Calvin Explains The Economy

Hey! Obama! Where's my bailout!?!

History Quiz

Question: What do Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, John Kennedy and Barrack Obama have in common?

Answer: Nothing ... YET!

Obama's Foreign Policy Training Film

Obama's Foreign Policy Training Film has been leaked out on the web.

Where's my bail out?

I find it kinda amazing that the dims want these bailouts for the top money making companies, saying that with out this money the whole economy will fail further more proving that money at the top trickles down!

hmmm, what a concept lol

Obama's 1st two broken promises

The honeymoon is certainly not yet over between the Old Media and Barack Obama. It never really ended for Clinton, so one can easily imagine it won't for Obama. But whatever happens in the future, they are still in love with him now. I can say that because Obama has already broken two promises and the media isn't too interested in talking about it. Two promises broken before he even sets his first foot in the White House.

The first broken promise was the one where the candidate of "change" was going to bring a new tone to Washington. This one has been broken by Obama's choice for Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel. Representative Emanuel (D- Illinois) is a hard-core, far left, liberal as well as being an old Clinton hack. Not only that, but Emanuel is not a "new tone" kind of guy but is a Pit bull of epic proportions. The parallel would have been McCain claiming a new tone but picking Karl Rove as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel is little different than Terry MCauliffe or Howard Dean in his vehement and vocal attacks on Republicans. So much for the "new tone" Obama claimed he wanted to foster.

And, let us not forget that the candidate of "change" picked Joe Biden as his vice president. Biden is one of the least respected, old timey Senators in Congress with 34 years in office. Not much "change" there, either.

And now comes his second broken promise. Politico reported on November 5 [1] that Barack Obama has stepped back from his claim that lobbyists would not have a place in his new administration.

Despite campaign trail promises that special interests wouldn’t be a part of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama’s has sent signals to the lobbyists that they can get jobs with him.

...the overall message to the lobbying community appears to run counter to the Democratic senator’s campaign promise to keep special interest advocates at arms length.


Once again, the "new" Washington that Barack Obama sold to a willing electorate is quickly turning into the same old Washington that Obama claimed he wanted to "change."

And, folks, can we take just a moment to remember that he has only been president elect for four days! In four days he's already stepped back from the supposedly monumental "change" he kept warbling on about since 2004. Four years of talking about "change" hasn't even given us four days to enjoy it before it all starts to become business as usual.

Tell me, does THIS sound like "change"...

"The rush is on," he said. "There are thousands and thousands of people (lobbyists) who are desperate for these jobs."


So far, after only four measly days, the names have changed but the story remains the same

Nobama Blog Burst 10/28/2008

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

Participants: 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; Praesidium Respublicae; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH

Why it doesn't pay to offend REDNECKS!

Kmart filed bankruptcy, Rosie went off the air and Rep John Murtha is going to lose his re-election bid ... all because they offened REDNECKS.

Rep. John Murtha, who recently called constituents in his western Pennsylvania town "racist" because Barack Obama may not win big there, is 4 points ahead of his Republican challenger, retired Army Lt. Col. William Russell, within the Susquehanna Poll's 4.9-point margin of error.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ordered the poll of 400 likely voters on Tuesday as discussion centered on Murtha's comments. The 18-term Democratic congressman apologized for his initial statement by saying he meant only that skin color will be a factor in the race between Obama and John McCain. Murtha later said many Western Pennsylvanians were "rednecks" until recent years.

Russell, who served in Iraq, is the first challenger to give Murtha a run for his money in years. His campaign told the newspaper it was buoyed by another statistic in the poll -- the 54 percent of voters who said it's time someone else represented them in Congress. Thirty-five percent say Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, should be re-elected.

The poll comes as internal polling leaked from the Obama camp showed the Democratic candidate only 2 points ahead of McCain in the Keystone State, suggesting the race is much closer than the Quinnipiac poll out Thursday that shows Obama with a 13-point lead in the state.

Pennsylvania voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 election, but is seen as one of the few blue states that could swing red this year. McCain has spent considerable time in the state.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a McCain supporter, said a lot of eyes are on Pennsylvania because of comments like Murtha's, as well as Obama's remarks about spreading the wealth and redistributing income as a means to prosperity.

"That really riles people up and they are citing that everywhere and they are upset about it," Brownback said of Murtha's remarks. "The politicians say, 'This is what I think about you folks here,' and they don't like it and they are fired up about it, and they're getting involved."

Nobama Blog Burst 10/21/2008

An Enigma Named Barack
by L. A. Sunset

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.

Participants: 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

10/14/2008 Blog Burst Nobama '08

OBAMA/BIDEN ECONOMIC PLAN A FRAUD

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.

Participants: 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

Blog Burst NOBAMA '08

Blog Burst 10/7/08

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 should admit 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 Thinker illustrates 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.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Long Range; Learn Something Today; 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

Pelosi once again show she's corrupt

Two Faced BitcHouse Speaker Pelosi Used Political Donations to Pay Husband's Firm

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband's real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the "culture of corruption" when Republicans did it.

The Washington Times is reporting that the California Democrat's husband, Paul F. Pelosi, owns Financial Leasing Services Inc., which has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC's nine-year history.

Last year, Pelosi supported a bill that would have banned members of Congress from putting spouses on their campaign staffs. The bill banned not only direct payments by congressional campaign committees and PACs to spouses for services including consulting and furndraising, but also "indirect compensation," such as payments to companies that employ spouses.

The bill passed the House in a voice vote but died in a Senate committee.

Last week, Pelosi's office defended the payments, saying "Do as I say not as I do." and "You are a sexist for pointing out that she has no ethics."

Ethical watchdogs called Pelosi's arrangement "problematic."


Click here to read the entire story.

The DNC in a nutshell

Biden's latest gaf in his ever increasing series of gafs

Set the Way-back Machine for 1929 ...



In today's Episode of the "Peabody's Improbable History" Professor Peabody will be paid by Joe "Gaf Machine" Biden and his pet boy Sherman will be played by Barrack Hussein Obama. (Ok so that's a atrocious pun and it's meant in the spirit of the shockingly tasteless puns that each of the 91 original episodes.)

Barack Obama’s Washington insider running mate, Joe "Gaf Machine" Biden said “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,”‘



Vice presidential candidate Joe "Gaf Machine" Biden thinks today’s leaders should take a lesson from the history books and follow fellow Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to a financial crisis.

OK, as a student of history, Biden had me confused and thinking maybe my 5th grade US History teacher had made some mistakes but I reminded myself this is the running mate of the man that thinks we have "57 states" plus Alaska and Hawaii and one other. It's Obvious which "leaders" need to do some remedial studies when it comes to history.

In case you are not convinced I will spell it out for you. Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark, where by his own later description he was a lazy student. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in history and political science in 1965, ranked 506th of 688 in his class. (In the Bottom 25% of his class) He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968,] where by his own description he again underperformed and ranked 76th of 85 students. (in the Bottom 15% of his class). During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.



Although, I am sure Biden's words made for good TV and the Democrats ate up his pandering. It, like most of Obama's Speeches and ads, was full of factual errors and mis-statements’. (Down South we call those things lies.)

The problem is, Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929 not FDR. AND There also was no television at the time; TV wasn’t introduced to the public until a decade later, at the 1939 World’s Fair.

FDR was elected three years later when voters denied Hoover a second term. The FDR appealed to the “forgotten man” by promising a “new deal” to solve the Depression era.

So, I guess we can assume that either Joe Biden does not know History, or has some how invented his own Way-Back Machine and is going to change things.


Either way, I can't wait to see Palin mop the floors with Biden in the VP debate and use his words against him. "Part of what a leader does is instill confidence and demonstrate that he or she knows what he is talking about and communicates with people that 'if you listen to me and do what I'm saying we can fix this." Then in the very next breath he proves that he doesn't know what the flux he is talking about. Classic Mr Peabody …err… I meant Biden.

Biden isn't patriotic

Wow...I guess Biden isn't patriotic...

Well that is exactly what Joe Biden said: "lets be patriotic and give money to those less fortunate." How dare him! Isn't charity the same thing; giving to the less fortunate. Very patriotic giving to those with less. Well here are the figures of charitable contributions from the Bidens's as reported on his last 10 tax returns about his charitable givings. Are you serious!! What a lame ass excuse for human being.

THE BIDENS CHARITABLE GIVINGS

Adjusted
Gross Income Charity
1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995
Total
$2,450,042 $3,690

So, what is a billion anyway?

This is too true to be funny!!

The next time you hear a democrat use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want that idiot spending YOUR tax money.


One billion (1,000,000,000)is a difficult number to comprehend,

So think on this for a minute.


1. One Billion grains of rice weighs 55,250 pounds. (That’s as much as a dozen adult elephants.)

2. One Billion inches equals 15,782.83 miles. (If you drove for One Billion inches how far would you have to travel? Well … if you were to drive from LA to New York and back twice, then drove from LA to Daytona Beach, FL where you drove two full Daytona 500’s then drove to from Daytona to St Louis you would still have to drive about 260 miles to equal One Billion inches.)

3. Stack of One Billion one dollar bills laid one on top of the other would be about 67.9 miles high and would weigh 450,000 pounds.


4. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.


5. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.


6. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.


7. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.


8. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.


While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (Democrat), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans.

Interesting number, what does it mean?

A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.

B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.


C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.


Washington, D.C .. HELLO!!! ... Are all your calculators broken?!?

We rebelled agaist England over a 0.026% tax on tea.


Now we have:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Perm it Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax,
Medicare Tax,
Property Tax,
Real Estate Tax,
Service charge taxes,
Social Security Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes,
Recreational Vehicle Tax,
School Tax,
State Income Tax,
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax,
Telephone Federal, State and Local Su rcharge Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Su rcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
Utility Tax,
Vehicle License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,
Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax.


STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.


We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.


What the heck happened?

This is what happened. Can you say “Tax and Spend” … can you say “Democrats!' can you say it together “Tax and Spend, Democrats!” Yes that’s right I fully blame “Tax and Spend” Democrats for bankrupting the USA under the guise of social reform.


And I still have to 'press1' for English.


I hope this post goes around the USA at least ONE BILLION times

Why I cling to my guns and religion

(Note to my dim-witted Democrat friends just skip to the last two paragraphs otherwise I'll just confuse you with facts,)

I guess we all remember Barack Hussein Obama, Jr's infamous statement "it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I have few problems with his statement. One is because it is a general statement that has no qualifying words to modify it to make it true. The word 'some' thrown in would have cut the fuse of the bomb it has become for Barack. Do we need a president that makes errors as simple as this?

Some of my Democrat friends have problems with anyone that believes in any form of higher power. So, I will not get in a debate over the merits of praying to Jesus vice "Fred the lettuce Head" from that old "What's Happening" episode, or how belief in God is as "crazy" as believing in the Keebler Elves. Instead I will simple state that the people of faith I know don't "cling to" religion because they're bitter.

So what about clinging to guns?

Well here are some facts:

All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state (same as here in the USofA.)

The minimum age for ownership is 25. (Varies by state here in the USofA.)

In Brazil it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside your house.( Varies by State here in the USofA.)

The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be around 17 million with 9 million of those being unregistered. Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries in Brazil. In 2004, that number was 36,000.

Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and far more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths per year on average. Some sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.

Clashes with police killed a record 1,260 civilians in Rio de Janeiro state last year — nearly the same number of all people murdered in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles combined in 2007. The Brazilian tally was in fact likely higher: a third of precincts lacked computers to report any murders.

Brazilian police carried out a "significant proportion" of the 48,000 murders that swept Brazil last year, according to a U.N. report released Monday, casting doubt on the government's ability to curtail drug violence and reign in vigilante militias.

The report by U.N. special envoy on extra-judicial killings Philip Alston said police murder three people a day on average in Rio de Janeiro, making them responsible for one in five killings in the city, which is plagued by drug-gang violence and roving militias of off-duty police.

Why do I bring up this comparison of Brazil and the USofA?

Because, people should not be afraid of their government. Instead the government should be afraid of it's people.

Here is a quote from Adolf Hitler, 1935. "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."

What did the founding fathers of the USofA have to say about gun control?

Patrick Henry said "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

James Madison said "Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms."

Thomas Paine said "...Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace."

Noah Webster said "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." -

George Mason said "I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..."

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER THIS...

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, you really should find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been over a since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%.

In Australia’s state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%! Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives, protect children and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. For proof, see Mexico. It's illegal for anyone but the cops to have guns in Mexico. Yet, Mexico's murder rate is almost 5 times as high as the USofA's (25 per 100,000 Mexico vice 5.7 per 100,000 USofA.)

My point?

(Nice of my Democrat friends to rejoin me.)

Basically, I cling to my guns because my second amendment right is the only thing that guarantees me all the other rights our Constitution offers me.

So, why do I cling to my religion? Because my belief in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, His message of love and forgiveness, the power of prayer and the Sixth Commandment (You shall not kill) are the only things that keep me from using my Second Amendment Right to force my beliefs and my ideas for making this country a better place on others.

Words Matter?

Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama

Credit goes to Jeff Emanuel, (original author) at Redstate. com for this work.


Sarah Palin


Barack Obama


Office being sought

Vice President

President of the United States and Leader of the Free World


Full name

Sarah Louise Heath Palin

Barack Hussein Obama II


Nickname

Sarah Barracuda

Barry Obama; "The One"


Public opinion

Smoking hot in a "naughty librarian" sort of way

May be The Messiah


Age

44

48


Children

5: two sons, three daughters

2: two daughters


Religion/Church attendance

Evangelical Christian;attends Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau and grew up attending Wasilla Assembly of God

Attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, a "black liberation theology" church formerly led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and governed according to the Black Value System


Current Job

Governor of Alaska

Junior Senator from Illinois


Previous Public Jobs

Mayor of Wasilla , AK (1996-2002); President of Alaska Conference of Mayors;City Council member (1992-1996)

State Senator (1997-2004);Community Organizer


Executive Experience

Governor for 2 years;Mayor for 10 years

None


Foreign Relations experience

Governor of state that borders two foreign countries ( Canada and Russia )

Chaired Senate subcommittee on Europe but never called it into session;once gave a speech to 200,000 screaming Germans


Military Affairs experience

Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard;Son is enlisted Infantryman in U.S. Army

None


Private Sector Experience

Sports reporter;Salmon fisherman

Associate at civil rights law firm


Speaking ability

Beautifully executed initial stump speech in Dayton , OH hockey arena without a teleprompter

An enter…wait–did you say without a teleprompter??


Spouse's name

Todd Mitchell Palin

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama


Spouse's occupation

Salmon fisherman;Former North Slope production supervisor for BP Oil

Vice President for Community and External Affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals;former Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago;former Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies;

former Assistant to the Mayor of Chicago;


former associate at Sidley Austin law firm


Reaction to spouse's political success

Quit 17-year BP oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with wife's administration

Promoted and given 160% pay raise by UofC hospitals within months of husband's election to U.S. Senate;Employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion


Coolest thing about Spouse

Tesoro Iron Dog Snowmobile race champion (longest snowmobile race in the world);In 2008, while defending his championship, was injured when he was thrown 70 feet from his machine. He was sent to the hospital but still finished in fourth place

Sister of Oregon State University head basketball coach Craig Robinson


Most Courageous Moment in Public Service

Resigned in protest from position of Ethics Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders, including the former state Attorney General and the State GOP Chairman (who was also an Oil & Gas Commissioner), who was doing work for the party on public time and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.

Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators in Hyde Park in 2002


In Current Office Because…

Upset sitting Governor in GOP primary due to public support for her efforts to clean up corrupt government establishment

Republican opponent, who was leading in the polls, was forced to leave race after unsealing of divorce records exposed a sex scandal


Theme:

Change and Clean Government

Hope and Change;"Bringing Change from Outside Washington "


What they've done to live that theme:

Replaced entire Board of Agriculture and Conservation because of conflict of interest;Resigned from position of Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose corruption among members of own party

Selected 36-year incumbent Senator as running mate


Family Affairs

May have removed State Public Safety Commissioner as part of effort to protect sister in messy divorce and child custody battle

Often says, "I am my brother's keeper";Brother lives in a hut in Nairobi on $12 per year


Union affiliation

Union member, married to Union member

Endorsed by a union


Iraq and Troop Support

Formerly (pre-surge) critical of apparent lack of long-term strategy for Iraq ;Visited wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany ;visited AK National Guard soldiers deployed to Kuwait ;

Son deploying to Iraq on 9/11/08 as Army infantryman

Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators;almost visited wounded troops in Germany , but decided to go shopping in Berlin instead


Bipartisan/"maverick" credentials

Married to a non-Republican;Exposed corruption within own party;Campaigned for Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell against corrupt GOP congressman Don Young;

Called out Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) to "come clean" about financial dealings that are under fed investigation

Talks about bipartisanship


Legislative Record

Passed a landmark ethics reform bill;Used veto to cut budgetary spending;Prevented "bridge to nowhere" that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

Voted "present" over 100 times as IL state senator


How they dealt with corrupt individuals in home city/state

Exposed legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders;Campaigned against corrupt GOP Representative;Ran against and defeated corrupt incumbent governor in GOP primary

Launched political career in home of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (and still refers to him as a part of "mainstream Democratic Chicago";Purchased home with help of convicted felon Tony Rezko


Guns

Lifetime member of NRA and avid hunter;video can be found on YouTube of Palin firing an M4 at a military firing range

Worked to pass legislation in Illinois that would prevent all law-abiding citizens from owning firearms


Earmarks

Opposed "Bridge to Nowhere" project;Said Alaska should avoid relying on federal money for projects;Campaigned against porker Don Young (R-AK) in 2008 primary

Secured federal earmarks for wife's employer and for campaign bundlers


Abortion

Pro life;gave birth to 5th child knowing that he would have Down's syndrome

Pro-choice;only IL state sen. to speak against the Born Alive Infant's Protection Act, which required medical care to be given to live infants who survived abortions


Energy

Believes energy independence is a matter of national security;For drilling in ANWR, which is in her state

Says Americans should "get tune-ups" and "check tire pressure";Says "we can't expect the world to be okay with" our use of heating and air conditioning


Environment

Chair of Alaska Conservation Commission (2003-4);Announced plans to create sub-cabinet group of advisors to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in AK

Talks about the environment a lot


Athletic prowess

Runs marathons

Has reporters tailing him to the gym

"This Black Boy" ain't ready

NOBAMA! NOBAMA! NOBAMA! NOBAMA!

Barack Obama doesn't belong anywhere NEAR the white house!

That being said, I personally am not a democrat. HOWEVER, after watching Hillary's speech at the DNC, if i were a democrat, i would be angry as hell that Hillary was not the democratic nominee. Hillary supporters have every right to be pissed off. She made a speech that was a million times more presidential than anything that substance-less fraud Obama could ever give, even on his best day.


Its time for everyone to stand up and let everyone know that you do not AND NEVER WILL support Barack Obama for president.



The next couple of months are going to be intense! Let everyone know exactly where you stand!

Why Michelle Obama should not be the First Lady

In a round about way She's running for first lady of the United States of America. She has also campaigned for Barack all over the country. When you do that, you open the door for people to respond. And Guess what that is what I am about to do.

Barack was asked at the Saddleback Church Forum to name the three people that would most influence his decisions as president. He named his wife (whose hospitial routine kicks out poor blacks that can't pay their bills), his grandmother (who he has refered to as a racist) and Ted Kennedy (the town drunk / ultimate Washington insider).

SO ... Michelle is going to be influencing the ... *cough(B_LLSH_T) cough* President of the United States, I can absolutely talk about and criticize her.


She NOW claims to love her country. Well, She sure has a funny way of expressing that love then. Let's review a few of blessed wife Michelle's greatest "love America" hits:

"For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country" (Speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin February 18th, 2008)

"But we've learned a lot this year, we've learned that when the bar is set sometimes it moves on you…right when you get there…it MOVES! And the irony of it is that's what's been happening to most Americans.
" (Speech in Providence, Rhode Island, clarifying her "proud for first time", remarks)

"In America in 2008, life is not good: we're a divided country, we're a country that is "just downright mean," we are "guided by fear," we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents.
" (March 10th New Yorker)

"Don't go into corporate America.
" (Speech at daycare in Zanesville, Ohio)

"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual" (Speech in February, 2008)

"Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices, that we are going to have to change our conversation, we're gonna have to change our traditions, our history, we're gonna have to move into a different place as a nation.
" (Campaign speech in Puerto Rico)

2008 DNC Night Day One = Waste of Time

Is ita surprise that the party that makes a living wasting tax money would waste the first night of their own pep rally.

Democratic Strategist James Carville told CNN that his party is off track and making the same the same mistakes they made at the 2004 convention. (Einstein is credited with having offered this definition of insanity, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”)

Carville said. "Maybe we are going to look better Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. But right now, we're playing hide the message."

Carville also said the party needs to do a better job of communicating its message to the American people. “If this party has a message it's done a hell of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that," he said.

The DuNCe has only shown me one thing so far. The Dims are not united at all and that is the only possible result from trying to be all things to all people.

Biden thinks "Obama's not ready to be President"

During Joe Biden’s failed 2008 run at the Presidency he said of Obama lack of leadership experience that "the White House is no place to learn on the job."






Ironic, no? Given that Obama has one of the thinnest resumes of any serious contender for the White House?

And what could Biden’s defense on this possibly be? That it’s ok now because he’s on the ticket too?

That’s not likely to convince many people. Thank you Obama for picking a VP that supports McCain for President.

"Go Joe" and thanks for your support of Mc Cain and your hours of sound bites that will haunt Obama for yet another ill fated choice for his "Hype and Chance" Campaign.

Ive been reading a lot of news stories that say that Joe Biden will help Obama's chances of becoming president because of his "experience." But whats funny to me is, the guy is 65 years old, only a few years younger than John McCain. So let me get this right: When it comes to McCain, he's "old". And when it comes to Biden, he's "experienced".


The hypocrisy of these people make me sick!