Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Discourse in (Dis) Honesty






WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009
Discourse in (Dis) Honesty
By JoyFull




I am pretty sure most parents teach their children to tell the truth. We should expect no less from our Commander in Chief. Especially one who had the audacity to hope we would believe him--or enough of us anyway.

The discussion of late has been Obama's first 100 days in office and his approval rating. I was able to glean the following from Politifacts.com and put in my own words. So let me just put it out here this way: if your child or spouse had been caught lying at least 7 times in the last 3 months, would you, or could you, conceive of a possible total disregard for, um, let's see, integrity?! Call me a "right wing extremist", but I do expect a certain amount of honesty from the President and also from his administration.


Why not put it in Obama's own interpretation: "transparency." That brings me to the (dis)honest "five days of public comment before a bill lands on my desk." Not only was the public denied the opportunity to review the stimulus bill and subsequent bills. Our elected officials did not even get the chance to read it before it was ushered into a quick vote. I doubt Obama even read it before he signed it even though it sat on his desk for days. We all know that old sordid story, so let's move on to another (dis)honesty. How about "no lobbyists" appointees until they have been out of the lobbying business for 2 years. Why, in front of the whole nation, he signed an Executive Order stating that. Loopholes and waivers, however, have allowed the assignment or nominations of no fewer than 4 and most assuredly more recent lobbyists...one lobbyist for Goldman Sachs appointed as chief of staff to Geithner himself. No conflict of interest there!!??


Two other promises that haven't even seen the light of day, BUT would have been great for stimulating the economy, were penalty-free withdrawals from 401(k)s up to $10,000, and no income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. They didn't even make it in the stimulus package, but even worse, they are not even up for any legislation. We must have "misinterpreted" his intentions.


Another, what I consider atrocious (dis)honesty is the broken promise of school choice. Not only is it not on the table, the Obama Administration is eliminating the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program after the 2009-2010 year!! Why?? I mean really!! It allows low income children and parents a choice of schools that will make them more competitive and educated. It has been a success. Obama said he would be the "education president". Oh really? Tell that to those children who are thriving under the Scholarship program now, but will have it stripped away in a year. By the way, where are Obama's girls going to school? They, of course, do have a choice. How (dis)honest is this? Notice, I use (dis) because Obama is doing exactly that with his broken promises.


Who among us can forget the promise of making it impossible for Congress to get Pork into the stimulus package? Another "misunderstanding" I suppose?


Listen, my point is, if my husband had said so many out and out lies in so many days, there would be talk of divorce, and my children, if guilty of the above, would be in counseling.


So when Obama says he is not going to be using his prize trophy Arlen Spector as "political padding," I suppose we are to believe that also.


These are but a few examples of (dis)honesties. There has been no shortage of broken promises in the first 100 days of Obama's Presidency. There will be much more to be disclosed soon enough, I am sure, but I am ready to send a certain someone for counseling myself. If Obama is not being truthful to us, then he is not truthful to himself and for that reason alone, I feel kind of sorry for him. It will be the common American who will be suffering for his broken promises. We must continue to call him on his (dis) honest promises and hold his feet to the fire. Don't give up or give up hope, we, collectively have much honest work to be done.


Joyfull


New Agenda for the Left: Make the Moderate GOP Look Increasingly Extreme







By Ellen Janoski


It’s been a long time coming. For those who haven’t heard, controversial Republican Arlen Specter finally took the R from behind his name and replaced it with a big fat D.


After old-timey Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter advocated for socialization via the Democrat’s Stimulus Bill and became one of the three “Republicans” responsible for passing the bill through the senate, most conservatives were fuming.


This wasn’t the first time Specter has flippantly forgot what party he represents, but it was the last straw for PA conservatives. And finally, his re-election efforts were looking grim.


Specter seems to be concerned only with self-preservation, so the switch makes sense. However, conservatives have significant reasons to be up in arms. As Specter was exiting stage left of the Republican Party he managed to paint the Republican Party as the one forcing him to make such a “conscience led” decision.


His derogatory statements against the GOP have given liberals a perfect opportunity to continue to paint us as extremists.


Specter stated that his primary reason for leaving the GOP was that the “Republican Party has moved far to the right” since the days of Reagan. The evidence he cites is the fact that 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania switched parties this past fall.


Those new democrats don’t prove that Republicans have become “too conservative.” It simply means Pennsylvania, for multiple reasons, has become much more liberal, as shown by last November’s election. Not to mention, party politics in America has become so black and white and so completely cyclical, that a very unpopular Republican president will basically do all the needed campaign work for the next Democratic president, single handedly. We have seen this occurring in many past elections over the years.


This statement by Specter gives liberals the perfect opportunity to say, “See, I told you those right wing Republicans are off the deep end.” Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell couldn’t wait to get behind the cameras to say, “Arlen Specter finally decided that he couldn’t represent those crazy right wing radicals. He had no choice but to switch parties. He had to do what was in the best interest of America.”


What exactly has the Republican Party done in recent years to fall into this category of right wing extremism? Was it the Bush administration? Bush’s economic policies were pretty close friends with some of Obama’s. Bush’s big spending policies made conservatives everywhere wonder where he was taking the Republican reputation. Maybe it’s the fact our Republican Presidential nominee voted as much with the Democrats as he did his own party, and that his daughter is apparently now the leading spokesperson for all homosexual Republican activists.


The Republican platform and mission has not changed since the 1980s. Our mission still reads the same. If only the Republican Party stood by our mission more like we did during the Reagan administration instead of being bullied by leftists who demand that conservatives accept their ideologies and morals…or lack thereof.


It’s the principles and mission Arlen Specter has a problem with, not the alleged “right wing radicals” in Pennsylvania. In fact, after listening to Arlen justify his vote for the stimulus bill, I can probably guess which areas of our mission he has the most problems with:


I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.


I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.


I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.


Oh and let’s not forget the values section of the Republican platform. Maybe Specter didn’t read this section before registering as a Republican all those years ago:


Values of the Republican Party Platform


Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms


Ensuring Equal Treatment for All


Protecting Our National Symbols


Freedom of Speech and of the Press


Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life


Preserving Traditional Marriage


Safeguarding Religious Liberties


Preserving Americans’ Property Rights


Corruption Out In The Open




by Bridget Geegan Blanton

I actually remember the Sixties, but then I was still a kid in ’68 when the ‘Summer of Love’ was happening. Life for an 8-year-old was pretty far removed from the anti-war/hippy culture. We were aware of pop culture because Madison Avenue quickly capitalized on it. The dirty hippy look was cleaned up and thoroughly commercialized for the masses and suddenly everything became hippy chic.



In case you haven’t noticed, they’re at it again. I need only point to the Obama-inspired Pepsi logo and the “hope and change” CBS sit-com promo spots that ran just prior to Inauguration Day. I didn’t vote for the guy, but that’s beside the point. The idol worship of ‘the one’ and subsequent commercialization is annoying, lame, and as uncool as the celebrities and aging rockers all clamoring to be close to this deliberately unvetted Chicago politician.



When my generation came of age in the '70s, the ideas from the '60s had become institutionalized. I didn’t buy into the whole cache of catchy phrases except the one about "questioning authority." That one I could identify with. As far back as I could remember, I loved the very idea of free speech and the fact that we as individuals could challenge our government.



My youthful embrace of the American Dream was rooted in the truth that anything was possible if you worked for it and that freedom was the most precious commodity that this nation had to offer. The political elites in Washington are shopping the polar opposite these days. Thanks to the dual re-education forces of media and Madison Avenue, dependence on big government and politically correct thinking are the latest fads sweeping the nation. What happened? When did freedom become so unpopular?



Somewhere along the way, the radicals of the Sixties became the very essence of all that they despised. Questioning authority is no longer tolerated by the intolerant Left; in fact, dissent is just an Executive Order away from becoming an outlawed activity.



What the heck happened on the way home from Woodstock? These same anti-establishment hippies turned into ‘the man’ and now they’re hell bent on growing a government even more sinister, secretive, and powerful than the one they sought to overthrow back in the '60s. What does it feel like to realize that not only have you become ‘the man,’ but you’re a far more twisted version of ‘the man’?



For me, it’s always been about freedom. Not the Sixties version of freedom that, from my vantage point, led to multiple messed-up lives, but to the type of freedom as is protected by the Constitution. Today everything I believe in is at risk because the enemies within are in control of the government; having been voted in by brainwashed Stepford voters who goose stepped over a cliff this past November. To maintain control as they pursue their singular purpose of power, Socialists keep these voters on a short leash and a steady diet of lies, fear, blame, victimhood, and entitlements.



While my father and his brother were working themselves to the bone trying to build up an honest, profitable business amidst the rampant corruption of Democrat-controlled Chicago, Leftists were infiltrating every last nook and cranny of the free world like bloodsucking leeches as they lived off grants financed with confiscated tax dollars. While good people worked hard to pay bills and raise their kids, the Leftists were plotting, propagandizing, and feeding off government like undetected parasites.



Over the years, the old timey Leftist propaganda has deteriorated into sloppy, blatant lies. To be sure, the art of indoctrination requires skill, but they don’t even bother with that anymore. They’ve sold themselves on the idea of their own power. No talent is required to spew forth treacherous, hypocritical, pathological lies. The problem lies in the fact that Leftists must lie because they know truth will derail their quest for power.



It’s mind-boggling to witness Socialists like Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Christopher Dodd as they perpetrate fraud on the American public. While placing the full weight of blame for the sub-prime meltdown on the Bush Administration, they completely deny any personal responsibility. Outrageous? Shifty? Well, yes, but actually it’s just business as usual for Democrats who use the lapdog media to downplay Democrat lies, corruption, and tax evasion.



Not to be found anywhere in all of the coverage was the truth that the Bush administration tried to regulate this bubbling cauldron of sub-prime fraud 17 separate times…each attempt shot down by Pelosi, Reid, and their gang of thugs. This is not government at work; this is corruption out in the open.



Having authored the economic mess and covered up their part in causing it, these same Leftists have been caught in another lie better known as the so-called Stimulus Package: a.k.a. ‘porkulus’ or ‘pork-a-palooza.’ Unless you’ve got your hands over your ears as you scream “nah, nah, nah, nah,” you know that this legislation is just a bloated Socialist policy orgy engineered to permanently institutionalize the entitlement system and keep Democrats in power. This legislation freak show shows sinister preference for their ‘pet’ projects, funneling billions towards indicted ACORN, notorious for committing voter registration fraud on behalf of Democrats. Billions, no, trillions are needed to prop up this piece of pork and Democrats won’t hesitate to build a monument unto themselves on the backs of our children.



More lies and fraud perpetrated on the American public, along with more cover up by the complicit and deceptive media; yet suddenly patriotism is back en vogue. There’s nothing like failure-prone Socialist policies, rampant Democrat corruption, and unfettered abortion to bring out the patriot in close-minded Lefties across the land.



If there ever was a time to question authority, that time is now.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The first 100 days in one sentence, "I won...I trump you."

President Barack Hussein Obama campaigned on being a better person than Washington was used to. He essentially claimed that he would put an end to childish bickering. He said that he'd pool everyone's thoughts and ideas and promised to open up the White House to the public, making this the most transparent administration, thus far. Well, he did, sort of. If you count exposing anything that Obama thinks will be damaging to the previous administration, National Security be damned. He was going to be truly bipartisan, welcoming all ideas...and he does, so long as they are in step with his own. He has token republicans in his cabinet, although that is about as bipartisan as he gets. He was going to stamp out lobbyists influence, until he started appointing them. He actually signed into law, on his first day as POTUS, an executive order stating that lobbyists could not serve in positions directly related to their prior employer for two years. What he neglects to advertise is that this same law has a HUGE loophole which essentially nullifies it. If the administration wishes to appoint a lobbyist, there is a waiver for that. So basically this law is in place to look pretty. It makes people think we're keeping the lobbyists out of power, while making sure that the powers that be are able to put the lobbyists into positions of power.

He has let Republicans come to the table, just long enough to snap a photo for the MSM. Who really cares what they have to say, right?

In one of his erroneous statements, our President said, "In eighth grade math, we've fallen to ninth place." Well we are in ninth place, but considering we were in 28th in 1995, climbed up to 19th by 1999, and in 2003 we were up to 15th place. By all accounts then, 9th place is something to be applauded. Typical of his administration though, Obama chose to use a fact that most American citizens wouldn't dig deep enough into to realize that the actual statement was a falsehood. Don't believe me, my liberal friends, just check politifact.com. This is an example of the idea that it truly doesn't matter WHAT Barack Hussein Obama actually says, but what is significant and memorable to his flock is HOW he says it. They have given him an artistic liberty, if you will. He's free to take any factual statement and twist and distort it to suit his needs. Much like the way he dismissed his prior pro-abortion voting record where he claimed "there was already a law on the books that addressed the issue." All the while knowing that the public doesn't generally actually go back and READ the laws that were on the books. If he says there was a law, there was a law, right? Wrong. There was a law on the books that dealt with protections if an infant was born alive, but that law left it up to the abortionist, who by the way was being PAID to perform the abortion, to determine whether or not the child he would abort would warrant any of those protections. Most writers that I've seen who reference his deceptions regarding the "old Illinois law" simply paraphrase that law for you. I commend them for at least doing that much, someone had to. But then again that takes into account the possibility that you aren't already enamoured with Obama and might actually listen to reason. If you are one of those who simply brushes off these FACTS as "spin" then click the link above. This IS the actual "law on the books." It's quite long, and it is quite hard to find, so I wanted to make it as easy as kindergarten. All you have to do is click and read. Pay particularly close attention to section 6, subsection 2 (a). That's the part that Obama is pretending doesn't exist. Obama lied--Ahh, I just heard him on the news in his latest speech as I typed this..."Thank God for 'change.'" Yes, that is most definitely what The One has brought us, isn't it?

Speaking of photo-ops, what a great photo op the government had in NY yesterday! Terrified citizens running for their lives all the while jets are scrambling in a way that is remniscent of the days of lore. What was that song? "Have you forgotten?" Obviously, the powers that be have forgotten. Just like Obama seems to have forgotten many of his tag lines from the campaign days. There is a very clear reason for that though, the POTUS seems to have forgotten that he is not still campaigning. When the going gets rough, up there in Washington, the latest modus operandi is to launch a whirlwind media blitz. They don't actually take any real action, they just make one-liners and have a few staged questions from audience plants. Bada bing! They've got instant public approval!

Obama promised transparency all throughout the campaign. He promised to shine sunlight on Washington. He stated that all "non-emergency" bills would not be signed without giving the American public--that's you and me--an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. This was an out and out lie. But hey, in all fairness, Mr. Obama did take the transparency idea somewhere. He doesn't want you to see what he or his administration is doing, per se. But he has no qualms about shining sunlight on what the blame-it-on-Bush administration did. Let's get real though, it's the first trick any magician learns. Keep their eyes trained on this hand so that they have no idea what is going on behind your back in the other hand. With one hand, he's allowing the tactics that kept you and I safe since September 11, 2001, to be shared with our enemies--thereby undermining our national security. With the other hand, he's breaking promises right and left...pushing through bill after bill with the utmost haste.

He promised he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Well, that hasn't happened yet, but he did write him a letter. *crickets chirping*

We all remember the praise that Obama got during the debates for stating that he would go "line by line" to root out earmarks. Is that another instance where if he says he did that, it must be true? Because in actually reading the bills, which he did not do, I'm finding that to be another flat out lie.

The administration actually orchestrated a dramatic confrontation between an outspoken talk radio host and members of the Republican party, and then reveled in the results. If you haven't been paying attention, this is yet another example of the magician's trick. Keep looking at the feuding Republicans, and pay no mind to the man behind the drapes.

In the most shocking turn of events, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report labelling peaceful, concerned citizens as potential domestic terrorists. Fortunately all of the protestors and picketers who have views in line with the administration escape this sort of "profiling." It is perfectly acceptable to assemble, to be staunchly "pro-choice," to be anti-Bush, or any number of leftist ideologies, in this day and age. But the second a group of conservatives actually finds their voice, they are villified. Lord help us and hope that no crimes are committed against any who fall under this category of "potential domestic terrorists" because our government was so irresponsible with their labelling. I guess they think they are covered as far as vets go since Napolitano clumsily "apologized" for offending the veterans. Somehow I missed her statements of apology to the conservative soccer moms of America for causing many to think that we might just snap at a moment's notice and start stockpiling AK-47s.

I'll leave you with an Obama quote, as shown on politifact.com.



"Make no mistake: We need to end an era in Washington where accountability has been absent, oversight has been overlooked, your tax dollars have been turned over to wealthy CEOs and the well-connected corporations," Obama said at an Oct. 1 campaign stop in Wisconsin. "You need leadership you can trust to work for you, not for the special interests who have had their thumb on the scale. And together, we will tell Washington, and their lobbyists, that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. You have. They will not run my White House. You'll help me run my White House."

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Listen to HOW I say it, don’t bother with WHAT I’m actually saying.

Not too long after this statement, he was quoted as saying, "I won. I think on this one, I trump you." What? Did he think he was above using the schoolyard phrase as so many of us are used to hearing it? He would have scored more points with third graders if he'd have just broken out in a round of, "We won, we won, we shot the b.b. gun! You lost, you lost, you ate tomato sauce!" In short, the Obama administration's first 100 days has been chock full of partisan attacks, veiled threats against private citizens exercising their collective first ammendment right to peaceably assemble, and flat out lies. Gee, I can't wait to see what they have in store for us next!




Obama Flu Pandemic Continues to Spread

Okay...since I brought a little heated conversation to the forum this week...allow me to lighten the mood a little bit...or not...then I'll stay away and let someone else post for the rest of the week.

World Health Organization (WHO) officials were ready today to declare an international pandemic disaster, as a new strain of flu continued to sweep the world.

Called Obama flu, the virus – in all cases – is fatal. So far, the illness has already infected 62 million Americans, all now having become the walking undead. Symptoms include delusional exchange of freedom for comfort, theft from the rich to entitle the poor, eco-madness (a related condition in which the power of Mother Earth sucks all brain matter from the affected), worship of the death culture of abortion, and low-flying of 747s over Manhattan in broad daylight.

Cases of Obama flu have been reported in every nation on earth, except for Iran, where leaders are in denial that the flu even exists.

The virus is said to have mutated from the H1N1 strain that causes swine flu. Eating pork does not cause the disease. However, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have confirmed that eating tofu, sushi, and Vegan menu items can transmit the disease to humans. Infection also occurs from inhaling the stench of those suffering from Obama flu.

“This is an unprecedented disaster,” said Margaret Chan, director-general of the WHO. “The virus first infects the brain, removing all capability for rational thought. Once infection sets in, there is no cure, no antidote, and no hope for anyone with the disease.”

The only protection against the virus is to avoid breathing, but that may be only a temporary defense. A bill introduced today by Zombiecrats in the U.S. Congress would abolish all breathing, in an effort to affect complete infection among all 300 million Americans. Other nations worldwide were said to be considering adopting similar laws.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Hey, Keith Olbermann: I'll Raise Your Challenge


Sean Hannity, who (like me) thinks waterboarding helped our intelligence thwart a September 11th style attack on Los Angeles, said on his show the other night that he would subject himself to waterboarding and donate the proceeds to the families of soldiers. MSNBC gas bag Keith Olbermann has challenged him to do it for cash. I have a challenge of my own for Olbermann.

Herr Foulwind claims he'll pay $1,000 to Hannity's charity for every second Hannity gets waterboarded. I don't have the stomach to post his stupid rant here, but if you want to listen to him whine, be my guest.

I'd like to up the challenge. Olbermann, I'll get waterboarded, and you can donate the proceeds to my favorite cause: Tie Keith Olbermann Down Among Mexican Pigs With Swine Flu.

But I have one condition: While I do it, you have to sit in the window of a building, strapped to a chair, while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed flies an airplane at you.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The Jihad Invasion of the Western Heartland



by Bridget Geegan Blanton

I learned through a Twitter post that Brigitte Gabriel, the driving force behind ‘Act For America’, would be appearing on a Moody Broadcast Network program ‘Talking It Over’ with host Janet Parshall. I tuned into the show via blog talk radio to hear the interview because we cannot count on the media complex or the government it serves, to speak the truth about extremist Muslims in our midst.


Recently, Ms. Gabriel addressed ten high ranking Pentagon Officials on the issue of national security and the threat of terrorism from within our own country. Out of the ten officials present during Gabriel’s address, only two were familiar with the Islamic belief regarding the ‘return of the Twelfth Imam’. Iranian President and self- proclaimed deputy paving the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has referenced this radical belief repeatedly in recent years. The return of the Twelfth Imam, a.k.a. the Islamic Messiah would then usher in a worldwide Islamic Supremacy according to its advocates. It would appear that the Iranian Nuclear proliferation has everything to do with Ahmadinejad’s obsession with the return of the Twelfth Imam.


As for the Pentagon officials recently educated on this tenet of extremism and our collective shock at their ignorance, it is worth mentioning that Gabriel has been invited to return as a consultant to the Pentagon. Gabriel’s involvement at this high level on an issue of singular importance for our generation is a crucial victory as too many officials both appointed and elected are woefully ignorant of our enemy and how they operate. Her presence at the Pentagon is especially timely when considering that there are 43 known terrorist camps operating in the U.S. In contemplation of both extremes, which situation is worse… appointed officials in the dark or elected officials who are advocates of Shariah Law with a direct line to the President? I would have to choose the latter because the implications of infiltration are far more ominous.


Most notable among Muslim groups with politicians in their pocket is CAIR. Senator Larry Shaw of North Carolina is a Muslim and as CAIR’s chairman, we can expect both protectionism from Shaw and advocacy of CAIR’s support for Sharia Law. Naming those elected officials who have accepted contributions from Muslim groups does matter because the money trail starts at the top with President Obama and trickles down to state legislators like California Assemblyman Dave Jones. Did I forget to mention that all these elected officials are Democrats? It matters because Democrats are notoriously submissive to political correctness which in Brigitte Gabriel’s opinion is “intellectual and cultural suicide”.

In existence, is a 100 year plan designed exclusively to infiltrate and dominate the United States by Muslim extremists culminating in the institution of Sharia Law. Inherent in this strategy are tactics such as entering our government through elected office, working with labor unions, financial corporations and leftist progressive groups such as the ACLU. Litigation jihad is championed in particular by the ACLU and promoted relentlessly through legal cases such as their defense of Hasan Al-Banna, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna is a pro-Islamic terror professor seeking to procure a visa so that he can propagandize terror at our colleges and universities.

source: http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com
This case is the proverbial tip of the iceberg when it comes to the decidedly politically correct yet suicidal activity by the ACLU.

Another increasingly popular tactic is the use of the bullying mob. On the agenda at the March 18, 2009 meeting of the Fairfax County Virginia Government Planning Commission was the consideration of exempting the Islamic Saudi Academy from zoning regulations for purposes of expanding the campus. A small number of speakers opposed to the expansion addressed issues ranging from traffic concerns to challenging the legitimacy of enlarging the scope of an institution with a “documented history” of textbooks promoting hatred, intolerance and human rights violations. Whereas the small number of citizens speaking out against the expansion were heckled, mocked, laughed at and interrupted continuously; those in favor were allowed to speak without being terrorized and often went beyond their time limit.


It is not surprising that the state of Virginia is the backdrop for this disturbing story when examining the solid relationship between the open borders lobby and the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee. The VA Muslim PAC regularly speaks out in support of the open borders policy and prior to the ’08 election, ran a voter’s registration booth in cooperation with the open borders policy. Is something amiss in Virginia?


Consider this news story hastily swept under the rug... The Governor of Virginia, Democrat Tim Kaine had appointed a radicalized member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Essam Omeish to head the Virginia Commission on Immigration. Following the protest of Omeish’s appointment and subsequent resignation from the post, Kaine stated that he “didn’t know” about Omeish’s affiliations and radical statements. The excuse “didn’t know” seems to be the standard fare of Democrats and of course the media looks the other way and allows Democrats (never Republicans) to walk away unquestioned and unscathed by their treacherous lies. In addition to the ongoing injustice resulting from the obvious double standard, recent events beg the question: what’s going on in Virginia, Governor Kaine?


Speaking of states that appear more and more Shariah compliant is the state of Minnesota. Aside from the Senate seat circus where media clown Al Franken is producing absentee ballots in his favor found on the side of the road, is the emerging problem of the radicalization of Somali Muslim youth and the advance of taxpayer facilitated Shariah Compliant Mortgages.


A group with a foothold in the Minnesota-based Somali-American community is the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab. This group is producing young terrorists. Shirwa Ahmed, a product of Al-Shabaab became radicalized in Minnesota before returning to Somalia and engaging in a suicide bombing that took his life and 29 more.


As for Sharia Compliant Finance (SCF), according to Frank Gaffney, Jr., Center for Security Policy President, “it is a device used to legitimize Shariah Law, a brutally oppressive theocratic-political-military doctrine.” SCF acceptance used to be under the radar but, according to the Family Security Council “about 88 billion in Shariah Compliant Funds are currently invested in the U.S.” Financial organizations such as banks, hedge funds and investment firms must be diligent and keep the door locked to SCF. Investments of this nature lead to the Islamic finance practice of tithing known as zakat which funds terrorist organizations and the goal of SCF, which is the destruction of Capitalism.


What’s happening in Minnesota is best described as the initial ground game of the 100 year plan. We witness union thug tactics in stand offs with Muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up obviously inebriated clients, clients with dogs or clients whom they perceive to be homosexual. It was bad enough when Target Stores kicked The Salvation Army to the curb, but now, Target is caving in on demands by Minnesota Muslim employees refusing to handle pork. I haven’t shopped at a Shariah Compliant Target in years. Do not discount for a moment the ominous implications surrounding the fact that the state of Minnesota has become involved with Sharia compliant mortgages. If you’re looking to legislators to take a stand, don’t expect any help from Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, a Democrat and a strong CAIR supporter and advocate.


However, when it comes to corruption, fraud, unregulated financial jihad and all around shady behavior, Chicago just might be the top U.S. Islamic Finance Capital with Barack Obama right in the middle. On the one hand, we watch horrified as Obama applies the Marxist principle of apocalyptic chaos to implement his death to Capitalism agenda and all of the nasty outgrowths such as his Fascist Obama Youth Corps legislation and his obvious abhorrence of freedom as evidenced by his plan to silence all his detractors. Once again we find Barack Obama thoroughly acquainted with a gang of ne’er-do-wells who are the central villains in this dicey story that the traitorous media won’t touch with a 10-foot pole and that’s just phase one.


To understand phase two, let’s take a little trip to my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. For years, Salaman Ibrahim has been advising neighborhood banks on issuing mortgages compliant with the tenets of Shariah Finance. He stood to profit and he did as CEO and financier of Sunrise Equities, a Shariah Finance institution that suddenly closed shop in the dead of night back in September of ‘08. Disappearing along with Ibrahim and Tariq Siddiqui was $80 Million dollars.


Barack Obama is no stranger to Sunrise Equities. In 2004, the business donated office space to the Obama campaign. This donation of office space is no small non-news event. These office space donations are nothing short of candidate endorsements. Furthermore, there exists photo documentation of a long time friendship between Obama and the Sunrise Equities fugitives. In fact, Tariq Siddiqui was a top bundler for the Obama campaign; although Obama operatives have been working overtime scrubbing this evidence from the internet. To learn more and to view aforementioned photographs, please visit the sourced blog.

Now that we are advised of Obama’s ease with known Taliban supporters, his “Respect Islam” agenda doesn’t surprise us in the least. Obama will kick off his Islamic appeasement campaign in early April ’09 when he attends the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations which appears to be a symposium dedicated to the criminalization of any statements questioning Islamic dogma. As noted by Frank Gaffney, Jr., the “apparent willingness of the Obama administration to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda” has emboldened the organization. In terms of Homeland Security, this open invitation to influence peddling is extremely troubling.


We can take solace in the fact that terrorism experts such as Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Raymond Ibrahim and Frank Gaffney, Jr., will continue to speak out against the torch carriers for Shariah Law. Make no mistake, we are under attack by a stealth Jihadist movement hard at work undermining our rule of law and using the Democrat submission to political correctness to their advantage. This is our nation, it does not belong to Obama and the George Soros funded Islamic appeasement campaign.


For that reason, it is ultimately our responsibility to speak out against all components of the 100 year plan. The very idea of entering into dialogue with Muslims who are adherents to Sharia Law without preconditions as set forth by Barack Obama is ludicrous, dangerous and naïve. Deception is a sanctioned tenet of Quranic doctrine, known as taqiyya. In other words, it’s permissible to lie to protect Islam. With this acceptable decree of deceit we cannot fully trust any agreement with an avowed follower of Sharia Law.


Instead of assuming where local, state and federal legislators stand on the issue of Islamic appeasement, write them and inform them of where you stand. What are they doing about radicalized Muslim recruitment in the prisons, and Shariah Compliant Finance? Equally important, hold them accountable. Remind them that as your representatives, they cannot use the “I didn’t know” defense. There’s no excuse for ignorance when our very way of life is at risk from the enemy within.

The Descent of Dissent–--Demanding Homogeneity Amongst Diversity


The Perez Hilton Diatribe as a Broader Dissent Strategy
by Angela Rockwood

To sum up the last few days of the Perez Hilton/Carrie Prejean same-sex marriage episode is to sum up the entire tone of the "debate" on same sex marriage since before the APA was overrun with political activism in the 1970's. I believe (heartfelt personal conviction).Oh yeah? Well you're just a (personal attack, personal attack) and a no good (personal attack).If you can't debate them, decimate them right? And so we see the popular blood letting that whips up emotion and demagogues the opposition rather than engages in thoughtful, respectful debate.

Do you have to agree in order to be polite? Carrie Prejean didn't, and yet she, on a short moment's notice came up with a simple, yet infinitely more intellectual response than Hilton's, and clearly stated, there was no offense intended.

As for Hilton? Offense most certainly intended. Hilton's body slam opinions on Prejean's personal character or attributes have nothing to do with the subject, yet in the World Wrestling Federation type Oprah analysis, he came off at least equal in all too many minds.

And the vindictive crowd goes wild! Another emotional blood letting, another emotional victory. And without wasting a single needless neuron.

At the heart of this spectacle is the idea that dissent is not allowed. If you don't agree, no holds will be barred in your public destruction. Ring any bells with the intolerance for global warming dissent or taxation dissent with the tea party "terrorist" categorizations made earlier last week?

Who is it that decides that all choices are equal? all cultures are equal? all religions are equal, all sexuality is equal? Isn't that what it boils down to? Equality for everyone! There is no wrong, no right, there is no good, no bad, only equality. If you're against equality, you're (personal attack, personal attack) and a no good (personal attack).

Interesting isn't it? No one is allowed to question, no one is allowed any degree of dissent, or they risk falling under the homogenization machine which demands total equality, regardless of the worth of those decisions. Everything is about equality, except, of course, unless you are talking about people. That's the dirty little trick in all of this. People are not allowed to be equal, because with direct personal warfare and personal attacks, the strategy is, agree with me, or you may be worth less as a person. Personal worth is the first casualty and what is at stake in this mode of thinking.

Are you afraid of others who may denigrate your personal worth? People like Perez Hilton are counting on it. They'd love it if we could be cowed into forgetting the fact that Carrie Prejean is as valuable as Perez Hilton, regardless of their opinions.

People are equal, choices aren't.

Any child can tell you, that there are consequences to choices. Some are better than others. That's a fact of life. How did that get lost in the search for "equality"?


Meghan McCain issues Civil War warning...look out!

Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, is warning the GOP of an impending civil war. She cites her desire for an "out with the old, in with the new" philosophy for the Republican party. I do applaud Ms. McCain for stepping out from her father's shadow and making her voice heard--and encouraging other young women to do the same. However I think that her general idea is a bit misguided. Ms. McCain seems to want to be "more inclusive" as a party by "...[b]reaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don't divide our nation further." By "obsolete positions," she means support for traditional marriage. I have to wonder if Meghan has actually read the 2008 Republican Platform. Her assertion is that by using "more gay-friendly language" the Republican party will garner a wider base and the attention of a younger, more hip crowd. The latter may be true. Welcoming gay marriage may quite possibly attract the attention of a younger crowd, but it would do so at the expense of the Republican crowd. Ms. McCain seems to want the public, and the gay community, to believe that the Republican party is currently "anti-gay." She is mistaken. The Republican party is pro-traditional-marriage. I have yet to encounter a Republican, regardless of his/her age, who was opposed to "civil unions" to allow gay couples the same legal rights as married couples with regard to health care, next of kin notification, etc. Republicans are opposed to the redefinition of the sanctity of marriage. Please don't be fooled, this is not an issue of rights. There is no unalienable right for each person to marry his/her partner of choice. Our unalienable rights were endowed by our creator. We acknowledged this in the Declaration of Independence, and this term is referenced widely. If we are alright with acknowledging that we do have a creator, aka God, then why would we think that He got it wrong when he designed us for procreation?


As a conservative Republican, I could care less what two grown people do in their bedrooms. Contrary to what you may read in salacious headlines, the Republican party is not trying to butt into peoples' sex lives. Instead it is trying to ensure that the definition of "marriage" is upheld. Can we just call a spade a spade here? If the issue were one of rights, civil unions would be welcomed by people like Ms. McCain. We probably should address marriage vs. civil unions. Essentially the problem as I understand it, is that there is no uniformity. Some states, not all, recognize civil unions. And some states recognize only their own civil unions, but not others. Apparently some states allow certain benefits for civil unions, while other states do not allow or address the same benefits. I vehemently agree that this is a problem. There should be uniformly recognized laws which regulate civil unions. I would support a federal level of protections under civil unions. But I cannot and will not support the redefinition of the term "marriage." A marriage and a gay union is inherently different, and as such, the recognition of them will differ. We cannot grant the right to procreate to a gay couple, it isn't within our power. Instead that right is granted by our creator. The best we can do is to protect the rights of partners to have insurance benefits and the likes. Even if every state in America guaranteed the right to marriage for all--gay and straight--the two types of marital relationships would still be different. No amount of legislation will ever make them the same. That is not discrimination, it is a simple genetic fact. I, like Meghan McCain, have gay friends. But that doesn't mean that I am kidding myself into thinking that they could ever look forward to having a marriage like my husband and I share. I do wish that they could have that. But it wouldn't be a matter of us changing the definition of marriage to suit their relationship. It would be them pursuing different relationships that would allow them to procreate. That is not my law, it is God's law.


There is no storm brewing within the Republican party. There is not a huge divide of the "young" and the "old." There is most certainly an awakening going on, but it has nothing to do with a war within the party. To the contrary, if Meghan hasn't noticed, the party is energized and electrified at the moment on a unified front. I'd like to invite Meghan McCain to join the Republican party, but I would respectfully request that she not ask us to check our morals and values at the door.

Ms. McCain stated in her blog that Republican resistance to gay marriage goes against conservative values—and our own self-interest. I wonder why it is that Meghan thinks sacrificing our values is good for the party? Obviously she has a different idea of what conservative values are, than I do. Certainly we would gain Democrats' favor if we adopted their values, but what would the result be? Do we really NEED two Democrat parties? I mean I guess we could feasibly hold an election with one "liberal Democrat" and one "conservative Democrat" but somehow I think that is not what is best for our country. Isn't that the goal of having more than one party in the first place? Is our goal not the betterment of our society? As I understand it, we have differing philosophies, and the will of the population is served when the majority wins an election. I may not agree with the Democrats who are in power, but I do respect the process which placed them there. I don't ask that their party, in the future, become more conservative, or even Republican for that matter. I am not promising to support them if they would only change this or that about their party's stance. Their party is what it is, I happen to not agree with it. That is precisely why I am a Republican. If I wanted to vote according to a Democrat's values, I would change party affiliations. I would suggest Meghan think about that in regard to her own views if she feels that strongly about them. Before this gets blown out of proportion, I am not suggesting that people who support gay marriage should not remain Republicans. But in the same vein that I would not agree with changing our views on the sanctity of life and the horror that is abortion, I can't support her view that we change our stance on the sanctity of marriage.

Where Are The Real Liberals?




Some gay-gossip-queen-blogger by the name of "Perez Hilton" decides to launch an all out assault on a 21 year old beauty pageant girl, who answered a simple opinion question about the definition of marriage.

Apparently there was only one right answer, and the penalty for not answering the question "correctly" was to demonize her publicly and call her names that I won't mention here.

I'm confused…why hasn't anyone called Hilton's crude actions a hate speech crime? All this girl did was state a personal opinion and is now being persecuted. Where are the liberals advocating free speech?

In an interview with Larry King after the pageant, Perez was asked if Miss California's answer about gay marriage lost her the competition. Without hesitating, Perez answered "Oh, most definitely, all the judges thought her answer was a bad answer. Her answer needed to be politically correct. Her answer needed to be all inclusive."

Just so we're clear everyone, unless your opinions echo that of the radical left they are "bad answers", "bad opinions".

Conservative views rooted in Christian morals are the only one's not allowed in America…for the record.

Later, the owners of this pageant apologized for Miss California's answer. The agents from California, who were previously her friends, cut her off saying, "she doesn't represent California, and she doesn't represent America."

Actually, if we are to be politically correct…meaning politically ACCURATE, 85% of America still believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Excuse me California, as leftist and brainwashed as your state is, you STILL passed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage!

You should actually be thanking Miss California for representing the majority of people in California, or at least give her the common decency of expressing an opinion without being called the b-word, the c-word and being denied first place in a stupid beauty pageant.

Where are the real liberals? I thought liberals were all in favor of the free exchange of ideas, freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

When groups of people are bullied into answering questions a certain way, or not allowing members of our society the right to express certain beliefs, it's called censoring, a fundamental tenant of a socialist society.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Bad Moon Rising: News Schemedia



I see a Bad Moon rising over America! I am not sure where I was that I did not see what happened to commentator John Zieglar when he was handcuffed by security at the USC Annenburg School of Journalism until I saw it on an internet video today. Oh my goodness America! Bill of Rights: First Amendment! Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; Freedom of speech, OF THE PRESS, Freedom of Religion and OF ASSEMBLY; right to petition.

Oh, I know where I was, exercising my "freedom of assembly" with tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of other peaceful Americans of all color and party affiliation or lack thereof on 4-15-2009. The "news" media, if you want to call it that all but completely dismissed fellow Americans coming together to say we want fiscal responibility from our Federal Government. How does media call itself responsible when it is prone to dismiss fellow Americans like that? Even worse, our President barely gave the event notice and "we the people" are his boss according to the Constitution. He should be listening with all ears. This should have been an avenue for conversation between the President, congress and fellow Americans. But no one person of "importance" was listening and our rights continue to be treated as so much folly.

But let's get back to poor John Zieglar, a legitimate documentary filmmmaker who was standing on public property at Annenburg School of Journalism. (that's right...journalism) He was asking questions, oh the horror of true investigative reporting, of why people wanted to attend this event that honored Katie Couric for her "biased" reporting of Sarah Palin. He was on public property, did I mention that? He was intending to hand out free documentaries as well of his film about the unfairness of the mainstream media when....drum roll please....he was accosted by security and handcuffed for reporting a media event. (??!!) Please refer back to the First Amendment. Mr Zieglar was not haranguing anyone nor was he even protesting or causing a scene. He was reporting and asking questions.

So let's recap very briefly but very importantly two events on 4-15-2009 that were either dismissed of punished by the mainstream media. (By the way, please hold all comments until you have seen the video of John Zieglar being handcuffed by security)

The first event: National Tea Party attend by American Taxpaying Citizens all over the nation in a peaceful protest.
The second event: Filmmaker, who was not breaking any laws, but covering an event as a reporter is apt to do, and handcuffed with the threat of arrest because he was what? Asking QUESTIONS of people as they walked by.

I am with fellow writer, Natalie; call me whatever you want, a right wing nut or zealot or something equally uncreative. Profanity is not necessary. I will only say, "thank you" because it won't sway me from the First Amendment or my standing beside a reporter who is actually trying to find out information and not push an agenda.

Single Issue Voters are Ignorant--or are they?

Anonymous said...
I hate to say this as I will surely be accused of being a troll, but the Republican party has become the political action wing for big corporations, right wing zealots, and deep pocketed fanatics. Fox News on the other hand is the media relations firm for these same groups.

The actions of this group [Smart Girl Politics] has thus far been nothing but insulting to conservatives, and their values. And when I say conservatives, I do NOT consider right wing zealots of Christianity (one topic voters are idiots), racists (how the hell did they get such a big voice in the party), and rich white men (who are either trying to make more money, or keep the money they have) conservatives.

As a liberal, as an American, and heck as a human being - the current incarnation of the Republican party both sickens and scares the crap out of me.

Please take it back.


April 15, 2009 12:06 AM



The above is a comment I received in response to my posting of a letter to the RNC Chairman, Michael Steele. I was inspired to address the “single-issue voter” hatred in this country, by those who seem to have forgotten what it truly means to be one. Single-issue voters and politicians really have a bad wrap in this country. I should know, I’m one of those crazy, right-wing, Christian zealots who vehemently opposes abortion—above all other political issues. Sure I want our country to be financially stable. Of course I want us to have good foreign relations. I want our citizens to have access to good schools and great health care. But am I able to turn a blind eye when murder of one faction of our population has become widespread and accepted? I’d have to say an emphatic NO. Thank you for whatever terms you may have just labeled me; I’ll wear them proudly. I can no more idly sit by and bite my tongue as an unborn child is murdered than I could if I were passing someone on the street who was killing another person in front of me.

I am proud to say that I am in great company as a single-issue voter, though. Our country was founded by single-issue voters. Above, and forsaking all other issues, the Pilgrims came to this country to avoid religious persecution. They loathed it so much that they fled their homeland, in search of a more righteous place. Their mindset was such that they would, today, be lumped together with us “ignorant single-issue voters.”

Abraham Lincoln was another “single-issue voter.” His hot button was slavery. That darned slavery…if he had just sat back and minded his own business, this world would be a better place…we could all just live and let live…the government wouldn’t be able to come down on people who try to own other people. Wait a minute…Back up…that doesn’t make sense, does it? No, this nation would not have been better off if Lincoln had ignored the issue of slavery. Certainly he could have focused more on other issues and chose to just let those slave owners keep buying and selling HUMAN BEINGS, but thank God he didn’t. He knew that it was the right thing to do, his critics be damned. When we’re talking about an issue like slavery, it is easy to look back and realize that this was an entire population of humans who were being oppressed and brutalized, and it is blatantly clear that it was DEAD WRONG. It is a disgusting portion of our history. And you can thank a determined single-issue voter for closing that chapter. Maybe, as he predicted, you have forgotten Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg:



The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never
forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here
to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly
advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining
before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause
for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God,
shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government : of the people, by
the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
~Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address



Maybe you’ll notice that Lincoln wasn’t only referring to the able-bodied people, or the rich people, or the white people, or the male people, or even the BORN people. There is a little clue in there glaring back at all of us that so many like to sweep under the rug. I’ll give you a hint, it is the fact that he was fighting for this nation, under GOD.

There is another very famous and beloved single-issue voter from our history. He would likely still be here with us if he weren’t so hell-bent on pushing for that single issue. This man was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. His hot topic was civil liberties for everyone, namely African Americans. He was killed for holding the unpopular, at the time, view that black people were just that…PEOPLE. We can all look back and see how vile and ignorant so many of our countrymen were. They literally didn’t consider one segment of our population to be as human as they themselves were. They considered them “less than,” sub-human, if you will. Thank God that enough people stood up to say that they too were “single-issue voters” and that they were unapologetic in that stance. Our country is most definitely a better place because of their determined pressure on society. We are no longer “separate but equal,” now we are just “We the People.”

Now I am aware that so many have denigrated us “single-issue voters” and we make great fodder for the MSM’s evening news. But there was one country where there was not an overabundance of “single-issue voters.” You probably know it as Nazi Germany. Hitler campaigned on promises to make Germany be well respected by the world, to give them financial stability and power. Many people thought that he was crazy for his views regarding the Jews, but they kept quiet about that because: Hey, that man kept his other campaign promises. It was unfortunate that he was slaughtering an entire segment of their countrymen, but for the most part, as a whole, their country was thriving. Don’t you realize that when you tell a “single-issue voter” to be more “open” and to look at “all” of the issues equally to make decisions that you are asking them to be like the complacent German Christians? They didn’t agree with Hitler’s treatment of the Jews, they knew they were going missing, but because the rest of life was ok for them under his control, they remained silent. They weren’t directly kill anyone themselves, but their silence made them equally responsible for the Holocaust.

You see, Mr./Mrs. Anonymous Liberal, we cannot simply sit back and look the other way while babies are being slaughtered with no one to defend them. We owe them more than that. There are some issues that transcend the importance of all others. I do care about taxes and foreign policy, but if I find out that even the best and most fair politician, will not stand up for the lives of those most vulnerable in our population, then I cannot, and I will not support them. Pastor Martin Niemueller was arrested in Nazi Germany for preaching the Bible, and speaking against Hitler, consequently he was one of only a handful of German Christian leaders who did speak out. A Lutheran chaplain visited him in jail and asked him, “My brother, what did you do? Why are you here?” To which Niemueller replied, “My brother, given what is happening in our country, why aren’t you here?" It isn’t those of us who are “single-issue voters” who should be chastised and criticized. Instead, I think it is those who would dismiss such overwhelmingly important issues, in favor of other less meaningful things, who should be asking themselves why they are not standing up beside US.



And now, on to MY hot button issue, Abortion.

What have you heard said about it and in defense of it? A woman has a right to choose? It is a necessary evil? I would never have one, but I can’t tell another woman she can’t have an abortion? I don’t agree with abortion but it is not my place to judge what someone else does?

What happens if you are sitting in your house and you hear screams and violent thuds from the house next door? You run outside to see a young mother with a bloody knife in her hands and find out later that her six month old child was lying dead in the house in a pool of blood.

It’s not really your business, I suppose. I guess if we’re continuing with this façade of “political correctness” one could say, “I wouldn’t kill my child, but I don’t know what her life circumstances are, maybe she made the right choice for herself and her family.”

But let’s get real here. You’re anonymous on the internet; no one knows you’re reading this. You won’t give me a report on your thoughts when you’re finished. You can respond in your heart honestly. What would you think in this instance? And more importantly, what would you expect our government’s role to be? I know that not a single one of you would respond that you think the mother made a choice and it was her choice, and that the government should respect her choice. You aren’t about to tell me that while you wouldn’t stab your baby, you aren’t going to tell another mother she doesn’t have that right. I mean, after all, maybe she’s just overwhelmed with her finances and wants to go back to school? Maybe she’s got a terminal illness and it is just too hard on her body to keep caring for the baby? Maybe she is even mentally ill and did not have a clue that what she did was wrong. But you are still not going to tell me that you think the government should butt out and allow the woman the freedom to make that choice. It is not just a choice; it is the choice to commit murder. Someone who has an abortion is killing their baby. If you’re “pro-choice” you’re going to argue that if you don’t acknowledge that the baby is “living” in the womb, then there is no way to “kill” that child.



Merriam-Webster defines kill as: “to deprive one of life.” I would say that fits even for those of you who claim that an unborn child is not a living human, but the “potential” for life. Terminating a pregnancy deprives the baby of life, even the potential for it, if that’s your next flawed argument. It is only "just a choice" if you can remove yourself from the situation. If you can just hear the word abortion but block out any images of what an abortion actually is, what it looks like, what it sounds like, and what it truly accomplishes--death. It is not an unfortunate tragedy, that is just a pretty package to wrap it in. It's just you and me here, don't kid yourself.



I'm constantly reminded, by people like you, Mr./Mrs. Anonymous Liberal, that I am just a sheep who has been guided by someone else with an ulterior motive of money or power. I have to say to you, when no one is looking, when no one can hear, do you really think that an abortion is really "just a choice?" If you answered yes, I'm going to have to surmise that you are one of those who wildly protests if someone dares to attempt to show you a video or photos of a dismembered baby who has been aborted, I mean who's mother has made a choice. You try to spin it so that the person trying to open your eyes is somehow some zealot who is crazy and trying to save babies and everything.


Again, I ask you, "Why aren't you here?"

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Texarkana, TX Tax Day Tea Party Protest

I am a mother of four children. I care about my country. I love God. I am a very passionate person and I put everything I have into everything I do. I am 32 years old and I cast the first vote in my life in the 2008 election. Can you tell that I'm proud of the former descriptives, but not of the latter? I never took the time to vote prior to this because it really didn't seem to matter. I'm a Texan, and we not only bleed red here, but we vote red too. I have always tended to agree more with the Republican candidates of the past than I have with the Democrats. What's more, it isn't as if any of them have really ever stayed true to who they claimed to be when they were running anyway. I felt that it was kind of senseless to take my time to go down to the polls to cast a ballot when the candidate I was rooting for (in TX) would win the state even without my vote. Ladies and gentlemen, that's what you call ignorance. I was ignorant to the fact that the entire reason we are in this political state is that level of ignorance from so many constituents. We do not hold our politicians accountable. Look at the recently passed Fried Bacon, I mean Stimulus Bill. They passed the bill, in a hurry like something I've never seen. And remember I'm a mother 4 and as such have had many rushed visits to the Emergency Room. No, these guys claimed that there was not a moment to spare, not even one to read the thing. Pass, then read, pass then read. I'm sorry but when I think of people sitting in an office somewhere signing their names to documents that supposedly represent my views, it is not ok for them not to have read the document first. Think about it; they might as well be signing my name or your name on the dotted line. So now you know that I've never been politically involved before now. Better late than never, right? If you listen to the MSM and the Democratic leadership, it is not better late than never. Instead, we've got phony rage built on "Astro-turf", as Nancy Pelosi called it. "...we call call it astroturf, it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." Nancy Pelosi, on being asked about the grassroots Tax Day Tea Party Protests. I would completely dismiss Nancy Pelosi's comment if I didn't think she knew a thing or two about Astro-turf. I seem to recall her claiming to be an ardent, practicing Catholic, and essentially arguing with Catholic Bishops regarding when the Catholic church believes life begins and a woman's "right" to an abortion. So by her own definition, her own Catholic faith is not really "faith," it's what we call "Astro-turf." To further use her verbiage, it's astroturf by supposed religious individuals to keep the focus on "rights" instead of addressing the issue at hand...which is that she supports the murder of tiny babies in the comfort of their mothers' wombs. Alright, we've gotten that out of the way, now on to the party...The Tea Party, that is!
videoI was one of the organizers for Texarkana’s Tax Day Tea Party. I registered voters for the event on behalf of Smart Girl Politics. I was somewhat nervous about what our attendance would be. I had never been to a rally before, so I was afraid we would be expecting 500 and 12 people would show up. As a mother of 4, I am constantly running late. We planned to arrive early, and we were about 10 minutes early, so that’s doing great! The event was PACKED! I couldn’t get to my voter registration table because we were elbow to elbow, out in the streets. I think that I ended up changing 4 voters’ addresses, and other than that, thankfully everyone else was already a registered voter! I can’t describe the looks on the faces of everyone who was there. Think of the feeling you get when you hear Lee Greenwood sing, “God Bless the USA.” Who doesn’t get goosebumps when you hear it? Looking at their faces, and the sheer pride in their cause was like that. I was one of the speakers, so I’ll include my speech below. Be kind, remember, it was my first rally, and most definitely my first speech. The words in red are what was said before the recording began.


Hi Everyone! You’ll have to excuse me…I’m just a mother of 4 and a wife…I don’t get a teleprompter so I’m going to use my notes.


I voted for the first time in my 32 years this past federal election. I have gone through years of thinking that no one really governed by my values anyway, so my voice didn’t count. I didn’t bother to get out and vote before now. I heard Sarah Palin speak and she struck something in me. Here was a woman who shared my conservative values and she wasn’t apologizing for them or trying to hide them. Many people loved her for that…and many people hated her for them and still do. And that’s ok. The problem comes when our politicians promise to share our common goals and then get into office and have a change of heart.


I’ve debated time and time again with my liberal friends and acquaintances and they always seem to have the same answers for me. They tell me, “That’s just how it is in Washington.” “That’s just how politics works.” They say, “Of course they’re going to make campaign promises that they never intend to keep-that’s just part of the process.” And my favorite response was when someone told me, “we have to look at the candidates and vote for the person we think will do the least amount of damage.” When I have these conversations I am reminded that politics only works that way because WE THE PEOPLE have allowed it. We, like my liberal friends, see that our elected officials-Democrat AND Republican-are not living up to what we elected them to do. They scheme to get their earmarks added onto every bill. They spend ungodly amounts of our money and they don’t even bother to READ THE FINE PRINT! How many times have you heard that phrase? Read the fine print? If we sign a contract as citizens, we’d better be darn sure we read every line of it because we are agreeing to pay our hard earned money. But when it is a politician signing on the dotted line, it isn’t his or her personal funds, so they take a very nonchalant stance about it. Everyone assumes that SOMEBODY read it, and that WHOEVER that person is, THEY wouldn’t be pushing for it, if it wasn’t good for the American people.


We have to stop thinking like this and we have to hold our politicians to a higher standard. They haven’t changed thus far because we haven’t made them. We have quietly grumbled in our own homes or to our small circle of friends. How well has that been working for us? If you are here, you are likely fed up with the direction our government is trying to drag our country. Quietly venting to your friends and family does nothing but blow off a little steam. If we want to make real changes, we are going to have to do it at the polls-from the bottom up! Vote with your values and ideals, and tell everyone who you see, the direction you want YOUR country to move.


Some of you may not be currently registered to vote. Some of you may have moved recently and need to update your voter registration. On behalf of Smart Girl Politics, we are conducting a voter registration drive tonight. If you would like to register, please see me before you leave. If you have a friend or relative who needs to register but isn’t present, please take them home a registration form. Don’t put it off like I did. If we aren’t out there making our voices heard, we have no right to complain! Remember these words by the beloved Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg Address “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth..” NEVER did President Lincoln say that government should be ABOVE the people. Take those words to heart…make sure your voice is heard…send the message that WE THE PEOPLE “shall not perish from the earth” and LET - FREEDOM - RING!!!

People keep asking: What’s next? Well, my answer is simple. Do not stop! Do not shrink into the shadows, and do not forget about the voice that you found! There is a very good reason the MSM and the administration tried, and still tries to minimize what we have done. They are hoping that if we feel slighted, we’ll just go away and they can go on with “business as usual.” My theme song from now until the end of time for the Conservative movement is, “We’re Not Gonna Take It!” We may have been the usual conservative crowd, quietly minding our manners and trying not to ruffle feathers, in the past. But those days are gone, and we’re not gonna take it anymore!
video

Houston SGP Meet & Greet - Saturday, 4/18

Good afternoon!

Just a short note to say I hope y'all will come out TODAY ... SATURDAY ... April 18th ... for a 'lil meet 'n greet at Berryhill Baja Grill at 1717 Post Oak Blvd here in Houston.

I will be there in the EXCELLENT company of other Smart Girls/Houston Tea Party babes @RWSparkle, @somethingfishie, @thecivilright and @rinoatx!

Soooooooo BE THERE at 6 p.m.

We're just meeting to relax, have some great food, great company and share ideas on upcoming events. Oh, and we'll have some very cool SGP giveaways too! YAY! :)

Hope to see you all there!

Happy weekend,
Michelle

P.S. LOOK FOR THE BLACK/PINK SGP TSHIRT to find us!!!!!! :)

Friday, April 17, 2009

Corporate Welfare - The New Justification for Regulation

What your new bosses look like?
What your new bosses look like?


In a time where the President is firing the CEO of General Motors, and the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009”, which recently passed in the House, is poised to control the pay of all employees of all companies receiving governmental aid, one wonders what is left of the free-market and individual choice that our country was founded on.



While there has always been tension between businesses and the government, there has been a long established process for interaction: businesses employed their monetary strengths to lobby political officials for favor, while the government, in turn, utilized their law making prerogative to craft the boundaries that businesses exist and prosper within. However, with the advent of the economic crisis and an administration committed to oversight, the government has found a carte blanche for intervention in the private sector, which it will loathe to rescind.



That carte blanche is derived from the two major sectors of the United States economy surviving on government welfare, fueled by taxpayer money. Both the financial sector and the industrial sector - from AIG executives to part manufacturers - are artificially being propped up by a government that has decided that the failure of these entities would be too much for our fragile economy to take. Capitalizing on this investment, the Obama administration has stated that in order for these companies to continue receiving taxpayer money, they must conform to government “recommendations” – Chrysler must merge with Fiat, and General Motors must resubmit a new business plan (among other things), to be approved by our CEO in Chief. The fact that the federal government is derided universally for its inefficiency, and is therefore perhaps not the best choice to run a floundering private company, is handily overlooked.



It’s easy, however, to sell this justification for unprecedented governmental involvement to the public. Now that we are actually in this situation where companies are suckling from the governmental teat of tax paper money, it’s not unreasonable to say that they can rightly be subjugated to any restrictions the government deems appropriate. After all, what tax paying citizen wants a company to squander their money when the government could ensure that it’s being spent wisely through regulation? The problem lies in the fact that while those regulations are n0t necessarily onerous, some certainly are.



In the financial sector, it seems that any bank that has the necessary capital is turning tail from any involvement with the Obama administration, singularly due to the fact that the mandated government oversight that accompanies the new variant of TARP “adversely affects” their business models, which is a euphemism for “is hurting our chances of economic recovery”. No less than eight banks, including Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, have plans to give back any financial assistance received under TARP due to this heavy handed and detrimental government “oversight”. In practical terms, the government regulations were causing more harm than good in respect to the overarching goal of getting these institutions, the veins that carry the lifeblood of our economy, back in good economic standing. By repaying the government the funds borrowed, these banks will be able to reclaim their independence from governmental decision making, and perhaps secure a strategic advantage over those banks that still labor underneath it.



The industrial sector, however, shows no signs of having the ability to refuse more governmental assistance. This will most likely lead to a more entrenched governmental foothold for regulation that may not be easily dissolved when and if the auto industry ever has the capability to repay their taxpayer benefactors. While it seems reasonable to have oversight over private corporation expenditure of tax payer money, the financial sector has proven that oversight can come in forms that are less than palatable to those who actually fall within the government’s penumbra, and the industrial sector may never be able to escape it.



Please contribute to the discussion in the comments.



William O'Hara is a graduate of Annapolis, a law student at George Washington University, and the co-founder of The PULSE Review, a non-partisan public policy, law, and national security weblog.

Advance of the Administrative State

by Bridget Geegan Blanton





The advent of the administrative state; a.k.a. the welfare state, began with the inception of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in 1937; in spite of the fact that it was challenged for lacking Constitutional legitimacy. The original program has evolved from an economic safety net into a blank check for a far-reaching federal government.



Left behind in the wake of an emboldened tax and spend government, are social consequences such as undermined personal responsibility and a debilitating dependence on welfare that spans generations. Although the welfare state is firmly entrenched, it is never too late to question the appropriate limits of power.



It did not take long for a single unconstitutional decision to evolve into an imbedded socialistic system of redistribution. Early on, the institution of federal grants and social policies went far beyond the initial vision of temporary financial support. As the bureaucracy increased in size and power, the gap increased between Constitutional legitimacy and the administrative state. As the distance grew, so did the rise of improper delegation of power to public officials.



Within the gargantuan welfare bureaucracy, unelected public officials advise branches of government who in turn 'rubberstamp' their findings without proper review. This practice affects how income taxes are assessed, collected and used to finance the welfare state. Although there must always be a safety net for individuals who cannot care for themselves, the institutionalized system of welfare includes handing out benefits to recipients who are not citizens of this country.



Therein lies the problem of the welfare state. In spite of ever increasing rates of taxation, the system will eventually collapse. Fiscal seizure in the form of onerous taxation cannot sustain the ever-increasing rate of growth.



The Framers of the Constitution sought to limit the power of government; yet, today the federal government exercises power not found in the Constitution. Decades ago, when Fidel Castro nationalized private property in Cuba, Americans were appalled.



Today, we see incident after incident of private property seizure by the government in the name of 'smart growth'. For the victim, this seizure is considered theft and nothing more. In less than one hundred years, the American populace has left behind concepts of hard work and personal responsibility for a belief in having a 'right' to welfare services provided by the state. Socialist regimes around the globe have already illustrated the fact that the concept of welfare 'rights' eventually erodes to the level of utter demand.



Politicians caught on quickly to the equation that campaign promises translate into votes. The upcoming presidential election has already witnessed welfare state promises from candidates vowing to nationalize healthcare in exchange for power. Beware of strangers bearing gifts. One thing remains true - there's no such thing as a free lunch. Oppressive taxation and loss of individual liberty is the price each of us will have to pay.



Before you hand over the keys of your own personal welfare, and cast a vote in favor of inefficient, unaccountable and wasteful government, take a good hard look at systems of socialized medicine outside of this country. You'll discover a draconian health care system that is characterized by long waits, supply shortages and over-worked, hostile doctors and support staff. It's not a solution; it's a socialist regime.



There is no sound justification for the allowing the welfare state to gain power and influence, in face of the social consequences. The 'nanny state' creates dependent people who have no understanding of economics. Personal responsibility is replaced with welfare logic. We must never lose sight of the fact that the United States is an incredible place in a world overrun with totalitarian regimes. Our Constitutional form of government must not be replaced with an all-powerful centralized government.



Never forget that it is in the self-interest of the bureaucrat and the politician who control the welfare state, to encourage ever-increasing dependency. Prior to the New Deal, Americans accepted responsibility for their own welfare; and it often required hard work. Compassion for those in need created charities that helped people regain their dignity or direction in life. Americans need to recover the principles that founded this great nation instead of handing over their destiny to the discretion of an elite power base whose own self-interest will always trump the consent of the governed.

Smart Girl Politics ©Template Blogger Green by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO