound economic policy, but they cannot interfere in a market economy without significant disruption to capitalist investment and diminishing personal and corporate income and profits. Barack Obama’s socialist platform is anathema to Kennedy’s economic philosophy, and may be unparalleled since the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Simply stated, responsible government cannot spend more than anticipated revenues, and it is contrary to American values to redistribute income in a free-market environment.
John McCain is a moderate conservative approximating John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. He believes that the Constitution of the United States limits the role of the federal government, and he strives to work with the Congress within a constitutional framework to improve government efficiency and reduce waste. Like Kennedy and Reagan, McCain believes that lower taxes improve productivity, and that reduced spending is fiscally responsible and economically necessary. While there are some things the federal government must do, other projects constitutionally fall within the purview of the 50 states. National defense and homeland security is something the federal government must do, but the central government must form partnerships with the states on other important human-services programs. Reflected in Mr. McCain’s platform:
Economic Policy · Implement immediate transparency to the budgeting process · Evaluate and reduce spending on wasteful and inefficient programs · Empower states to improve public services · Implement meaningful (and trustworthy) oversight of government programs · Make government more efficient and responsive to citizen’s needs · Prioritize spending to improve and safeguard America’s infrastructure · Modernize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Programs · Restore Social Security to a sound financial basis · Expand opportunities to promote personal and industrial prosperity
Of these two men, which has the greatest character? Which of these candidates maintains faith with our founding principles of Constitutional Federalism, a steady hand on the tiller of state, while allowing individuals to choose for themselves their best course? John McCain is not a perfect man, nor is he without justifiable criticism of his previous positions; but John McCain is an open book. His service to his country and his associations has been honorable, and trustworthy.
Barack Obama has not been honest and forthright with the American people. He has hidden his past associations or played them down. He has defamed religious teaching through adherence to black separatist theology and racism, consorted with known terrorists, and enjoys the backing of organizations harmful to the interests and the people of the United States. As an advocate of socialist/Marxist ideology, Barack Obama is frankly, in our judgment, un-American. He falls far short of exemplars such as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Character matters because our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts. If we intend to resolve these problems, we must have the steady hand of true statesmanship. We must have in our president wisdom, experience, honesty, fidelity, and valor. Our president must be a man whose character is consistent with our Nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.
Every presidential election brings forth professional pundits who tell us that this election is the most important of our entire lifetime. This time, they could be right. Our selection of the right man will assure our children, and theirs, of a nation dedicated to individual liberty, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. If we choose the wrong man, we may very well witness an end to the United States as created by our forefathers. We are living in perilous times — there is no room for error in our selection of the 44th President of the United States.
On Election Day, one of these candidates will receive a majority of popular votes. In December, the Electoral College will validate the popular vote and confirm the identity of our next president. But this election is more than a referendum on the ability of the American voter to discern between two well-educated men. This election is rather a test of America’s ability to distinguish and reward personal character and to recognize integrity and statesmanship between one man who possesses these qualities and the other who does not.
We urge Americans to vote for John McCain. There simply is no other choice that is good for the American people, or our great country.
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" — Ronald Reagan
We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama. Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions. Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):
William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years. Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite. Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law. Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies. Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008. Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below) Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II. Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko. Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric. Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.” Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”
Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.
The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:
The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process. Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).
Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this
1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.
From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power. Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.” Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here. Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values. John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility. Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations. Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist. Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations. We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics. We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.
CURRENT LINKS: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH
The media and candidates assure us that the number one issue in the minds of prospective voters is the economy, so this week we will address that issue; and we’ll do it clearly and concisely. Two concerns right off the mark: (1) If Americans are nervous about the economy, why on earth would they turn to a Democrat for help? (2) If Americans are nervous about the economy, have you heard Barack Obama say anything beyond vague election-year promises?
We don’t want to waste any time on adolescent bantering, but the truth is that our present economic conditions are a direct product from the seeds of eight-years of Bill Clinton. It is also true that Congressional Republicans failed to deliver on their contract with America . And now let’s get down the brass tacks.
With everything going on in your everyday life, you don’t have the time, and probably not the inclination to spend hours sifting through, and thinking about the Obama/Biden Economic Plan. Neither do the authors of that website, apparently. After considering tens of thousands of words of gibberish, what we found are volumes of proposals, policies, programs, and promises, and less than 10% of these ideas come close to responsible or prudent. And this is apparent at the very beginning. According to Mr. Obama:
Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression. Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.
In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, my father earned $60 a month; when he retired in 1972, he earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”
Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.
He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.
Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”
Barack Obama and Joe Bide believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.
Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.
To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?
To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.
(click chart for larger image)
Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.
None of the foregoing should surprise; these are economic programs an we can expect an avowed communist to support. The question really is, having won the cold war, do the American people now want to put a communist in the White House? We should make no mistake: Barack Obama has been a communist at least since 1991 . . . more illusive deception on his part . . . and none of these programs are the right fit for the United States of America.
Again, vote NO Obama, and vote NO for socialist members of Congress seeking reelection.
i did not write either of these - the first one was sent to me by a democrat friend as an attempt to get me to understand why we conservatives are so wrong on how unfair the tax cuts have been. the second is a story i picked up along the way and is what i sent her in response. enjoy!
Tax Cuts:
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness.
After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).
and also on taxes:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily bee r by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percent, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The n ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. B ut when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
i hope this clears it up. if you're a conservative no further explanation is necessary for the analogy of the second story and no explanation possible for the first. if you're a democrat no further explanation is necessary for the analogy of the first story and no explanation is possible for the second.
We cannot oppose Barack Obama without also opposing the party he represents, along with Republicans who enable socialist engineering. Barack Obama is not the only socialist who seeks elective office in November.
Why do we oppose Barack Obama? As comedian Jackie Mason recently reminded us, Barack Obama is popular because of the way he looks, the way he talks, and the way he presents himself – but remember that’s his field of expertise. His primary accomplishments include looking good, lying with a straight face, and associating himself with powerful radical activists. When you think about it, he is exactly who un-American liberals want living in the White House. Last week, we argued that Barack Obama is an empty suit. This week, we acknowledge that the suit isn’t completely empty … there are dangerous, anti-American forces at work within the Obama election infrastructure.
It is difficult to fathom the arrogance of someone who, after only 143 days in the U. S. Senate, announces he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency. And what is it exactly that causes this egotism? It may be that Barack Obama has cleverly orchestrated a sophisticated behind-the-scenes mechanism designed to create conditions favorable to his election. It is a cooperative of followers of (anarchist) Saul Alinsky, busily implementing the so-called “The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.” According to The Nation magazine (1966), “The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”
American Thinkerillustrates the workings of this scheme in the following graph; one that demonstrates a well-funded program centered around George Soros’ Open Society Institute, managed by former SDS member Aryeh Neler, and facilitated by the now infamous Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) (Note: Associations … plural). With 28 days to the National Elections, we do seem suddenly plagued with one financial catastrophe after another. Government bureaucracy is definitely overloaded, and society is being pushed into a sense of crisis. Fact, or fiction … the reader can decide for him or her self. But if it is only partially true, the implications present us with unsettling possibilities.
We are used to political organizations, such as the Democratic and Republican Party; but no one outside the radical left can be comfortable with an organization such as this. And if Barack Obama’s ego causes him to believe that he is brighter than most, and that he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency … he could be correct – no one so far has been smart enough to figure out what is happening behind the scenes. Few mainstream journalists have seriously evaluated Obama’s connection to the anti-American, radical left; not the so-called conservative press, not the Republican Party, and none of the self-styled America-first organizations.
Barack Obama is dangerous for other reasons, too. On the one hand, it is possible to dismiss the junior senator as one of those people with advance degrees, lacking common sense. We can say that he is able to quote Marxist and anarchist rhetoric, but lacks a concomitant real world understanding of the implications of such radical ideas. But there is yet another possibility: Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He knows precisely where he wants to take this country. And no one who understands this man’s motivations can feel comfortable with that perspective.
Barack Obama’s radicalism, thinly disguised by his subtle move to the political center-left, clearly repudiates everything America stands for. Conservative Americans may find themselves baffled by a man who professes love for the United States, but who then seeks to institute radical Marxist changes in government, in our courts, and within society … but not if we are watching and listening carefully to the Obama rhetoric. If we have not already dismissed common sense concern for his radicalism, if we have not already accepted Obama’s mild protestations of innocence, then we can recall the words of Jeremiah Wright on the pulpit (“g-damn America”) and we can say, “There is the real Barack Obama.” If we can focus on the obvious, we can draw a direct line between Jeremiah Wright’s church and the Black Racist ideology of the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan – both of whom engage in the radicalization of the black community, then we know the real man behind the deceptively “empty suit.” The underlying, important question is, “Are Americans Paying Attention?”
By pursuing his radical, anti-American agenda, Barack Obama repudiates everything America stands for … and his rejection of our traditional values extends well beyond the sophomoric debate between capitalists and socialists, even if not altogether irrelevant. The United States is a great nation today because of our traditional values. Our forefathers rejected big government, and they were able to raise their families without having to rely on the mistaken notion that “Only a village can raise a child.” They avoided personal indebtedness, preferring to live within their means, and they denounced the idea that government is entitled to their hard-earned income. In the past, we celebrated entrepreneurial spirit; today we demean it. Today, encouraged by the poison of materialism and socialist entitlement programs, America is a nation of debtors; ever the opportunist, Barack Obama and his radical left organization is taking full advantage of our social and individual indolence.
Let us not forget that government largess feeds upon itself. Marxists use government to redistribute wealth; it is the great equalizer ensuring everyone is equally miserable. Obama is using Alinsky’s “community activism” to achieve that power, and socialist ideology to maintain it. We stand in opposition to Barack Obama and his machine politics because we reject Marxist/socialist government. It strips people of their individualism, their dignity, and their will to resist subjugation, but this is the goal of an Obama administration, gift wrapped with empty promises. In our view, Barack Obama is willing to do anything to achieve his objectives, legal or not. We categorically reject him as a new-age messiah, and we stand united against his anti-American programs and policies.
Our question to Obama supporters remains unanswered: “How is it possible to love America, and support Barack Obama?” The horror of radical left/Marxist ideology is Obama’s consistent and unfettered promise for America. It is why we oppose him. It is why we urge our readers to vote NO to Obama and NO to socialists in Congress.
An informed voter is not only a wise voter, he or she is probably also a good American. In this regard, the press has always been the cornerstone in the foundation of American democracy … that is, until the press became such an advocate of socialism and liberal politics that it can no longer be relied upon to convey “fair and balanced” information.
For this reason, big girl pants joins with several others in a Nobama08 blog burst each Tuesday of the week until Election Day. If we cannot obtain the truth about our politicians from an unencumbered press, then we’ll form a cooperative to distribute information independently.
Stanley Kurtz is a journalist and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Kurtz’ article in the Wall Street Journal explains why Barack Obama is untrustworthy for the office of the President of the United States. He lacks integrity … and if it is one thing we do not need in the White House, it is yet another dishonest politician.
Mr. Kurtz writes:
Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.
The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.
The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.
The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.
One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.
The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.
In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.
CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead, CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).
Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity, and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.
CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children's education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections.
The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.
The Obama campaign notes that Mr. Ayers attended only six board meetings, and stresses that the Collaborative lost its "operational role" at CAC after the first year. Yet the Collaborative was demoted to a strictly advisory role largely because of ethical concerns, since the projects of Collaborative members were receiving grants. CAC's own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board's reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers's formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place.
Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin.
Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.
The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.
To say Mr. Obama is not ready for the presidency is a gross understatement. It is not simply that he lacks experience … it is also that he repudiates traditional American values and culture by embracing Marxist ideology, has been an acolyte of black racist theology, cuddled up with the anarchist activism of Saul Alinski, and even worse … the man is simply and irrevocably dishonest. There is nothing about Barack Obama that may cause us to think he honors American tradition, or share with us our time-honored values.
If the American people elect this man to the presidency, he will certainly destroy the cultural and political fabric of the United States, and when he has finished his work, none of us will recognize what he has left behind: the People’s Socialist Republic of the United States.
with just 49 days to go until the 2008 presidential and general election, things are getting downright bile-filled out in the ether. democrats accuse republicans of lying. republicans accuse democrats of lying. independents are just trying to figure out who will best represent them in the coming four years.
although it MAY be anecdotal, there is some indication that the conservatives in this country are getting motivated for mccain/palin. i'm talking not merely "get drunk and vote for mccain", but actually working the phones, pounding the pavements and hammering on the keys - keyboards that is - to rally the country to elect john and sarah.
we have all seen the trend in recent days of the independents moving away from obama into camp mccain. but while this is bad new for obama, in and of itself, it is not all good news for mccain. you see, mccain can't win without the enthusiastic advocation of the conservatives and based on recent trending, it appears he's getting just that.
my regular readers - if i have any - surely know how i feel about polls and how worthwhile they are. they're not. it's fun to watch them, but i'm not really writing about the polls, but rather about the atmosphere in the country right now.
my blogging acquaintance, mustang, put up this poston friday. he's easily one of the most articulate bloggers i've read and puts a great many "real" reporters to shame as well. this is an article on "political equanimity" and he's spot on in his analysis:
"Asked when American politics started getting nasty, Rudy Giuliani opined that it began during the 2000 elections. I disagree. I think it began during the Federalist Debates after the start of the Constitutional Convention. My point is Americans have always disagreed with one another along an entire range of issues that affect them personally. One-third of our colonial forefathers were completely disengaged from the revolution, but of course, there was a risk to sitting along the sidelines, too. There still is."
there's more at mustang's place and it's well worth the read if you're so inclined. as i said, i believe he is spot on his this analysis. and it was this that got me thinking.
in my blog visits to mustang, brooke, z, defiant infidel, angel and others, i see messages of both hope for the future (primarily because they can now get behind mccain with the palin pick) and frustration. in the comments at many of these sites i see the twisting and vileness that we are also seeing with the political ads and the mainstream media, at large. the main charge by the liberals, based on the blogs and comments i've seen, is that the republican economic and other policies do not work for the people. that it is because of the republican policies that the country is in a downward spiral.
yes, the economy has slowed down, but it's not because of republican policies. if republican policies are so damaging, why is that the ten most poverty-ridden cities in the country are firmly in control of the democrats? and why is that the most poverty-ridden segments of our society are firmly in the camp of the democrats when it comes to voting? no seriously, i'd like an explanation for this. let's look at the charts, shall we?
in the latest "income, earnings, and poverty data from the 2007 american community survey" report (Download census_report_2007.pdf) from the u.s. census bureau, we learn that american indians (including alaskan natives) have the highest rate of poverty by segment of society, closely followed by blacks:
in that same report, we also learn about the ranking of each county and city (with more than 250,000 residents) in terms of percentage in poverty per capita:
i am not addressing the leanings of the political leanings of the counties specifically, although the bulk of the top 10 counties in regards to poverty have tended to be blue in the past two elections. however, let's look at the top 10 poverty-ridden cities on the list from the u.s. census bureau, shall we?
detroit, michigan has a poverty rate of 33.8% (give or take 1.4%). this is more than 4% higher than cleveland, ohio. the current mayor pro-tem of detroit, ken cockrel, jr. is a democrat. he took over for the disgraced and indicted mayor of nearly six years, kwame kilpatrick (the youngest mayor in the history of detroit who also spoke at the 2004 dnc convention) this week and he is also a democrat. the last republican mayor in detroit, michigan? eugene van antwerp, who served from 01/06/1948-01/03/1950, was a republican.
in cleveland, ohio, frank g. jackson, a democrat, is the current mayor. he took over in 2006 for jane l. campbell, also a democrat. the last time cleveland elected a republican mayor was, george v. voinovich in 1980. he served until 1989. the poverty rate in cleveland is 29.5%.
buffalo, new york has not had a republican at the helm since stanley makowski was replaced by democrat james griffin on the first of january in 1978. the current mayor is bryan brown is a democrat; he was elected in 2005 and took office in 2006; he presides of a poverty rate of 28.7 (down from 29.1 in 2006).
in el paso, texas, john cook took office nearly three years ago replacing his fellow democrat joe wardy. democrats have enjoyed control of this texas city since june of 2001 and have a current poverty percentage of 27.4.
memphis, tennessee has been held by a single democrat, willie w. herenton is october of 1991. his tenure as the city's mayor has been marked with a great deal of controversy and corruption. the current poverty rate in memphis is 26.2%.
with the exception of a few months in 1996 when republican willy gort as the acting mayor, miami, florida has only elected democrats to office since 1955. they currently enjoy a poverty rate of 25.2%.
milwaukee, wisconsin has been solidly under democrat or socialist party control since republican sherburn m. becker left office in 1908. however, their solid standing with poverty at nearly a quarter of the city's population (24.4%) is nothing to brag about.
in newark, new jersey the last republican mayor, ralph a. villani, left office in 1953 and was replaced by leo p. carlin and it's been led by democrats ever since. 23.9% is the current rate of poverty in this city.
when democrat joseph s. clark became mayor of philadelphia, pa in 1952, he replaced the last republican mayor since seen in the city of brotherly love. bernard samuel left office on 07 january 1952 after serving for 11 years. the current mayor is presiding over a poverty rate of 23.8%.
cincinnati, ohio has been under democrat or charterite control since 1971. since 1926 only two of the 30 mayors have been elected by the city's residents - the rest of them have been appointed by the city council. 23.5% of the residents of cincinnati are in poverty today.
it is also interesting to note that the breakdown of political control for even the ten highest poverty-ridden smaller cities is decidedly democrat as well:
in bloomington, indiana democrats have controlled the mayor's office since 1972. in camden, the list in complete, but the dems have controlled city hall since at least 1956. control of the city's government in brownsville has been with the democrats since at least 1991. in gainesville, fl democrats have had controll of the mayor's office for at least seven years. kalamazoo has been under the control of democrats since 1973. the democrats have been in control of flint michigan since 1975. in reading, pa, they have a past full of socialists and democrats and the dems have controlled the mayor's office for at least the past 10 years. the dems have controlled city hall in macon all the way back to 1954. in youngstown, oh, the current mayor is an "independent" with definite leftward leaning tendencies, other than that there have been democrats at the helm since 1978. and finally in pontiac city, mi, the current mayor is a democrat; it appears that the control of the dems goes back to 1967, but i am not 100% certain of that as the information is spotty.
isn't it interesting that the ten cities - large or small - with the highest rates of poverty per capita are run by democrats? how can the failed policies of the dems be blamed on the republicans when the facts bear information that is contrary?
just one last thing to leave you with. if the socialist policies of the left work so well to get people out of poverty, why is that the highest poverty levels fall in areas that are squarely in control of the democrats/socialists? is this really the direction we want to head with our country?
btw, if you like this post, please go vote for it here. thanks, y'all!
has anyone else been wondering "what happens if the obampalooza tour ends in failure?"
please understand, i'm not advocating a win for the obama camp, but it is something that has been on my mind. we all need to have this on our minds.
two nights ago, in what can only be described as a "farce" the dnc nominated barack hussein obama jr. to run for president of the united states of america. as z observed here, no states after new york were permitted to participate in the roll call for delegate counts.
one must wonder "why?" and come to some sort of conclusion. the conclusion i have come to is that the dnc could not afford to allow the general population to get a glimpse at how large hillary's delegate count actually was. after all, we are marching to the drum of HISTORY. everyone get in line, now!
in fact, there was so much pressure on folks to comply with the inevitability of obama's candidacy, even john r. lewis (of selma bridge fame) capitulated. previously mr. lewis was a full-fledged supporter of hillary's and vowed that he was not going to support obama at the convention. but he did.
42 +/- years ago our nation endured the long, long summer of selma, alabama. my fear is that we may head that way again.
think about it for a minute. nearly every black celebritard in the world is championing barack. black radio hosts, with very few exception, are part of the very large cheering section for bho.
black commentators such as larry elder, walter williams and thomas sowell might as well be voices in the wilderness. any ad against obama is automatically dismissed as racist. forget about anything hannity or limbaugh (either of them) or any other white conservative digs up - it's dismissable because they are racist.
if the people i'm with in maine are any indication of the liberals in general in today's america (and i believe they are very indicative), they aren't even considering that they might lose. his presidency is now inevitable.
bring up anything in corsi's or morris's book (or any other expose for that matter) and they will dismiss the information out of hand - even if they haven' even read it. at least i read obama's books - both of them - before i dismissed them as a bunch of fabricated malarky. these people simply believe he's the messiah.
every chance the left gets, especially since obama "became" the front runner, they bring up the question of race in this election. race tensions are higher now than nearly any other time in my lifetime. higher now than they were at the start of the election cycle nearly a year ago. and therein lies my concern.
the thought police are out in force. expose his radical connections and friends? you're a racist. expose his far left, dare i say marxist/socialist actions, words and thoughts? you're a racist. this election, at the behest of the left, has deterioriated into a contest of race.
we are told that the world is watching to see if america is FINALLY going to rise above it's racist tendencies and elect a man of color. nevermind that the black man (or woman for that matter) in general has a better opportunity for success in the united states of america than any where else in the world - including african nations. never mind that we didn't invent slavery and we don't practice it now and the fact that blacks not only owned slaves in this country slavery in and of itself was started by a black man in this country. read about it here in my blog.
we are told, by the liberals here and abroad, that the u.s. is a nation of racists. and apparently obama is our chance at redemption. sorry, i'm not buying it.
but if obama doesn't win what's going to happen? based on the media hype, i think that the blacks of america will take it as a total slam. i worry that the race riots of the 1960's will have nothing on what will happen if the whole thing ends in disillusionment. but what responsibility should the media bear should this sham of a candidacy end up on the losing side of the election?
in my mind they will bear the full moral responsibility of what follows, but they'll simply blame someone else - probably those of us who are unsophisticated and clinging to our god, our guns and frustrating racist views.
i see no good for the country if obama were to win the slot of potus. unfortunately, i fear what will happen when he loses, as i believe he is apt to do.
what say y'all - am i the only one worrying about this stuff?
on 7 august 2008 at 16:08, tom matzzie (with others) launched a new organization called "accountable america". from its name, one might think that this was an organization aimed at holding americans, particularly those in politics and the public forum, accountable.
Welcome to Accountable America. We're working to stop the Right Wing special interest groups who are pushing lawmakers in Washington.
Accountable America works to stop the outrageous policies of right-wing and special interests in Washington especially in the areas of economic policy, energy policy, national security policy and government reform.
Our first project seeks to discourage groups and right-wing donors trying to "swiftboat" progressives. We aim to educate the public about the connections between these donors, many with unsavory business and personal stories, and lawmakers in Washington.
Accountable America is a non-partisan, non-profit corporation. We do not seek to elect or defeat candidates or endorse candidates for federal office.
Our funding comes over the Internet, from individuals and from unions and progressive political organizations.
however an article in the ny times paints quite a different picture. accountable america is an organization that is, according to leader matzzie, "going for the jugular" in its attempt to "stop the swift boating before it gets off the ground." and how do they intend to accomplish this feat? by sending letters to 10,000 gop backers threatening to expose the donors behind any ad containing an "anti-obama"message.
tom matzzie, the former washington director of moveon.org (ultra-liberal money/politics machine for those of you who have been asleep for the past several years) is the leader. his research director is none other than judd legum who previously served in the same capacity for senator clinton's ill-fated presidential campaign.
you can read the whole ny times article here if you are so inclined. in michael luo's article, the letters are described as being the "first shot accross the bow" in an effort "to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions" to conservative groups. it is their intention to alert donors who might be considering giving money to a conservative group of potential troubles including "legal trouble, public exposure and wathdog groups digging through their lives."
so far the group has raised only $200,000 of it's goal of $2,000,000 - they need this money so they can run ads "outing" the donors of the ad with an anti-obama (or democrat) message in order to counter that conservative ad. and oh yeah, before i forget, they are also offering a $100,000 award to obtain:
information that is material to either a criminal conviction for committing a felony or a misdemeanor, or a final and unappealed judicial or administrative determination of civil liability that entails the imposition of fines or penalties of at least $10,000, for a violation of federal campaign finance, tax or other statutes or regulations by an organization that operates or purports to operate under Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6) or 527 and that primarily serves business or ideologically conservative interests.
there are more disclaimers and condition; you can read the whole thing here. seems to me, what with the current story flitting around about the original oompa loompa obamaoompa campain finance woes, these guys would be a little more agressive against conservatives. i mean, how effective can matzzie's current scheme really be? after all, unlike the campaign itself, those contributing to these groups - conservative or liberal - are protected by anonimity laws...
btw, am i the only one who finds it ineteresting how many democratic presidential candidates (a least in recent years) have been accused of violating campaign finance laws. on the other foot, here are tuns of accusations by those on the left that the republicans are in the hand of certain high dollar industries, but no accusations of campaign finance laws being broken by the gop. i'm still investigating that side of things, but it is intriguing, to say the least.
one has to wonder what constitutes an ad message that is worthy of being "countered" by accountable america. would it include ads such as this one where the words come directly from obama's mouth? phforamerica bills this as "the most explosive 527 ad of the 2008 election". they may just be right - so far.
non-partisan my patootie. if it's a non-partisan organization why not go after any advertisment containing anything negative about any candidate? well, the nyt asked matzzie and they had this to say about his response:
"Mr. Matzzie said he had decided to focus exclusively on conservative donors because such an effort could be done cheaply."
call me cynical, or perhaps mjust blonde, but my take on that response is that there are just too many negative ads being offered by the liberal groups to ever be able to afford going after them. chris lacivita, a republican strategist and former swift boat organizer, was questioned in regards to accountable america and he indicated that effect on potential donors would probably be opposite of what tom matzzie’s group intended saying:
“They’re not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left."
personally, i agree with mr. lacivita. i, for one, am fired up and looking for a 527 to donate to. what say all of you?
i doubt if there is a person out there, no matter where, who hasn't heard how wonderful obama is. and even if he doesn't turn out to be the messiah that some are looking for, i'm certain he's really a very nice person. or something like that, any who.
i snagged this from gayle's place at dragon lady's den. she's a very classy texan and i'm honored to be in the same blogosphere as she. not sure how she found this compilation video, but it needs no further description.
it does, however serve as a reminder that we need to be working to defeat obama and working to elevate john mccain to status of POTUS.
listening to rush today i heard mark davis (from dallas, filling in for rush) talking about a video where obama comes right and says he's going to disarm our military. i had actually seen this video before when a link to it was sent to me at the end of february - i guess i wasn't paying real good attention at that point in time.
watching the video again, and apparently being awake for it this time, really got me thinking about everything obama says in the video. the video is actually nearly eight months old, but it's still something we shouldn't let slide by. here is the video i am speaking of:
he starts by promising to "...end misguided defense policies" and "...fight[ing] special interests in washington". what misguided defense policies? what special interests in washington? hmm, not really clear on the specifics, but he does give us the list of things he's going to do:
stop spending $9b per month in iraq; [as the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning] end the war.
cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending
cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems; not weaponize space
slow the development of future combat systems
establish "independent board" to oversee defense spending so unnecessary money isn't spent on defense
set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons
u.s. will develop no new nuclear weapons
seek a global ban on production of fissile material
negotiate with russia to remove icbms from "hair trigger alert" and achieve "deep cuts" in our nuclear arsenals
we know where he stands
fought for open, ethical and accountable government his "entire life"
doesn't switch positions
doesn't make promises that cannot be kept
doesn't posture on defense policy
doesn't take money from federal lobbyists for "powerful defense contractors"
as president his "sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the american people."
now don't you feel better?
let's examine his statements, shall we?
obama keeps claiming to be the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning, but so what? unless i'm mistaken, he wasn't a u.s. senator on 22 october 2002 when the vote pertaining to the use of force was rendered in the senate. you can verify this information here if you doubt me. additionally, according to sourcewatch, while obama was running for the u.s. senate in 2004 (although he gave a public speech against the war a few days after the vote in 2002) he told the new york times that he "was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the [u.s.] senate." how convenient thathe forgets that waffling now.
obama is going to cut the wasteful spending of defense. he's going to cut back on unproven missile defense spending, but advocate the spending of tax payers' dollars on unproven embryonic stem cell research. apparently he hasn't considered that if we abandon our defense systems - whether yet proven or not - we are not going to be able to defend ourselves. this includes obama's naivety (stupidness?) in deciding to slow our development of future combat systems and ties right into his goals about nuclear weapons.
has anyone pointed out to this chuckle head that just because we abandon defense mechanisms or slow our defense developments that the rest of the world is NOT going to follow suit? despots and dictators are not going to say "hey, the new guy at the u.s. is stepping back from being able to defend his country, so we probably ought to abandon our pursuit of weapons advanced enough to attack them."
can't you just picture ahmadinajad and kim jung il and others saying "oh, obama is reducing his nuclear arsenal and doesn't want us to have fissile materials, so we'll stop now." and can you picture putin from saying "yeah sure, barry, we'll dump some (most?) of our weapons and get rid of our hair trigger - we trust you to do the same, thanks for trusting us!"?
and his "independent" review board to ensure there is no unnecessary defense spending? just how the heck is he going to pull that one off? the only way to make it truly independent is to make certain that there are equal numbers of conservatives (not rinos) and liberals on it and to put it purely in an advisory position. but you and i both know that if the recommendation doesn't match his beliefs he won't act on it. and if his support of welfare, global health care and other items (including stem cell and abortion funding) he simply cannot be trusted with my tax dollars.
btw, i recall the common defense of the country being a constitutional item, but not medical research.
as for his final grouping, first and foremost, he has taken money from defense contractors in campaign donations - sure it's about 40% of the amount that mccain received, but nearly equal to what hillary received from the same group. big whoop. how about all the money he takes in pork for his constituents versus what mccain has taken?
in the 2008 FY obama grabbed $97.4m in pork spending for 53 projects. projects like $1.6m for the shedd aquarium in chicago. of course clinton was ranked much higher than obama's number 70 ranking, but mccain has zero projects and zero dollars in pork allocations for his constituents.
i'm also trying to figure out when, prior to running for the state senate in illinois, did obama have anything whatsoever to do with government. let alone the continuous fighting for open, ethical and accountable government he speaks of in his advertisement. we all know his infractions in judgment as to who are appropriate "friends" or "mentors". given the duplicitnous of the individuals he has surrounded himself with his entire life is there anyone out there who believes he's for open, ethical or accountable ANYTHING??
long story short, i don't want his promises - we can't afford them from a financial standpoint. from a defensive standpoint or from a moral standpoint. we can't afford anything about obama.
i'm going to preface this by saying that i have no way to prove that this was written by a real marine. i have checked snopes and they have nothing on it, but i am posting it regardless.
Message from a Recon Marine in Afghanistan
7 April 2008
It's (expletive) freezing here. I'm sitting on hard, cold dirt between rocks and shrubs at the base of the Hindu Kush mountains along the Dar 'yoi Pomir River watching a hole that leads to a tunnel that leads to a cave. Stake out, my friend, and no pizza delivery for thousands of miles. I also glance at the area around my a$$ every ten to fifteen seconds to avoid another scorpion sting. I've actually given up battling the chiggers and sand fleas, but them (expletive) scorpions give a jolt like a cattle prod. Hurts like a ba$tard. The antidote tastes like transmission fluid, but God bless the Marine Corps for the five vials of it in my pack.
The one truth the Taliban cannot escape is that, believe it or not, they are human beings, which means they have to eat food and drink water. That requires couriers and that's where an old bounty hunter like me comes in handy. I track the couriers, locate the tunnel entrances and storage facilities, type the info into the handheld, shoot the coordinates up to the satellite link that tells the air commanders where to drop the hardware, we bash some heads for a while, then I track and record the new movement. It's all about intelligence. We haven't even brought in the snipers yet. These scurrying rats have no idea what they're in for. We are but days away from cutting off supply lines and allowing the eradication to begin.
I dream of bin Laden waking up to find me standing over him with my boot on his throat as I spit a bloody ear into his face and plunge my nickel plated Bowie knife through his frontal lobe. But you know me, I'm a romantic! I've said it before and Ill say it again: This country blows, man. It's not even a country. There are no roads, there's no infrastructure, there's no government. This is an inhospitable, rockpit (expletive) ruled by eleventh century warring tribes. There are no jobs here like we know jobs. Afghanistan offers two ways for a man to support his family: join the opium trade or join the army That's it. Those are your options.
Oh, I forgot, you can also live in a refugee camp and eat plum-sweetened, crushed beetle paste and squirt mud like a goose with stomach flu if that's your idea of a party. But the smell alone of those "tent cities of the walking dead" is enough to hurl you into the poppy fields to cheerfully scrape bulbs for eighteen hours a day. And let me tell you something else. I've been living with these Tajiks and Uzbek's and Turkmen and even a couple of Pushtins for over a month and a half now and this much I can say for sure: These guys, all of 'em, are Huns.... actual, living Huns!
They LIVE to fight. It's what they do. Its ALL they do. They have no respect for anything, not for their families or for each other or for themselves. They claw at one another as a way of life. They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor. Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other's barbarism. (Expletive) cavemen with AK 47's. Then again, maybe I'm just cranky.
I'm freezing my (expletive) off on this stupid (expletive) hill because my lap warmer is running out of juice and I can't recharge it until the sun comes up in a few hours.
Oh yeah! You like to write letters, right? Do me a favor, write a letter to CNN and tell Judy and Bernie and that awful, sneering, pompous Aaron Brown to stop calling the Taliban "smart." They are not smart. I suggest CNN invest in a dictionary because the word they are looking for is "cunning."
The Taliban are cunning, like jackals and hyenas and wolverines. They are sneaky and ruthless and, when confronted, cowardly. They are hateful, malevolent parasites who create nothing and destroy everything else. Smart. Pfft. Yeah, they're real smart. They've spent their entire lives reading only one book (and not a very good one, as books go) and consider hygiene and indoor plumbing to be products of the devil. They're still figuring out how to work a Bic lighter. Talking to a Taliban warrior about improving his quality of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen; eventually he just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it. OK, enough. Snuffle will be up soon so I have to get back to my hole. Covering my tracks in the snow takes a lot of practice but I'm good at it.
Please tell my fellow Americans to turn off their TV sets and move on with their lives. The story line you are getting from CNN is utter (expletive) and designed not to deliver truth, but rather to keep you glued to the screen through the commercials. We've got this one under control. The worst thing you guys can do right now is sit around analyzing what we're doing over here because you have no idea what we' re doing and, really, you don't want to know. We are your military and we are doing what you sent us here to do.
You wanna help? Buy some (expletive) stocks, America!
i posted this message because it's important, and from the guys i've known who have been there it fits with their thinking and experiences. i believe it is also all the more timely because of whom our choices are between for the next potus.
i hope you enjoyed reading this and that you'll help to spread the message.
over the weekend i attended a send off program for the daughter of my most liberal friend. her daughter, we'll call her holly (20-year old soon to be college senior), is every bit as liberal as her mother - possibly more - and she is heading to sierra leone to work with the school sisters of notre dame on their long-standing education mission to that country. i think this is a wonderful move for her and should be very humbling in terms of what we have vs. what "they" have.
holly and i had a long conversation on monday when she came over to get a long silk/linen scarf to take for her head covering (to help keep her hair out of her face and keep her cool) and a travel pillow. i love this girl for so many reasons, but one of the things i love most about her is her ability to debate logically. one of the things that so infuriates me is her ability to take a rational point in a debate and fail to see or understand how it can and should be applied. it's the liberal thing.
in our conversation we were talking about the places i've been and her previous two trips to italy and the places we'd both like to go. somehow (i'm not sure how) the talk turned to the "plight" of immigrants here, there and everywhere. because, let's face it folks, it is NOT just the united states that is having a tough time with illegal immigrants.
anyhow, holly said something fairly profound that really got me thinking. in talking about the instability all over africa, she said "do you know anything about tanzania and how it got things mostly stabilized?" to wit i had to answer "um, no, not really." so she told me to look it up because they had done something "so amazing" to help engender a feeling of nationalism that was working on a grand scale.
for those of you who don't know a whole lot about politics and stateism in africa, suffice to say that a great deal of the strife and fighting on that continent is caused by age-old tribal rivalries. the fact is that imaginery borders were put into place and countries named and tribes were told to "you now belong to this country or that country" with told disregard of the status of relations between the various tribes being sent to this country or that country.
many of these countries were "founded" in the 1960's or even later. a majority of people in those countries don't think of themselves as somalians or sierra leonians or even tanzanians but as members of the various tribes. for instance, tanzania is made up of more than 125 tribes and each has its own language and identity. not only that, it is actually two separate countries (tanganyika and zanzibar) combined into one with a unified republican government formed by the governments of the two countries.
there is quite a bit of interesting information here if you're interested. it talks of the differences between the tribes, between women and men, the economy and just about everything else you never wanted to know about tanzania. it also mentions a few times that the national language is kiswahili (go here to learn about it); english is the language of the government and higher level jobs. apparently the "amazing" thing they did in tanzania was to establish the national language to elevate a sense of country.
what a concept, eh? so i said to holly "this is the exact reason intelligent, logical people in our country are pushing for english to recognized as the official national language of the united states." and she said? "well our situation is a bit different and we need to honor the different cultures of those who immigrate here by not forcing them to speak the language of the majority."
huh? if there is anyone out there who can make sense of that convoluted statement, please comment and explain it to me. i surely don't get it.
but the whole conversation and my subsequent reading on tanzania got me to thinking about how similiar the united states is to those african countries. we're every bit as much of potpouri in terms of our cultural make up as any of those countries - the primary differences being that our states (and country on the whole) were self formed and the majority of the people here are here because they choose to be so.
think about it. we're a melting pot. we have people here from all over the world. each comes with his or her own language and cultural identity. each is looking to do more than merely survive - seriously folks, why would someone move to a new country if they don't have any hope to do better there than in his or her country of birth?
when this country was in its formative period as colonies, it was primarily a subject of england. thus the majority of people here spoke english as their first language. as new people moved here from germany, italy, china, japan, mexico, france, spain, greece, russia and so on and so forth they arrived speaking languages that were not english. but because the majority of people spoke english and business and government were conducted in english people learned english. this was true even BEFORE we became an actual independent country.
this doesn't mean that some of them didn't continue to speak spanish or german or italian or mandarin at home, but it wasn't a language they could use in the outside world of the united states (previously american colonies). they may have kept some of the traditions from "home" but they didn't expect the rest of the population to adopt their traditions or eradicate traditions that had come into existence (or accepted) here.
today, in the united states, the majority of people still speak english as their first language. business and government is primarily conducted in english. and yet english is not our official or national language. but why not?
in our schools we teach (or attempt to teach) those whose first language isn't english in their language. officially we call it "english as a second language" (or esl), privately i call it sheer stupidity. people can't learn a language by getting a new word each day ala sesame street. people learn a language by using that language.
but here in our country the pc crowd has determined that immigrants will do better if we help them to hang on to the national identity of their former country. huh? this is just illogical and devoid of all common sense.
nearly 100 years ago, in 1919, theodore roosevelt penned these words:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
these are sage words even today. but too many think they are passe or ancient thinking or maybe it's simply that they are unapologetic in their sentiment that is good to be an american. one other thing that teddy said that sticks with me is this
"We want to make our children feel that the mere fact of being Americans makes them better off... This is not to blind us at all to our own shortcomings; we ought steadily to try to correct them; but we have absolutely no grounds to work on if we don’t have a firm and ardent Americanism at the bottom of everything."
and this statement emodies everything that is emotionally tied to being an american. we are better in that we welcome more people of more cultures and nationalities than ANY other country in the world. we recognize that there are things we need to work on and we do. we work at our weaknesses at the personal, local, national and international level. and we are, for the world's elite, the most reviled nation in the history of the world.
even the elite of the world want to come here. even they recognize the opportunity and freedom available here. so why do they want to change that?
i don't know anyone who is against all immigration into our country - i'm not saying those people don't exist, i just don't know any of them. i do believe that the media, some immigrant support groups and some of our friends on the left, are trying to portray those of us against illegal immigration as being against all immigration. but this is simply isn't the case.
i realize that it may be scary to come to a new country and leave behind all that you know and all that is familiar. but how much worse it must be to come to a new country and still try hold on to everything you knew at "home". i guess that is the primary motivation behind those who refuse to assimilate, but they are truly missing the point of coming to the united states.
people coming to this country - from anywhere else - and not becoming fluent in the language and the history of the country is a bad thing. it lessens the immigrant's chances for an excellent, successful life and it weakens the fabric of our country.
when i was halfway through this post, i found a post on this subject over at my good friend donald's place (american power) and asked if i could crosspost a portion of it here - thankfully he acquiessed. you can read his whole post here, and it's well worth the time to do so, but here are the important parts:
"The media offers up a steady diet of data about current immigration from Mexico, and much of it consists of "averages" regarding English-language skills, income, home-ownership rates, education and so forth. But while digesting these figures, it's important to keep in mind that Latino immigration is ongoing. These averages are snapshots of a moving stream and therefore of little use in measuring assimilation. To properly gauge assimilation, we need to find out how immigrants in the U.S. are faring over time. Only longitudinal studies that track individuals can provide that information.
"Just looking at averages can give you a very distorted view of who's learning English or dropping out of school or climbing out of poverty....
"The reality, however, is that the longitudinal studies show real socio-economic progress by Latinos. Progress is slower in some areas, such as the education level of adult immigrants, and faster in others, such as income and homeownership rates. But there is no doubt that both assimilation and upward mobility are occurring over time. With respect to linguistic assimilation, which is one of the more important measures because it amounts to a job skill that can increase earnings, the historical pattern is as follows: The first generation learns enough English to get by but prefers the mother tongue. The children of immigrants born here grow up in homes where they understand the mother tongue to some extent and may speak it, but they prefer English. When those children become adults, they establish homes where English is the dominant language. There's every indication that Latinos are following this pattern. According to 2005 Census data, just one-third of Latino immigrants in the country for less than a decade speak English well. But that proportion climbs to 75% for those here 30 years or more. There may be more bilingualism today among their children, but there's no evidence that Spanish is the dominant language in the second generation. The 2000 Census found that 91% of the children of immigrants, and 97% of the grandchildren, spoke English well."
donald also quotes from a u.s. news article, "mexican immigrants prove slow to fit in" which shows that the question maybe a bit more complicated than huntington purports:
In the heart of California's iconic Orange County—home to Disneyland and the bourgeois teens of MTV's Laguna Beach—is troubled Santa Ana. The county seat of 353,000, where nearly 6out of every 10 adults over age 25 lack a high school diploma, suffers from crippling poverty and an explosion in crime. In 2004, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government placed Santa Ana at the very top of its Urban Hardship Index—officially dubbing it worse off than Miami, Detroit, Cleveland, and Newark, N.J. With 76 percent of its population Hispanic, mostly Mexican immigrants, Santa Ana is the poster child for the troubles of the country's immigration policies and of Mexican immigrants in particular.
Now, a new study lays bare what sociologists and others have long argued: Mexican immigrants are assimilating to life in the United States less successfully than other immigrants. Sponsored by the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank, "Measuring Immigrant Assimilation in the United States" by Jacob Vigdor, a professor of public policy studies and economics at Duke University, introduces a novel assimilation index that uses census and other survey data to measure how similar select immigrant groups are to native-born Americans. Using such factors as intermarriage, English ability, military service, homeownership, citizenship, and earnings, Vigdor assembled a 100-point assimilation index. The closer to 100, the more assimilated an immigrant group. Overall, the report shows immigrants are weaving into the American fabric at a remarkable clip, despite arriving poorer and knowing less English than immigrants of a century ago. And they are gaining speed, with new arrivals assimilating faster than those who came more than 20 years ago. With a score of 53, Canadians are the most assimilated, followed closely by Filipinos, Cubans, and Vietnamese. The main outlier: Mexicans, with a score of 13—followed by Salvadorans.
Why Mexicans are faring so poorly in the United States is complicated, experts say. But the root of the problem is no surprise: Many Mexicans are here illegally, depriving them of rungs on the economic ladder and the opportunity to gain citizenship. "There are certain jobs or certain services you just can't get [as an illegal immigrant]," Vigdor says. "There are plenty of indications here that for those Mexican immigrants who are interested in making a more permanent attachment to the United States, their legal status puts very severe barriers in that path."
this may explain why the actual immigrant is failing at assimilation into americanization, but what of their children - even the "anchor babies" who are american citizens? what of the children of the anchor babies? thanks to the vagaries of esl, we have second and third generation americans who do not speak english fluently - in some parts of the country even naturally born americans of hispanic (primarily mexican) origin speak poor english with a spanish accent!
how do you explain this with anything other than they value their association with mexico more than with the united states? how do you see theese results and still cling to the notion that esl is the best way to educate these people?
"Mexican immigrants tend to be segregated somewhat from the rest of US society; some 42% of Hispanics lived in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in 1990 (Chiswick and Miller, 1999). This is probably because of choice; immigrants feel most comfortable living with those who speak their language and share their culture. However, in choosing to live with other Mexican immigrants, they are choosing to live with people who have, on average, relatively little education, low English language skills, and scant earning power. Thus, employers will be less likely to open businesses and stores in Mexican neighborhoods, and simply by choosing to live among other Mexican immigrants they are choosing to live in economically depressed neighborhoods. Even the best and the brightest of the Mexican immigrants may be “pulled back” towards the 'average' Mexican and may earn less than they might have had they not been Mexican."
however, further in the u.s. news article the author posits:
Indeed, in a unique multigenerational study spanning four decades, Generations of Exclusion, sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz found that many immigrants and their children had made slow progress assimilating for cultural and economic reasons. A large community means a large dating pool: Only 17 percent of third-generation Mexicans studied had married non-Hispanics. The authors found adult Mexican-Americans in the third and fourth generations lived in more segregated neighborhoods than they did as youths, largely because of the many new immigrant arrivals. Educational levels, meanwhile, lagged behind the national average. However, English ability was nearly universal, even among first-generation immigrants, which should ease the concerns of some lawmakers who want to make English the natural language. Significantly, though, 36 percent of fourth-generation Mexican-Americans studied could still speak Spanish.
i have been unable to ascertain what standard is used by the sociologists, edward telles and vilma ortiz, to determine "...english ability was nearly universal even among first- generation immigrants..." i have been unable to find any other study or author who puts forth this notion.
still further in the u.s. news article:
Perhaps most telling: Of the approximately 1,500 surveyed in two distinct immigrant communities—Los Angeles and San Antonio—most identified as "Mexican" or "Mexican-American" even into the fourth generation. It's that kind of cultural signifier that has so many white Americans concerned that this is a group not interested in becoming American.
wow - ya think?!?
donald continues in his post that as santa ana's "city's population is 76 percent Hispanic with 53 percent foreign born - the city's literally a classic microcosm of the phenomenal sub-national trends in demographic diversity giving way to ethnic homegeneous-hegemonic dominance."
but, as donald observes, should just talking about this stuff get you branded as racist?
is not my favorite. He's a political opportunist and grandstander on immigration, and his "war on the middle class" segments are unhinged on issues of economic mobility and trade. But some of his reports on immigration are indeniably accurate in detailing the problems of local commuities around the country in tackling out of control immigration .
And because of reports like these, the nihilist left-wing of the open borders operation is up in arms about the media's "
This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become a part of our society, learn the language!
The Velazquezes speak fluent English and cherish their middle-class foothold in America. Maria and Carlos each earn about $20,000 a year as a school administrator and a graveyard foreman, respectively, and they own a simple three-bedroom home. But they remain wedded to their native language and culture. Spanish is the language at home, even for their five boys, ages 6 to 18. The kids speak to each other and their friends in English flecked with "dude" and "man," but in Cicero, where 77% of the 86,000 residents are Hispanic, Spanish dominates.
The older boys snack at local taquerías when they don't eat at home, where Maria's cooking runs to dishes like chicken mole and enchiladas. The family reads and watches TV in Spanish and English. The eldest, Jesse, is a freshman at nearby Morton College and dreams of becoming a state trooper; his girlfriend is also Mexican-American. "It's important that they know where they're from, that they're connected to their roots," says Maria, who bounced between Spanish and English while speaking to BusinessWeek. She tries to take the kids to visit her parents in the tiny Mexican town of Valle de Guadalupe at least once a year. "It gives them a good base to start from."
based on the information further down in the article this is fairly typical of the mexican immigrants. it's a great article and one i highly recommend anyone concerned with the effects of unbridled/illegal immigration read.
essentially as mexican immigrants are coming into the states at an estimated 400,000 persons per year. i say estimated because we really don't know what the actual number is because of the illegals. additionally, they are reproducing at a rate of 3% per annum vs .8% by all other groups except muslims who are reproducing at a rate 5% - but that's a whole other discussion.
assimilation for mexicans and other hispanics is not really aided by the american society in general. from mandated esl classes in the public schools, to street signs to government forms (including voting ballots) to private industry "selling in spanish", we are enabling an entire segment of our society to "opt out" of being/becoming american.
america was not founded as a "nation of immigrants" but rather as a nation of freedom and independence and self-sufficiency. she (and we) have always welcomed those who yearn for freedom and want to be americans. but freedom isn't free - along with the rights afforded by our constitution, there is the duty of being a active and productive member of society.
how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you have broken the law to get here? how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if primarily honor only the traditions of the country you left to come here to better yourself - from flying the mexican flag to eating primarily mexican foods to surrounding yourself with spanish speakers from your home country? how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you don't actively seek out relationships with people outside of the hispanic community?
unless we act decisively and soon we will fulfill the words of one other thing that teddy roosevelt said:
"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of it continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
yesterday, while playing blog golf i came across this post from patrick. patrick posted a few sections of the letter from africa and it got me thinking. and searching.
for those of you who are frequent visitors you know that i have pretty much sworn off the politics of this year's presidential elections. however, i have been watching, with no small degree of amazement, the circus going on between obama and clinton.
prior to this excercise in research that i have been engaged in since patrick's post got stuck in my craw, i was decidedly AGAINST voting for john mccain as potus. however, based on the information i have unearthed, i have decided that i absolutely must change my position if it is barack hussein muhammed obama who is handed the nomination by the dnc.
i apologize, in advance, for the length of this post; but not the content. quite simply this is information that we must get out there and we need to make this post go viral. the letter mentioned above, in its entirety, is here:
Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama.
We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here.
Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence (over 350,000) and I don’t know the last count of the dead.
Obama under “friends of Obama” gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country!
December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn’t win and possibly cause a race war in America.
What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it.
Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama. Won’t that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!
God Bless you.
Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting. Takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets.
Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.
Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won’t be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I’ve tried to say in a few paragraphs.
Celeste and Loren Davis
celeste and loren davis are, indeed, missionaries serving in the kenya area. you canread about their missions here. in an email, mr. loren indicated to me that this was a personal email sent to a friend of theirs in response to some information sent to them on obama; they had no idea the information had begun to be disseminated to the world wide web.
yesterday i sent the following email to celeste and loren in attempting to verify the accuracy of the information in the posts.
recently there is a letter circulating the internet titled “a letter from africa” that is pertaining to barrack Obama and it is attributed to the two of you. is this a legitimate letter?
please advise, as if it is, I will be blogging on it in the near future…
thanks so much! and god bless you both in your endeavors.
This was a personal e-mail sent to a friend . It was in response to an email we had received regarding Obama. We did not know it would hit the worldwide web. Since it has, here is some more important information on Obama you won't find on the net.
ODM mentioned in the cartoon is the same party as Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga. Raila had the 100% backing of the Muslims and should he win would make Islam the only recognized religion in Kenya. This is an extension of the battle that is going on in Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and 9-11.
It appears Obama is using the same strategy as his cousin Raila used in America. We see the same thing happening here.
See google: Raila Odinga Barak Obama cousins, Dick Morris Raila Odinga, Muslims Back Obama
July 3, 2006 Houston Chronicle, an article was published by Jim Hoagland, a Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist who writes for the Washington Post.
The article is headlined: “THIS WORLD CAN’T TOLERATE MORE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE”
Hoagland quotes Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into UNIVERSAL, rather than RELIGIOUS-SPECIFIC VALUES. “NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME WHO BELIEVE IN THE INERRANCY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. But in a PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY, we have NO CHOICE. Politics depends on our ability to persuade ea. Other of common aims based on a common reality…AT SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, RELIGION. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMPROMISE. It’s the art of the impossible. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a DANGEROUS THING.”
Hoagland says, “Obama’s words could easily be adopted as well as guidelines for all gov’s in the Middle East and elsewhere”
the information provided gave me the places to look to find even more pertinent information. the article has a great deal of other "interesting" ideas but it seems it is no longer available at the houston chronicle unless i have an online subscription (i don't). a link to it in its entirety is here. the attachments referenced by mr. and mrs. davis are linked if you click on the title of each one above.
Kenya's defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country's post-election violence.
Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator's father, from western Kenya's Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle.
"He has called me to talk about the destabilising constitutional crisis in this country, despite being in the middle of the very busy New Hampshire primary," Mr Odinga said yesterday.
Mr Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to the Kenyan opposition leader on Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire, according to Associated Press.
and then:
Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader's claim to be a relative.
and finally:
Mr Obama's uncle, Said Obama, said that his village, Kogela, in western Kenya, had been spared the violence and expressed his excitement as his US relative led polls in New Hampshire's Democrat primaries.
"Ah, that's wonderful, but I don't want to jump just yet," Said Obama told AP.
listen to odinga making the claims with his own mouth. too bad he didn't decide to follow in the footsteps of another of his relations - check it out here - it seems that the esteemed dick cheney and obama are distant relatives.
from another story in the u.k. telegraph is this tidbit:
It is said there is a bitter joke among Kenya's Luo community that the United States of America will elect a member of their tribe as president before the East African country does.
not very funny to me. how about you?
writing for the conservative voice, michael gaynor had just a slew of interesting tidbits, a few of which are below:
"--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [gaynor's note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.
"--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.
"--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American political strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama?
"--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/
there's so much more there and i encourage all of y'all to go read the whole thing. but how about odinga and obama both being "agents of change?" stop the aclu has a great post on this very thing, too.
a quick google search on 'muslims back obama' 827,000 items were returned in less than .19 seconds. hmmm, looks like there is some readily available information out there.
items like this article from the council on american-islamic relationship's (cair) website. in highlighting a convert to islam's (julia shearson) thoughts, the article says:
CAIR is not endorsing specific candidates, but she sees the move towards Mr Obama, by the young in particular, as part of a wider awakening.
i also liked this article and all its links. this article from the canada free press also got my attention and is well worth the read; one of the most salient nuggets is:
As a fledgling Christian, Obama didn't join just any church. He joined the United Church of Christ.
The United Church of Christ is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It also sponsors speeches at its many functions by the Arab "Christian" pro-terror religious organization, Sabeel. Sabeel holds some of its biggest meetings in Chicago.
further
Is the "New Face" theory espoused in USA Today, New Face as in the "Portrait of Dorian Grey"?
What if Obama's into Pious Fraud Islam–Hudaibiyah treaty "kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off"?. Not Obama? Remember the pictures of the little kids bobbing their heads up and down at the madrassas? They are all of the age Obama would have been in back in Indonesia.
judi mcleod finishes her article with:
Meanwhile hype notwithstanding, "the new face of change and reform for the democratic party" is no Abe Lincoln, but could be the most upwardly mobile Muslim of the millennium.
debbie schlussel certainly furthers the argument that obama is a muslim or at the very least is viewed as a muslim by the muslims. the good people over at frontpagemag.com agree with her. here. here. and here. but i think this is my favorite evidence that the muslims are supporting obama's run for potus. this picture really does say it all.
folks, the evidence is overwhelming. this is NOT a smear campaign. this is fact. and if you're not motivated to vote against obama by voting for mccain, then you are being just plain stubborn. please do not take this as an all out endorsement for john mccain; in fact if obama doesn't get the democrat nomination i still probably won't vote for mccain. but if he does, i'm voting for mccain. i hope all of you will join me.
i have diligently researched every statement and link within this post. it is my intention to not only inform, but also to inflame and motivate others out there who may be where i was.
btw, angel is blogging on how the fight to stop islam invading our country is racist. check out her post and let her know you were there.
sorry for the long break - my clients are just NOT cooperative with allowing me time to blog as i would like! oh, goat, please let me know if the type is large enough for you now...
when last i wrote, we left off just prior to the last two paragraphs of section 3 article 1 of the u.s. constitution. the second to the last paragraph reads as such:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
but what does it mean???
in federalist paper #65, alexander hamilton speaks about the dangers of an elected body determining the veracity of the charges against the official. he says:
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
and then:
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
in other words, the members of the constitutional convention gave this task to the senate because the senate was not an elected body. the members' appointment by the legislature of each state meant that this body was less likely to be beholden to whims of political factions and more likely to adhere to the guidelines of the law, deeming it "sufficiently independent":
Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
recently there is an email recently circulating titled "how long does the usa have?" and it basically says that because we were founded as a democracy we are bound to commit suicide as a nation soon. i've seen other versions of it in the past, but here's the current incarnation of it:
the whole premise of this argument is flawed in that we were not founded as a democracy as this whole series is pointing out. but it is interesting in what it shows in the stats for the 2000 u.s. presidential elections.
you see, our founding fathers recognized the tinder box that could be ignited if there were a perceived (let alone actual) bias in the execution of the trial of impeachment. for this reason alone, they wanted a large number of persons deciding the fate of the accused and they did not want this to fall to the supreme court with hamilton stating that "...the supreme court would have been an improper substitute for the senate, as a court of impeachments."
the last paragraph of section 3 is as follows:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
huh?
it's like this: the founding fathers KNEW the person who had been impeached would find him (or her) self ostracized for all eternity and so did not want to officially punish the impeached more than to remove him (or her) from office. it is important to note that the impeached would still be punishable for the crime committed to be impeached and so if the judicial branch were to be involved it may prejudice the judges against the impeached.
mr. hamilton gives further explanation in federalist paper #66 and i certainly encourage all of you to read it for yourself. however, other than to quote the following from the last paragraph:
So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue.
too bad the senators responsible with the impeachment of bill clinton didn't know these thoughts...
section 4. very succinct.
essentially the state legislatures will determine the times and places for elections and appointments of senators and representatives. the u.s. congress may at some point in time make a ruling as to the regulations of the elections, but not the appointing of senators.
further, congress must meet at least once per year on the first monday in december unless they appoint a different day by law.
that's all for today's lesson. lesson four will cover sections 5-7 and will be published before week's end (sunday).
please feel free to share your thoughts and questions.
a recognized fiscal leader in congress (and from california no less!) representative campbell says he introduced this legislation to allow individuals to make voluntary donations to the federal government over their taxes due by adding a line to the IRS tax form to more easily facilitate the making of donations.
recently when her and hubby's earnings came to light, hillary said "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them." indeed.
"With friends like Mr. Burkle, clearly they didn't. But her higher tax rates wouldn't merely hit those who make $109 million; they'd soak middle-class families that make $100,000 or $200,000 a year and hardly feel "rich." If the former first lady feels so strongly that she should pay more taxes, we suggest she lay off the middle class and instead write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the difference between the Clinton and Bush tax rates. She and her husband can afford it."
this proposed act seems to be the perfect solution, then, doesn't it?
today, in review and outlook the journal seems to agree. in a small piece on the proposed legislation, they quote rep. campbell saying in regards to the likes of the clintons, babs and warren buffet (there is just NO funny name to call that guy that would be immediately recognizable) "It's a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation."
so now the libs live guilt free AND help to pay down the national debt. what a country!
the irs already accepts donations and yet last year the total take of donations was only 2.6 million dollars. apparently these people only want to pay more if the goverment tells them they have to. seems like even the leftards want to hold onto their own money rather than give it to the government.
in a press release from the council for citizens against government waste (ccagw), yesterday:
"According to a 2007 Harris Interactive survey conducted on behalf of the Tax Foundation, only 2 percent of respondents claimed the amount of federal income tax they pay is too low, compared 58 percent of respondents who said that their taxes were too high.
Citizens already have an opportunity to contribute to a fund within the Department of the Treasury to reduce the federal debt. According to the Treasury, the lowest amount sent to the government was $744,675.06 in 2004, and the most was last year, a whopping $2,624,862.42."
hey, maybe the line on the tax return that they just have to fill in will make it more enticing. i mean with the current system they have to write out a whole separate check and take it to the post office and they probably won't have a stamp and the machine will be broken (or they won't have the change) and they'll have to stand in line. sheesh! i can understand why they don't donate now, it's just not convenient enough. yeah, that's the ticket!
it would be interesting to me to see the breakdown of the donations given to the irs. my guess is the vast majority of the money does not come from uber-rich liberals.
btw, i had some great photos for this post, but typepad's being retarded and won't let me insert any pictures. meanies!
i love this guy's thought process. put your money where your mouth is, indeed.
as we learned in my previous post, in 1788 the u.s. constitution, sans the bill of rights, became the law of the land. nine of the 13 states had banded together to become the united states of america. in november of 1789 north carolina joined the union with rhode island making it complete in may of 1790.
there had been much blood, sweat and tears shed to get to this point. it was truly amazing that 13 states had VOLUNTARILY joined together to form this union. i say voluntarily because that was the intention of the founders and the federalists - you know those people who were promoting the constitution?
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."
-- James Madison (Federalist No. 39, 1788)
so just what did our ancestors in those 13 states agree to with their ratification of the constitution? let's look, shall we?
to prove the point (made by goat and jess and others) that the constitution is a support document for the declaration of independence, let's start there. in the doi, jefferson penned (and it was unamimously adopted by the delegates):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
and then in closing in the doi:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
now look at the opening (preamble) to the constiution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
there are other things in the grievances list put forth in the doi that are borne out in the constitution as well. i may or may not touch on those specifics as i go through the document. but i hope that you can see that the preamble to the u.s. constitution addresses both the opening and closing of the doi.
article 1. this article (through it's subsequent sections) sets up and organizes the legislative branch of our federal government. in fact section 1 is pretty susinct:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
nothing to question there, but what are these people going to do?!?!?
section 2 is a little more involved. it defines how the population of citizens shall be counted for purposes of manning the house of representatives as well as how "direct taxes" will be levied to the individual states. it says that the electors (those who elect) for the u.s. congress must meet the minimum requirements for voting in the state's "most numerous branch of the state legislature" - essentially leaving it up to each state what the voting requirements were even for federal elections.
as an aside, this is also where the federal population count is mandated. it is required to be done every 10 years, thus the reason it is called the "census".
it also defines the rules for a "person" becoming a representative. one must be 25 years old by the time they take office, have been a citizen for seven years and be an inhabitant (doesn't state recognized citizen) of "the state in which he shall be chosen." each state's executive will set special elections should vacancies arise outside of the normal election cycle.
additionally, the house of representatives is responsible for selecting its own speaker and other officers. additionally it is stated in the last line of this section that the house of representatives "...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
section 3 pertains to the senate. how many of you knew that u.s. senators were never intended to "run" for election? it's true:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
it was meant to balance out the contest of the directly elected members of the house and to link the states' governments to the federal government. it is explained by alexander hamiltn or james madison (we're not sure which) in federalist #62:
II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
this served to guard against democracy which is not a stable sort of government. our founders had some pretty strong views on why they chose a representative republic rather than a democracy. in federalist #10 (titled the same subject continued: the union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection) madison wrote:
...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. ...politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
this is perhaps my most favorite federalist article, combined with #9, of course. it gives a wonderful contrast and comparison between a democracy and a republic. i highly recommend that everyone read it, if not all of the federalist papers.
but i digress...
section 3 of article 1 of the constitutions says that the senators will be appointed by the states' legislature and that each term will last six years. each senator must be 30 years old and have been a u.s. citizen for at least 9 years when he takes office and he must be an inhabitant of the state for which he is elected.
there are two more paragraphs in the third section than in the second section, but oh so much more to dissect. i think we'll leave off here for today and i'll complete this section next.
and with those words justice antonin scalia opened his speech (lecture?) at the university of central missouri last night. already some 1200+ miles away (in the atlanta airport waiting for the flight that will take me to my friend in new jersey) and the wisdom he imparted is still with me...
justice scalia has long been on my 'most favorite people' list - i rank him right up there with james madison, thomas jefferson, teddy roosevelt, ronald reagan and william buckley (just to name a few). when president reagan appointed him to the federal appeals court is when scalia first popped on my radar.
i was still [mostly] in southern maryland at that point in my life and was well in tune to the happenings in d.c. long before anything [other than the presidential elections] on the national scene caught my attention. heck, it was 1982 and i hadn't even voted in a presidential election yet!
any how, back to last night. through a contact of dee's she was able to get highly unavailable tickets for herself, two personal friends of her and me. her first take on the whole evening is posted here and i'll try real hard to not rehash what she has written - or will write tomorrow - or the next day.
nearly 72 years on this earth (and nearly 50 years of marriage to the same woman) have shaped justice scalia into what he presented last night. i wonder, when he came from what most would think to be the most liberal of liberal areas (new york city) in this country, why he became known as one of the most conservative judges to make up the supremes.
there doesn't seem to be anything really 'telling' in his background that i can see. he has started life as the son of an immigrant who attended a jesuit high school in queens, went on to georgetown university, switzerland's university of fribourg, and ending his education with the magna cum laude graduation from harvard law school in the spring of 1960.
from there he went on to work as a practicing attorney in ohio and a law professor at another of the seven sisters (university of virginia) before entering public service during the nixon administration. after ford and until reagan he went back to teaching law - at the university of chicago, georgetown and stanford.
justice antonin scalia is a constitutional constructionist - or an originalist as he refers to himself. i have long maintained that one of that ilk (of which i count myself one) is neither conservative nor liberal as a matter of course and i was thrilled to hear justice scalia give voice to that same sentiment. another thing i have in common with the esteemed justice is that we are both social conservatives - i know, who would have believed that?!?!
but let's go back to the why of it, shall we?
currently EVERYONE discusses activist judges and EVERYONE believes that they are the bane of our society. only thing is, both sides have a differing viewpoint as to what and activist judge is.
those who believe in a "living constitution" think that originalists are the activist judges because they want to interpret the constitution in a fashion limited by what it says - or the dead constitution, as justice scalia called it. originalists believe that anyone who rules on constitutional issues with the idea that constitution means whatever they want it to mean today rather than on what it (and the supporting documentation for the constitution) SAYS is an activist judge.
seems to me that the latter, rather than the former, definition is more accurate. how can you be an activist if you are using the constitution as written. how can you be an activist if you're NOT trying to change anything in the constitution?!? how can you be an activist if you're not trying to legislate from the bench but rather only rule on those things that apply to the constitution (or is it to which the constitution applies?)?
during the course of his speech, scalia said that when he was coming up through the system, growing up and even before, the norm was that most everyone was a constructionist. he stated that it wasn't until the warren led supremes (1953-1969) when the tide started turning and the supremes started down the merry path of creating the living constitution. and based on what i know about u.s. history, i'd have to say that his viewpoint is an accurate one - big shocker there!!!
in talking with my friends on the left they often comment that the u.s. constitution MUST be a living document in order to make it flexible to the changes that happen as mankind evolves. i have long wrestled with an appropriate response to that argument and, thankfully, justice scalia handed one to those of us in attendance last night.
he put for the the notion that the u.s. constitution, as written, offers our citizens the MOST flexible of scenarios imaginable. further, he reminded all of us that it is the final word on what is to be the "law of the land". further, that no matter how stupid somethings are, they just aren't in the province of the constitution (he even joked that he wanted a stamp & ink pad that says "STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL").
as for being flexible he offered the following arguments:
you think abortion should be legal? then get all of your fellow state citizens to agree with you and pass a law to ensure that it's legal. don't think it should be legal and it is? convince your fellow state citizens to agree with you and repeal the law in place. same thing goes for the death penalty - the supremes have no business ruling on either of these items; i agree.
james staab wrote a great book, The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court that i recently read. it's a great read even if i'm not sure i agree with all of staab's conclusions - to me scalia is more like thomas jefferson in that he believes in social conservatism (or liberalism in jefferson's day) so long as it "doesn't contradict the words the words in the constitution."
often times, justice scalia has gone with the side that is thought of as the "liberal reading" of the constitution; he hasn't gone "liberal" he is simply acting in concert with the words of the constitution. he has angered social conservatives with some of his votes - he mentioned flag burning (he vote it was allowed under the first amendment), for the confrontation clause (under the 4th amendment) and some others, that i can't remember right now.
all in all, i sit in awe of this man who thinks so fast on his feet, but makes no decisions without considering the full weight of the constitution and the tradition and history that surround the original words. i think the most important thing he said last night (and i paraphrase here) was that it is important to remember that those who believe in the living constitution seek not only to ADD rights but in some cases to remove them as well...
the people in this country don't want to believe that we are on a precipice between dhimmitude and our freedoms. there has been an islamic jihad declared against the west in general, and especially here in america. you can find the call to this jihad in site after site after site.
so many in our society say "it's only the radical muslims who buy into this crap". really? so where are all the moderate muslims speaking out against the jihad? where are all the moderates denouncing the world-wide dhimmification of non-muslims? where are all the moderates standing up for the christians in the community? where are all the moderates denouncing the fanatics among them who are honor killing their women, who are mutilating the genitals of their daughters?
islam was born in arabia, in the two cities of mecca and medina, where the prophet Muhammad, its founder, lived between 570 and 632. it is here that muhammad received his "revelation". after he died, his predication was given its final form in the book called the koran (or qur'an). in the three centuries that followed his death, muslim theologians and jurists elaborated the corpus of islamic jurisprudence on two main pillars, the koran and the hadiths. the hadiths being the acts and sayings (sunna) attributed to muhammad. the jurists used myriad interpretative principles to establish shari'a, the islamic law, to make it conform to allah's will expressed to muhammad in the koran and the hadiths.
according to dhimmitude.org, dhimmitude can only be understood from pov of jihad because jihad is the origination of dhimmitude. apparently, the way it works is like this: if you submit without fighting the islamic jihadists, you are given "a pledge of security" and essentially you are protected from the jihad laws against the infidels:
"...the jihad laws against infidels which command killing, slavery, ransom or deportation for the enemies. Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognised only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."
yeah, yeah, we all know this. so what already. be patient! this stuff is important if we are to understand what we're up against.
all over the world, the islmaic jihadists are using our own freedoms against us to further their goal of subjugating we infidels. striking at the heart of ourselves, in the country that spawned us, the government is going after a blogger who's only crime is to have spoken the truth against what the islamists are doing to his community, his country. lionheart is currently in the u.s. and in order to avoid arrest in britain, he will be staying here awhile.
also in the u.k. authors and publishers are being sued for slander! this includes authors and publishers in the states if someone happens to be able to buy a copy of the publication and have it shipped to them in a foreign nation. and our courts are upholding the preposterous notion that the u.k. has jurisdiction over this matter. this is madness!
cair, that [supposedly] moderate islamic rights organization is an unindicted co-conspirator in the hamas funding trial. and still the current administration (and its accomplices in congress) treat cair as if they have some legitimate function in realizing peace between muslims and infidels.
now we have come to a point in this election cycle where we, the [supposed] conservatives, basically have a choice between a clinton-lite candidate and a wanna be reagan candidate. of course, we could also decide to vote for an actual clinton, or a former muslim. while i'm not wholly fond of any of my remaining choices, mitt seems to stink least of the options and i'm [sort of] supporting him. i will be voting for him on tuesday in lieu of forfeiting my right to bitch about the choice i have come november.
we are in a fight for our country, our liberties, our very way of life. the liberals around us call for greater and greater capitulation to the forces around us: amnesty for illegal aliens, appeasing the terrorists (and potential terrorists), u.n. control of the earth's seas, "free" healthcare for everyone, closing gitmo so as not to offend any more muslims and/or sensitive socialists, surrendering of our ability to defend ourselves, destroying our economy to appease the global warming wanks, the expansion of abortion on demand, the appointment of activist judges, and the list goes on (and on and on and on...)
of those items above, how do those things fall in line with the actions, words and history of our two remaining candidates? this pdf (Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf) gives you a pretty good idea - please feel free to distribute it to all whom you know. it appears there isn't much difference between the two of them, there is enough difference to make mccain squarely out of touch with who we are and where we should be heading.
but, although the differences are not huge, i find myself compelled to vote for romney come super tuesday. a few of the reasons: He did not actively campaign against republicans and republican positions - i also like that he has not given voice to a lot of kowtowing to islamists. not much i know, but this has come down to an election cycle of degrees.
maybe mitt will appoint constitutional constructionists. maybe john boy will support the people's right to bear arms. who knows. right now, i trust mitt more if for no other reason then he has a shorter history of screwing his constituents.
i believe he will keep gitmo open and allow "enhanced interrogation techniques" that will keep us and our servicemen and women in harm's way safer. i also think, because of this commitment, he will be less likely to bend over and give away our freedoms to the islamo-fascists then mr. mccain.
however, as i told goat tonight - it is my most sincere hope that the "republicans" lose this time around. maybe next time we'll be able to elect a grown up...
UPDATE: people across the conservative spectrum are coming out of the woodworks to denounce mccain. check out these links:
we should note that mccain finished up the 4th quarter 2007 with $4.5m in campaign debt and a total number of donors somewhere around 110,000. this is a train that can be stopped as it's not moving too quickly - regardless of what the lsm is trying to tell us.
mccain is NOT potus yet and there is nothing saying he has to be so. so climb on board and start pulling the emergency brakes to derail this thing. as defiant infidel has rightly noted, we did it with harriet miers, we did it with shamnesty and we can do it again. we must.
one more thing i have trackedback this article to angel's weekend post that ties right into this one. i heartily recommend you pop over and give her a read!
tuesday, fred at right wing nut house proposed that those of us who support fred make a concerted effort to help raise funds for fred's campaign in iowa. you can read the whole post, above, but in part he said:
don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.
then, today, i received this email from fred's campaign - seems like fred was prescient...
The first leg of our Iowa bus tour last week was phenomenal. We visited with voters in 21 cities and towns and did 21 events all across the state. Everywhere we went we were greeted by enthusiastic crowds of Iowans who are looking for a consistent conservative leader who will tell it like it is.
It's working: Just last Friday a new Strategic Vision poll showed me moving into a strong third at 16%.
We are poised for the great showing we want!
Just last week I picked u p the endorsement of Congressman Steve King. He has been a champion in the fight to end illegal immigration, and I am pleased that he has joined our team. He's been with me on the bus and the great reception we've received on the tour has really put a jolt into this race.
This is where you come in.
I have a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.
I need your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.
Can you help me by making a contribution today? I know I've asked a lot, and you've done a lot, but this is critical to our success. Help me make history.
The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down bus tour will run from today to caucus day. We have a terrific ground game in place.
All we need is air cover--which the spot on our website will provide.
This ad will help me let the people of Iowa know that my plans for this country are the best that have been presented. It will help me make the case that not only am I the only reliable, consistent conservative in this race, but that I have the experience and the vision to lead our Party and our nation through difficult times.
if any of you out there like fred but are waiting to see what happens in the primaries, you're waiting too long. support him now so that he has a strong showing in iowa and he will be the nominee for the gop.
so this is my effort for the cause. i gave today and i will give again tomorrow. who among you will join me?
my good friend, defiant infidel, put this up the other day and i haven't been able to stop thinking about it ever since.
john stossel is great; he's a true anomaly at abc. i don't always agree with him, but more often than not the point of view presented is mainstream american and not loonietoons leftist. and he always gives some insite into the other side and that's really where i'm going with this post.
the bill of rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the u.s. constitution, grants rights to individuals and excplicitly limits the powers of the federal government. the second amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
it's pretty clear cut and we've all heard it before. those who advocate for "gun control" - better called "second amendment nullification" - posit that our founding fathers didn't really mean what they wrote. or maybe that because guns are "bigger and better" now, we need to limit ownership and perhaps manufacturing or something else they'll come up with later.
there are myriad shades of gray in the arguments for 2nd amendment nullification, and every one of them that i've heard is way convoluted. seems like the argument is always something like "well yes, it does say 'shall not be infringed' but i'm not proposing that we put fringe on the guns before they're sold - only after. it is of course what we need to do to reduce crime and make us all safer." um, i don't think so.
trust me, i am all for a reduction of crime and making us all safer. however, making me register my firearms, or telling me what kind of gun or how many guns i can purchase is altogether the wrong way of accomplishing the stated goal.
registering a firearm only makes easier to target gun owners - whether the goal is harrassment or confiscation, the result is the same: my right has been infringed. one of my favorite wisemen, walter williams, said
“For individual freedom to be viable, it must be a part of the shared values of a society and there must be an institutional framework to preserve it against encroachments by majoritarian or government will.”
and that's the crux of
things, as i see it. the lame stream media keeps putting forth the myth that gun control makes us safer. that criminals wouldn't see a 'need' for guns if the citizens weren't allowed to own them. that criminals are simply getting guns IN CASE whomever they're after has one. and so the lemmings who read and believe (make that nearly everyon in at least this country) the lame stream media, think that we need greater and greater assults on the 2nd amendment to protect us. yeah, sure.
it's a trite statement and basically just an updated version of what thomas jefferson said, but seriously folks - if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. i myself have even posited on the slope we are barreling down with all these assults on the 2nd amendment:
"you know it occurs to me that if we are to believe in the church of evolution and survival of the species is dependent upon survival of the fittest - think of who the fittest are in our society. by government diktat, the fittest are the thugs and criminals."
about three years ago, the national academy of sciences released a 328-page report that is referenced in the video above. unfortunately, when the results of their study didn't pan out as the majority of the panel had hoped, they simply said the subject needs further study. what the study ACTUALLY revealed is that 2nd amendment nullification laws, which are [by default] levied against law abiding citizens, are not capable of reducing crime. world net daily wrote a great article on it and
there are several links in there to follow through, as well. to me, the most pertinent paragraph in the article is this:
The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.
kind of telling isn't it?
read the study for yourself - if you can stand the dry, boring nature of the thing. otherwise, do some studying here. i haven't quite figured out who's who on this site, but it's a great one for information on what the policies and laws have actually done for [to?] this country.
i am of the opinion that the good people of kennesaw, georgia have it figured out. i agree that all households should have at least one gun. and not one that's locked up - how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have to unlock the darn gun, first?!? "uh, please wait right there mr. robber while i go get my gun out of its lockbox." sure, that'll work. "but, heidianne, what about the safety of our children and ourselves?" easy peasy, jimbob - teach your child to have respect for and knowledge of the firearms in your house. that's what my parents did. that's what i did. a child should KNOW what a gun can do (like knowing the stove is hot and the knife is sharp); they should know it's a tool and a weapon and they should know how to use as soon as they are able to grasp the safety issues. 'nuff said.
and finally, just because i like the story, there is this from mark steyn:
"I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a
better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish... it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world."
everyone keeps saying that rudy giuliani is the inevitable winner of the 2008 rnc nomination. why? because "he can beat hillary?" i disagree. he's not inspiring in real life, but he sure does great in the soundbites! let's examine the real mr. giuliani a bit, shall we?
some are pointing to the fact that he's been married more than twice as an issue. that's just fluff - actually, i think the msm is saying that the marriage thing is an issue for conservatives because they assume it is and they found a couple of people to agree so we all must think so too.
no, i'm more concerned about the things he did as mayor giuliani than as mr. giuliani. i'm also concerned with what he is saying now to try to change who he has been - and i believe that we all need to be so.
in a recent column, pat buchanan posits that rudy is "...represents a return to liberal Republicanism that would strip the GOP of its hard-won progress on moral, social and cultural issues..." he further says:
A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.
i believe this to be dead on accurate. this video says so much about him while rudy's have a grand ol' time:
so after a public lifetime of being pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, etc. and being in march after march in the gay rights parade in new york, we are now to believe that he's a conservative? sorry, i'm not buying it.
"...the smart money has long suggested that Giuliani is incapable of winning the Republican nomination for the presidency because of his hideous positions on homosexuality and abortion. But it appears Giuliani is aware of this weakness and is attempting to hoodwink American evangelicals the way Bill Clinton did.
As Andrew Sullivan put it, "If Rudy is talking Jesus, he's going to run."
And, boy, is he ever talking the talk.
Rudy Giuliani in drag
Now, before I tell you what he said, and to whom he said it, let me first introduce to you the real Rudy Giuliani.
Is America really ready for a drag-queen president?
Can America survive another obnoxious phony baloney masquerading as one thing and governing as another?
Will Republicans be fooled again and nominate a candidate who favors unrestricted abortion on demand?
Should we expect the Grand Old Party to become the Gay Old Party in 2008 and put its stamp of approval on a guy 100 percent committed to the homosexual activist agenda?
and look where we are with rudy.
for instance, with rudy giuliani we get the same view on abortion that president clinton had (and will have): personally against it, but believes a woman has a right to choose. and then he says he supports constitutional constructionists for judges. forgive my blondness, but aren't these two viewpoints just a tad contradictory?
it would be different if he said "i personally am opposed to abortion, and i believe that with a court comprised of constitutional constructionists roe v. wade would be overturned and the rule on abortion would be handed back to the states (where it belongs) and then i would fight at the state level to protect a woman's right to choose." but that's not what he has said. at least i have been unable to find any thing to indicate that this is what he believes.
the people over at the jewish task force break it down even further, calling rudy the 2008 election disaster. much of the article is no longer timely (john mc cain and condoleeza are both mentioned as possible winners) but the information on rudy is still valid, if a trifle harsh... in the article (that was originally published in 2005) they say:
Giuliani is completely pro-abortion, and even supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.
But that is just the beginning of his extreme left-wing positions: Giuliani is pro-Sodomite, pro-Third World immigration and anti-Second Amendment.
Every year as New York's mayor, Giuliani marched in the Sodomite parade down Fifth Avenue with all of the transvestites, the sadomasochistic freaks wearing Nazi helmets, and the child molesters of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Giuliani himself dressed in "drag" - he wore a dress, a wig, makeup and lipstick - on more than one occasion.
Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton.
Giuliani married his first cousin and then pulled all types of strings to get the marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. (Catholics are not allowed to divorce, and so "annulment" of a marriage is sometimes used to end an unwanted union.)
Giuliani then married his second wife, Donna Hanover, who starred in the evil pornographic and child-molesting play, The Vagina Monologues. In the play, a grown woman has a lesbian, child-molesting relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
An uncaring mother and a cheating husband made for tabloid fodder during the messy Giuliani-Hanover divorce - Television personality Donna Hanover starred in The Vagina Monologues, a play about lesbian pedophilia, and played Jimmy Carter's sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, in The People vs. Larry Flynt, a loving cinematic tribute to the infamous porn king, depicted in the film as a “free speech” crusader
Giuliani then openly cheated on his second wife, parading around the city with his adulterous mate, Judith Nathan. Giuliani even wanted to bring his adulterous mate into the Mayor's official residence in Gracie Mansion to openly live with him. He did not care that his young son Andrew was living there and would have seen his father together with his adulterous partner every day.
Finally, Giuliani sought to divorce his second wife. This time, he did not seek an "annulment," he openly sought a divorce.
When the Giuliani's separated, he moved into the apartment of an AIDS-infected homosexual "couple" whom he had befriended.
How can Republicans who so bitterly condemned the terrible moral example set by Bill Clinton now support for President the equally slimy Rudy Giuliani?
back in june william burnett references a piece in the village voice denouncing rudy's catholicness. in so far as i could care less what religion potus is (provided it's not islam or the like) this does have some implications. if he's not really catholic, based on his actions and his life, then how can we expect him to behave in a conservative manner at any level? any way, in the burnett piece he says:
On abortion, the article goes point-by-point in Giuliani's public career to demonstrate a man embracing the so-called right to abortion much more than politically necessary to get elected into office. In fact, as a matter of policy, Giuliani continued Mayor Ed Koch's practice of having the city fund abortions at city hospitals for women who could not afford it -- no questions asked. According to the article...
One of [Giuliani's] prime claims to the presidency, emphasized on the stump, is his slashing of the city's welfare rolls. But even as he found brutal new ways to cut the poor off the dole, he was using millions in city funds to subsidize abortions for women whose incomes were too high to meet [Federal subsidy] eligibility standards.
this does not sound like a man who is "personally against abortion" to me. does it to you?
possibly more informative is this information from john hawkins over at human events. he lays it out so well, i can't think any more should be necessary as a reason to vote against this guy in the primaries. mr. hawkins posits that rudy is not really against gay marriages, is anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, and he is pro-illegal immigration. in fact mr. hawkins says:
If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.
there is more, but it goes on and on and on. none of it good. call him charismatic. call him personable. call him a great salesman. just don't call him a conservative, because he isn't.
personally, i think that rudy was very positive and public in the aftermath of 9/11. however, i also recognize that 9/11 saved rudy politically. does this make him a good fit to be potus? i don't think so. but make no mistake: IF rudy gets the nomination (because a lot of people are too idiotic to vote for an actual conservative) i will support his bid for the presidency. i just don't want it to come down to that....
so i turned on my blackjack this morning and began checking my email. this letter was emailed to me from the 'center for individual freedom' - www.cfif.org and it ties in with a previous post of mine. when i published that original post on 17 october 2007, the senate foreign relations committee had not yet voted to present the law of [the] sea treaty - LOST - to the greater senate. now they have.
last week the senate foreign relations committee voted 17-4 to send the all-encompassing international treaty that controls every aspect of maritime law on the high seas - from ocean shipping to deep-sea mining to military maneuvers - to the full senate. it requires a 2/3s affirmation by the senate to ratify the treaty. this means that we need 34 votes to block the ratification.
it is imperative that we block this ratification. call your senators. use this link to join a blastfax campaign to voice your concerns. if this treaty is ratified, it becomes law for us here in the u.s. and at that point our sovereignty is gone forever.
in the wall street journal online, today, they ran this article titled 'arctic thaw defrosts a sea treaty' and it has some interesting information. it appears that the author of the article is for us ratifying this treaty, but for the life of me i cannot understand why. but since i can't understand why anyone, in our country, would want us to hand over such a large chunk of our sovereignty, that's really no surprise, is it?
i love how the msm is spinning this thing to make it sound like it's a no brainer that we should ratify it. for instance, the article says:
Oil and mining companies support the treaty because it could grant the U.S. access to an additional 291,000 square miles of seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, North Atlantic, Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. Recent estimates suggest more than 400 billion barrels of oil and gas could be located in the Arctic, along with deep-sea deposits of precious metals.
Taxes are another point of contention. Companies must pay 1% of revenue to an international body on any resources extracted beyond the 200-mile limit after five years of production, with rates rising by 1% annually to a maximum of 7%. Critics object to such payments.
what he isn't telling you is that the u.n. has formed the "international seabed authority (ISA)" which appears to be an organization designed to shake-down united states' mining and maritime companies. the isa requires that companies pay a $500,000 (yes 500k) application fee to gain permission to operate on the ocean. additionally there is an annual fee of $1,000,000 per company - call it a license fee, i guess. and mr. timiraos forgot to mention the companies will be required to share their mining and navigational technology with the ISA and other treaty signatores.
there is so much more in the article and so many more things that he leaves out of his article. we simply MUST stop this treaty from being ratified.
president bush says "Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States. …And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." big deal. we will have one vote against myriad votes against us. yeah, that will be helpful.
please take the time to act on this today. please cross post this to help spread the word.
if you are of a different opinion on this, i'd love to hear it. if you're in agreement, i'd love to know that too. thanks!
also, take a visit at angel's place and read her latest, http://www.womanhonorthyself.com/?p=4418, there is always something great going on there and this open-trackback of hers always has some wonderful links for a good read!
this book has, apparently, been out since 2006, but somehow i have just learned about this today. according to the website hawking this book:
"Why Mommy is a Democrat brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others. It's a great way for parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party.
Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children's book, but it definitely isn't just for children. With numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican party, Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!
first of all, who knew the democrats had principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others? second of all, how can you take satirical swipes, subtle or otherwise, using non-judgmental language?
let's examine these things shall we? in her post on monday, angel pointed out "One man’s 'hate speech' is another man’s Truth." generally speaking, anything a conservative says that a liberal disagrees with is "hate speech". conversely, anything a liberal says, no matter how ridiculous, illogical or hateful, is "truth". got it? so, if i, as a conservative, cannot say anything you, as a democrat, disagree with then for whom is there fairness?
when i look at the democrat party, i see that there is tolerance for illegal aliens. tolerance for islamists, regardless of how "radical". i see bashing of our men and women in arms - whether currently standing in harm's way or not. i see denial of the rights of christians. i see the bashing of conservatives. i see the embracing of homosexuals so long as they are not republicans. i see the promotion of children so long as those children are not espousing anything that is conservative in nature - otherwise the poor child is just mislead or ignorant.
i fail to see how this qualifies democrats as "tolerant". it is simply group think, which is very close to mob rules, to embrace everything that mirrors your beliefs while bashing and dismissing anyone who does not.nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch" just so the dems have right to say idiotic things promotes peace. or how bypassing the president to meet with the syrian president (and other leaders in the middle east) promotes peace. or how teaching our children that the war of northern aggression was about slavery and that we owe reparations forever more to all "persons of color" promotes peace. or tolerance. or fairness.
i also fail to understand how promoting tolerance towards people who want to kill us promotes peace. or how denigrating the people willing to stand on that ground and say "
as for "concern for the well-being of others" they can stuff it. government simply has no business taking care of me or mine. especially my children. or yours. ever notice that when it comes to abortion a "woman's right to choose" is sacrosanct, but once she's decided to keep the kid all choices must be sanctioned by the government?!? ever notice, as i have, that the majority of people who are vegetarians because of the idea of "cruelty to animals" is pro abortion? ever notice that, in democrat speak, concern for others only exists in so far as it can garner them votes?
it is my experience that democrats are none of these things. that democrats have only one goal and that is to establish a socialist utopia here in our country. well no thank you.
btw, did you happen to notice what the momma squirrel is protecting her young from? anyone else ever had the thought that democrats must wish that their party animal to be a mouse instead of a donkey?
according to the website hawking this book:
