The truth about tax cuts and unemployment benefits

Let's face it, politics is the art of deception, and political rhetoric is the art of misstating and spinning issues to suit ones needs and views. A classic example is the current debate over whether to give money to the unemployed by extending how long unemployment benefits will be provided, or instead to give "tax cuts to the rich."

First of all, nobody's taxes-- whether you are rich or poor-- is going to be cut in this lame duck session of Congress. The only real issue is whether our current tax rates that we have had for the past nine years will go up in January, whether for everybody or nobody or just the people making under $200,000, who are defined as “rich” by Congress.

The most we can hope for is that tax rates will not go up. So the next time you hear some politician, pundit or media talking head say the words "tax cuts for the rich," that will just tell you whether they are serious about facts or just regurgitating rhetorical liberal/progressive talking points.

These politicians, pundits and media talking heads are also misstating and spinning the rhetorical liberal/progressive talking point that if these so-called "tax cuts to the rich" are extended then the government will have to borrow $780 billion and add it to the deficit. That is patently absurd! If that were in fact true, then we would have been doing this since 2001 when the Bush tax cuts took effect and by that logic, the government would have added $7.8 TRILLION to the national debt!
When the government refrains from raising someone's taxes, they are not "giving" someone anything. Even if you were actually cutting their tax rate, you would still not be "giving" them anything, but only allowing them to keep more of what they have already earned.

Is the government ACTUALLY doing any of us a big favor by not taking even more of what we have worked for from us? Is it not an insult to our intelligence to say that the government is "giving" us something by not taxing it away?
Another fashionable political and media deception is making a parallel between giving money to the unemployed versus giving money to "the rich," the unemployment benefits extension debate.

However, with unemployment compensation you are in fact giving someone something. "Extending unemployment benefits" always sounds good politically, especially if you do not ask the basic question: "For how long should they be extended?" A year? Two years? No limit?

Studies have shown what common sense should have told us without any studies: The longer the unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed.

If I were fired tomorrow, should I be able to live off the government until such time as I find another job that is exactly the same, making the same or higher pay? What if I am offered another job that uses some of the same skills but doesn't pay quite as much? Should I be allowed to keep on living off the government?

While I agree that everyone may need a hand-up in their time of need, expecting a never ending tax-payer funded hand-out is just another form of welfare under the misnamed title of "social justice" that is covertly designed to keep the "sheeple" relying on the government for their very existance. The so-called 99ers...those who have been on unemployment for 99 weeks have now unionized (http://american99ersunion.yolasite.com) to enable them to successfully lobby for more and more unemployment extensions! So now they are going to get another 52 weeks (13 months) added to their benefits. It's supposed to be a "helping hand-up" program...not "employment" with a collective bargaining agreement for the unemployed!!

TSA calls it "Enhanced Pat-down", I call it getting to third base!

No big-government bureaucracy better embodies that reactionary principle than the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), whose utter contempt for American citizens has grown so great that they now require we submit to government agents either photographing our, to them, visibly naked bodies or groping us in molestation-style pat-downs if we ever want to fly again. Also, as if subjecting millions of Americans to x-rated x-ray scans and the humiliation of public groping sessions weren't bad enough, the agency now threatens $11,000 in fines against anyone refusing to submit to humiliation at the airport. The TSA has crossed the line on what is necessary to keep us safe and what is not.

Listen up TSA, “My wife and doctors are the only ones who are allowed to see my naked body or touch my junk!" For a sane person in a sane country, that's the ultimate in a "no shit, Sherlock" statement. But not in America, not anymore! They are trampling on Americans' fourth amendment constitutional rights which state:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As if that weren’t enough to put a stop to this clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL act, it is also against STATE law. Here are The US and Arizona’s laws against “sexual contact”, which TSA enhanced pat-down procedure clearly falls within the definition of it.

18 U.S. Code
Section 2244, "
"sexual contact" means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade."

Arizona Revised Statute, Title 13 Criminal Code
13-1401. Definitions
2. "Sexual contact" means any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact.

13-1403. Public sexual indecency; public sexual indecency to a minor; classification
A. A person commits public sexual indecency by intentionally or knowingly engaging in any of the following acts, if another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether such other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act:
1. An act of sexual contact.
2. An act of oral sexual contact.
3. An act of sexual intercourse.
4. An act of bestiality.
B. A person commits public sexual indecency to a minor if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in any of the acts listed in subsection A and such person is reckless about whether a minor who is under fifteen years of age is present.
C. Public sexual indecency is a class 1 misdemeanor. Public sexual indecency to a minor is a class 5 felony.
D. A person who is convicted of a felony violation of this section and who has two or more historical prior felony convictions for a violation of this section or section 13-1402 involving indecent exposure or public sexual indecency to a minor who is under fifteen years of age shall be sentenced pursuant to section 13-709.05.

13-1403. Public sexual indecency; public sexual indecency to a minor; classification
A. A person commits public sexual indecency by intentionally or knowingly engaging in any of the following acts, if another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether such other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act:
1. An act of sexual contact.
2. An act of oral sexual contact.
3. An act of sexual intercourse.
4. An act of bestiality.
B. A person commits public sexual indecency to a minor if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in any of the acts listed in subsection A and such person is reckless about whether a minor who is under fifteen years of age is present.
C. Public sexual indecency is a class 1 misdemeanor. Public sexual indecency to a minor is a class 5 felony.
D. A person who is convicted of a felony violation of this section and who has two or more historical prior felony convictions for a violation of this section or section 13-1402 involving indecent exposure or public sexual indecency to a minor who is under fifteen years of age shall be sentenced pursuant to section 13-709.05.

13-1404. Sexual abuse; classification
A. A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person who is fifteen or more years of age without consent of that person or with any person who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the female breast.
B. Sexual abuse is a class 5 felony unless the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case sexual abuse is a class 3 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

13-1410. Molestation of a child; classification
A. A person commits molestation of a child by intentionally or knowingly engaging in or causing a person to engage in sexual contact, except sexual contact with the female breast, with a child who is under fifteen years of age.
B. Molestation of a child is a class 2 felony that is punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

You should never have to explain to your children, “Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK.”

In case you still can’t equate TSA’s enhanced pat-downs to “sexual contact, listen to what Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri had to say during a Senate hearing on the issue.
"I'm wildly excited that I can walk through a machine instead of getting my dose of love pats,"

Love pats…? Why the hell would she say something like that if she herself didn’t perceive the pat downs were sexual in nature?

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The TSA claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded." They lied…SHOCKING! Now it turns out that there are and over 100 images that have found their way onto the internet.

Ron Paul's has intoduced legislation to combat this intrusion of our constitutional rights, it is H.R. 6416 and is just two sentences long...not 2000 pages! It states:

"No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), X-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent."


You mark my words; In order to be “politically correct” TSA will concede and Muslim women (who believe in jihad and the reason we are in this predicament in the first place) will throw such a hissy fit that they will end up being exempt from the procedures based on their religious beliefs, but of course, Catholic nuns won’t have same exemption…even though they are not the ones TSA is supposedly protecting all of us from. It's no longer "politcally correct or expedient" to be a Christian in America anymore. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of what we have become.

Do not feed the wild animals...

Animals that formerly were self-sufficient are now showing signs of
belonging to the Democratic Party. They have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance. This photo is of a black bear in Montana turned Democrat, nicknamed Bearack Acorn Obearma.

It is believed that he was not actually born in Montana but he illegally immigrated here from Canada with the help of a pack of "coyotes", never-the-less, he is apparently registered to vote in Montana as "Mickey Mouse" records show.

It is believed that he has become a campground organizer who is rousing all the other animals up and demanding that the government take care of all their needs from cradle to grave and have formed the FWAU (Federation of Wild Animals Union).

There is a proposition on Montana's ballot to add a state constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for anyone to "feed and care for wild animals to the point that they can no longer fend for themselves in their natural habitat."

I strongly urge all citizens of Montana to vote "YES" on this proposition. Hopefully someone in Washington is watching and will introduce the same type of proposition for our US Constitution...

What your teachers didn’t tell you about Christopher Columbus…but I will!

It is an often overlooked fact that Columbus' voyage was inspired in part by the fall of the Christian city of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks in 1453.

After this disaster, the European powers were in search of new trade routes to the Far East which would by-pass the now dangerous Muslim-controlled land routes through the Middle East and Asia Minor. So they commissioned the likes Columbus to embark on voyages of discovery.

It is one of those ironic twists of history that the age of European exploration and world-dominance was made possible by the Muslim conquest of the crown jewel of Christendom.

But for about a hundred years now, school children have been taught that Columbus discovered America because he was looking for a shorter route to the West Indies. In some text books it is even taught that he “left a legacy of genocide and slavery that endures in some degree to this day.” However, have you been taught that the indigenous people slaughtered the dozens of men he left behind in the New World? Put in liberal progressive terms, in 1493 the natives conducted genocide on every European in the Americas. But you won’t see that in a school text book, I’ll bet!

Upon returning to Spain, Christopher Columbus wrote of his discovery that “Christendom ought to feel delight and make feasts and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity.”

What isn’t taught anymore is that Columbus also believed he was led by God to undertake his voyage and that he "felt called to bear the light of Christ to undiscovered lands." In his personal journal Columbus said he was determined, shrewd, and intensely religious. He believed himself to be divinely called to “carry the true faith into the uttermost parts of the earth.” Inspired by this thought, no discouragement could drive him to despair. It was eighteen years from the conception to the accomplishment of his planned voyage.

Isn't it about time for Christianity and other real truths to be restored to public school curriculums and abolish the progressive academic agenda that has poisoned our school system for almost a hundred years? Isn’t it worth celebrating that the pope’s mariner, rather than, say, the henchmen of Muslim sultans or khans, discovered the Americas? How do you think that history would have turned out for the natives?
This is not to whitewash Columbus’s crimes, which have not aged well. The explorer kidnapped natives for show in Spain on his first voyage, enslaved several hundred bellicose Indians on his second visit, and after his third trip faced charges back home of governing as a tyrant. At sea, the admiral and his crew also ate a dolphin—another act that offends 21st-Century tastes.

But shouldn’t he be more plausibly viewed as the catalyst for ensuing greatness?

America first sending men into flight, over the Atlantic, and to the moon; thwarting tuberculosis, yellow fever, and polio; fighting Nazism, Communism, and al Qaeda; serving as a welcome mat to humanity’s “wretched refuse;” inventing the light bulb, the telephone, the computer, and the Internet; and standing as a beacon of freedom, that “shining city on a hill” in an oppressed world all happened in the wake of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria.

The Gipper knows best

Most people will say that they know what “Freedom” is. But what exactly is “Freedom”? Our Founding Father’s definition of it is not the same as we apparently perceive it today. Here is an example of our “Freedoms” being regulated and at the same time being called Constitutional: Using the Commerce Clause as the basis, in 1990 Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act. How so? Because, legislators said, possessing a firearm in a local school zone substantially affected interstate commerce. Huh? Well, you see, because violent crime raises insurance costs, and those costs are spread throughout the population, and across state lines, so there you have it… interstate commerce. And if that explanation isn’t satisfying, Congress also determined that crime threatens the learning environment, thereby reducing national productivity, therefore affecting interstate commerce. These interpretations stretch Constitutional plausibility to the breaking point. Political agenda driven legislation at its finest.

This is how idiotic our congress is when trying to pass laws! They always try and use the Constitutions “Commerce Clause” to justify that their legislation is Constitutional. Here is another example of such a law. Because it couldn’t pass the litmus test as a stand-on-it’s-own-merit law, they slid it into a “must pass” piece of legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in order for it to become law…through the back-door if you will pardon the pun. Enter…”The Hate crimes Bill.”

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
H. R. 2647, Section 4700
This division may be cited as the ‘‘Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act’’.

(apparent Constitutional justification…)

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

So, what exactly is the Commerce Clause of the Constitution intended to actually regulate?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Absolutely nothing in the “hate crimes bill” has anything thing to do with the actual commerce between nations, states or Indian tribes! Is the Constitutionality of this law REALLY based on the commerce clause?

What if a person picked up a rock in let’s say, Iowa, walked through the woods to another house, found a homosexual at his house, said in front of witnesses that he hated homosexuals and then killed that person with a blow to the head with the rock. Is it still a “hate crime”? Does it meet the Constitutionality of the of the commerce clause for it to be deemed a “hate crime”? No, because it doesn’t meet the constitutionality of the commerce clause.

A. The murderer did not cross state lines.

B. The homosexual wasn’t prevented from buying anything, denied employment, or stopped from any other activity by the murderer prior to the actual murder.

C. The perpetrator did not cross state lines to commit the murder. D. No roads, buildings or waterways used in commerce were used.

D. No purchased instrument was used to kill the person.

As heinous as this crime would be, and as apparently blatantly anti-homosexual as it is, the original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange, not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes. It has nothing to do with means and mode of crimes.

Through liberal interpretation of the words “to regulate commerce … among the several states,” Congress has justified things that this nation’s Founders never intended, and in fact, things just like the government oppression that the colonists revolted against only several years earlier.

Given that the colonists had endured circumstances bad enough that they took up arms against King George, how can anyone seriously believe that the Founders ever intended for those few words to be used for the government to gain so much control over the citizens?

Finally, there is America's image in the world. In President Obama's utopia, he is fine with the idea of "American Exceptionalism" being challenged or even turned upside down. Yet in reality no country has suffered more loss of its own, for the welfare of others, in history. To Obama, an America that stands tall in contrast to others seems arrogant. To our enemies, an America that seems ashamed of herself seems weak.

Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, Obama believes that it's his mission to promote 'equality of outcome' over 'equality of opportunity' even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen. That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today. Socialism is in direct violation of the Constitution and what our founding fathers stood for. Most of our founding fathers abhorred a strong central government.

Many thought the Constitution was too vague on what it allowed the federal government to do and was afraid it would be deliberately misconstrued to give the feds more power than was intended. Seems they were right.

Does anyone among us really believe that government knows what is best for our lives? Does anyone among us really believe that paying more taxes will solve what is wrong with the poorest and least among us? Does anyone among us really believe that handing more and more control over our daily lives to bureaucracies of Washington DC is good for America as a freedom loving nation? This nation used to be the beacon of freedom for all the other oppressed nations of the world to follow and emulate… we are fast becoming one of the masses instead of the leader.

Thomas Jefferson warned: "Every generation needs a new revolution." I believe there is one brewing now and it shall restore America from the “fundamental transformation of America” that is underway by this anti-American administration to her rightful place as the "shining city on the hill". May God bless America. Hopefully He hasn’t abandoned us like we have Him. Its time to Re-found America as it was intended to be!

We will not be silenced…How Obama stole the Democratic Primary

By now most politically informed news hounds have heard about the allegations of voter intimidation in Philadelphia, Pa surrounding the New Black Panther Party (basically, they are Black skin-heads) during the 2008 Election and the subsequent charges being dropped when good old Eric Holder became the Attorney General. That case is poised to blow up in his face after a DOJ lawyer quit and came forth with evidence of racial bias as the reason why it was dropped. See the video below:



The New Black Panther Party couldn’t be more appreciative to him for it! See the below video:



But there was more of this type of corruption going on during the 2008 election that didn’t get reported on. Here is proof that Obama is nothing but a Chicago style thug and stole the 2008 Democratic Primary from Hillary Clinton through voter fraud and intimidation:

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Our nation is crumbling under massive debt and our elected officials are devious and corrupt. This is the most politically and racially divisive administration of my life time. You can not find a more divisive one since Woodrow Wilson started segregation! I ask you, what has our country become? Where is it headed? And is there anything that can be done to set this country on the right path. Short of an armed revolution…VOTE! The next two elections just me be the most important election cycles of your life time! Don’t take the attitude that your voice wont’t be heard…every vote is vital!

Jimmy Buffet declares Deepwater Horizon disaster is Bush’s fault….Oh contraire, Mr. Buffet!!!

Jimmy Buffet was one of my favorite musicians growing up. Like him, I myself grew up on the Gulf of Mexico coast in the town of Venice, Florida. Before I joined the Air Force, my life there was all about hanging out at the beach with friends, snorkeling, and doing a lot of fishing all the while listening to Jimmy Buffet’s “Cheeseburgers in Paradise” and “Margaretville”. While I completely agree with what he said about being an angry native: "If you're born and raised on the Gulf Coast and it's kind of in you, and you don't feel anger and rage initially over what's going on down there, I think you're a hypocrite," But when he makes statements like this: "To me it was more about eight years of bad policy before (Obama) got there that let this happen. It was Dracula running the blood bank in terms of oil and leases," he said. "I think that has more to do with it than how the president reacted to it." I have lost ALL respect for the man. Apparently, he is just another liberal hack who will support Obama no matter what the facts are. So, let me enlighten you, Jimmy...Here are the facts.I hope you and all the other “Bush Blamers” choke on them!

In February 2010, Deepwater Horizon commenced drilling an exploratory well at the Macondo Prospect (Mississippi Canyon Block 252), about 41 miles off the southeast coast of Louisiana, at a water depth of approximately 5,000ft. The Macondo prospect exploration rights were acquired by BP in 2009, with the prospect jointly owned by BP (65%), Anadarko (25%) and MOEX Offshore 2007 (10%)

On April 20, 2010, when drilling at the Macondo Prospect, an explosion on the rig caused by a blowout killed eleven crewmen and ignited a fireball whose flames were visible from 35 miles away. At 09:45 p.m. during the final phases of drilling the exploratory well at Macondo, a geyser of seawater erupted from the marine riser onto the rig, shooting 240ft into the air. This was soon followed by the eruption of a slushy combination of mud, methane gas, and water. The gas component of the slushy material quickly transitioned into a fully gaseous state and then ignited into a series of explosions and then a firestorm. An attempt was made to activate the blowout preventer, but it failed. The resulting fire could not be extinguished and, on April 22, 2010, Deepwater Horizon sank, leaving the well gushing at the sea floor and causing the largest offshore oil spill in United States history.

During its lifetime the rig received 5 citations for non-compliance under the Bush Administration, 4 of which were in 2002 (safety, including the blowout preventer) and the other in 2003 for pollution. A sixth citation in 2007 related to non-grounded electrical equipment was later withdrawn when the equipment was determined to be compliant with regulations. The Minerals Management Service (renamed on 18 June 2010 by the Obama Administration to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or Bureau of Ocean Energy (BOE)) is the regulatory and inspecting body for offshore oil drilling and rigs. Overall they cited the Deepwater Horizon's safety record was "strong" according to a drilling consultant reviewing the information. In 2009 the Obama Administration’s new Minerals Management Service "heralded the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety". According to AP's investigation "its record was so exemplary, according to MMS officials, that the rig was never on inspectors' informal 'watch list' for problem rigs".

Now, after knowing the facts, Jimmy and all you other Bush Blamers out there, how can you or anyone else honestly blame George W. Bush for this disaster?

The Modern day "Liberty Tree" is being chopped down

In 1765 the British government imposed the” Stamp Act” on the American colonies. All legal documents, permits, contracts, newspapers, pamphlets, and playing cards in the American colonies were required to carry a tax stamp. Because the Act applied to papers, newspapers, advertisements, and other publications, it was viewed by the colonists as a means of censorship, or a "knowledge tax," on the rights of the colonists to write, read and speak freely.

In the summer of 1765 the citizens of Boston began demonstrating against the Stamp Act. Then in August of that year, a group of men calling themselves the “Sons of Liberty” gathered in Boston common under a large elm tree near Hanover Square to protest the hated Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty concluded their protest by hanging two tax collectors in effigy from the tree. The tree became known as the "Liberty Tree." The tree was often decorated with banners and lanterns. People would post their grievances anonymously on it. Assemblies were regularly held under its branches to express their views and vent emotions. A flagstaff was raised within the Liberty Tree's branches and when a yellow flag was raised, the Sons of Liberty were to meet.

When the news of the Boston Liberty Tree spread throughout the colonies, local patriots in each of the 13 colonies formed local chapters of the Sons of Liberty and identified a large tree or erected a pole to be used as their meeting place. In those times, holding an unauthorized assembly was dangerous and against the King’s law and carried threats of imprisonment or even death. The casual appearance of a group of people chatting beneath a tree was much safer.

In the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, the British made the Liberty Tree an object of ridicule. British soldiers tarred and feathered a man named Thomas Ditson, and forced him to march in front of the tree. During the siege of Boston, about the last day of August 1775, a party of Colonial British Loyalists led by Job Williams defiantly cut the tree down in an act of spite, knowing what it represented to the colonists, and used the tree for firewood. This act only further enraged the colonists. As resistance to the British grew, flags bearing a representation of the Liberty Tree were flown to symbolize the unwavering spirit of liberty. These flags were later a common sight during the battles of the American Revolution.

When the Revolutionary War was won and the Founding Fathers set out to establish the Law of the new nation, they envisioned that the rights of the citizens to have the freedom of speech and of the press were the very foundation of this country that when they created the Constitution, they put those rights and freedoms as the very first one in the Bill of Rights.

Fast forward to the present day…We have taken the fact that the freedom of speech and of the press for granted for over 220 years. We believed that there was nothing that could threaten those liberties. In the era of the internet, Liberty Trees is no longer a necessity. Websites in the virtual world have taken the place of where the people can go to post their grievances anonymously and assemble to express their views and vent emotions. Just like my "blawg" site you are reading now...

This fundamental right is being threatened not from a foreign country, but from within our own government. A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cyber-security bill that some have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet for up to 4 months. Its called the “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act” The bill creates and gives the new “National Center for Cyber-security and Communications” "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered. Without a definition of critical infrastructure, it includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free speech and to access information. This is the very definition of tyranny…controlling the people's means of communication. Regulating their right to free speech and press. This legislation and ones like it must be stopped if this country is to survive intact for future generations to live in freedom as the Founding Fathers intended.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers.html

Illegal Immigration and Constitutional Supremacy…two separate arguments.

Our Federal government has turned a corner; they have just become the enemy of the states and citizens of the United States of America. The Department of Justice has announced that it will sue Arizona over SB 1070, the newly passed law that MIRRORS federal immigration law! It simply gives local authorities the lawful ability to ascertain citizenship. This lawsuit is not about “law” this is about politics and this administration’s immigration agenda of amnesty-for-votes, nothing more. Obama’s supporters are expecting some quid-pro-quo and this charade at tax-payer’s expense is just to appease the Hispanic masses that are opposed ANY immigration law that doesn’t provide for open borders and easy citizenship. The federal government would rather demonize a state law for upholding Federal law than do it themselves and portrait the illegal invaders as victims of an “unjust law”.

The federal government has become the “anti-government” of a common sense minded society. They are doing the exact opposite from what common sense tells you they should be doing and that is supporting Arizona, giving Gov. Brewer the troops she asked for and closing the border! This is the direct consequence of having the 1960’s counter revolution radicals who are now “the man” in the position of national leadership and hard working, common sense people are now considered the “extremists and radicals”.

Numerous cities and municipalities in California have started boycotting Arizona in response to the new law. They are over $29 billion in the red as a big result of illegal invaders sucking their social programs dry. San Francisco and San Diego are what is known as “sanctuary cities” where illegal invaders can live without fear that they will get deported. The moronic irony of all that is, that California Penal Code 834(b) is basically the same as Arizona’s SB 1070, except that their law expressly prohibits “sanctuary cities”! Talk about calling the kettle black! So my question is…why isn’t this administration targeting ALL the states that have similar state immigration laws? Answer; because it’s not about law…well, you know the rest.

Read for yourself:
California Penal Code Part 2, Title 3, Chapter 5 Section 834(b)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90

The government claims that the Constitution’s Supremacy Law is the reason that they are suing. But by just reading the US Constitution, you can see that this argument isn’t viable because the Constitution says that the States cannot make any laws that are CONTRARY to federal law. Arizona law is not contrary to federal law…it mirrors it. Just as most states have in their state constitutions that the citizens have the right to bear arms as it states in the US Constitution’s second amendment.

Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (emphasis added)

The government also argues that it is the responsibility of the federal government to regulate immigration. This is constitutionally correct. However, SB 1070 has absolutely no provision to grant citizenship…only to turn over apprehended illegal invaders to the Government for disposition. That’s it.

Article 1, section 8 Powers of Congress
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States:” (emphasis added)

Also, it is my opinion that Arizona does not constitutionally require permission to deploy the Arizona National Guard to the border according to the US Constitution…

Article 1, section 10 Powers Prohibited of States
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” (Emphasis added)

Do not be fooled by what this administration or the media is saying. They are spinning the truth to fit their agenda as stated above. Arizona is being INVADED and is at war! The drug cartels and the undocumented aliens are ravaging the border towns at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and in both Mexican and American lives. Not to mention the fact that there have been Pakistani and other Middle Eastern foreigners apprehended coming across the border into Arizona. The Mexican drug cartels have recently said they are going to start using snipers to shoot police and border guards from across the border. If this isn’t an invasion and war by definition, I don’t know what is!

We have an ass-backward administration. They are complete amateurs at just about everything that they do and are bankrupting and ruing this great country from within for us and our future generations.

The question that MUST be seriously asked: How do we stop this insanity? Answer…what does your heart and gut tell you must be done?

Wondered why the borders are not secure yet?

Have you been angered at why this administration hasn’t secured the border yet? Well, get ready for your head to explode (watch the video)…On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform. In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.”

There you have it…the Obama administration is literally using American and Mexican lives down on the border in a quid-pro-quo disturbing game in his Chicago style thugocrisy. This president doesn’t care one bit about what is right and good for America! He only cares about getting his democratic socialist agenda passed even if the vast majority of Americans are opposed to it. This evil political mind-set is the epitome of why voting this November and in 2012 against these vile, big government,nanny state radicals is VITAL for the very survival of the United States of America.

Everything is not as it seems...or should be

Sometime during the last half-century, America – the most magnificent and prosperous nation in the world – was stolen.

Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was a decent place. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, moral, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just happen?

NO! It didn't just happen. In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation's history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.

Today in the age of Obama, millions of Americans are "waking up" to this stealth infiltration and subversion of their beloved country and are appalled at what they see: Not only is their government in the hands of the leftist radicals, but virtually all of our nation's major institutions – from the public education system to our colleges and universities, from the news media to the entertainment industry, from the unions to our major philanthropic foundations, even many of our churches – have also been captivated by this same destructive ideology all in the progressive name of “social justice”.

Here's the hard and disturbing truth, the same 'isms' that we fought to contain overseas – whether you call it Marxism, socialism, or progressivism – has been slowly infiltrating and subverting America for decades. The final piece of the puzzle – the federal government – fell into leftists' radical hands like a ripe piece of fruit in November 2008.

Obama’s agenda can be defined in two words ... redistributive rights. Once he achieves this... he gains control of all in all ways he foresees doing.

The redistributive change begins with the banks.
Take the big banks ... bolster them in any way you must ….then methodically begin closing the lesser banks. Keep a few around to use for your purposes… telling them who to makes loans to and under what conditions.

Bail out as many companies as you can then take full control of them .. using the bailout money as your reason… destroying the economy as the people have built it … then offer money to those whom have been destroyed .. money to use to retrain them in lines of work approved by the state government. .. which in turn has become beholden to the federal government for money taken in return for doing its bidding.

Redistributive wealth means one thing and one thing only... complete and total government control.

That is Obama’s agenda … and there is not one of us who can use the excuse any more that we do not know … for he has said it and he is doing all he can now to achieve it.
Did people get the government they deserve ? Did we deserve this one as it was voted in by people who had been put to sleep … by a blind trust that came from our sense of security in our freedom as we went on with our busy day to day lives … or perhaps through a lack of attention on what was going on around us brought on by an overdose of mind numbing ”entertainment”?

Our tax code is a prime example of redistribution of wealth. My wife and I paid over $19,000 in federal taxes and still owed over $1900. However, I prepared a friend of the family’s sister’s income taxes for her. She is a single mother of two who only paid $700 in federal taxes and got back…$6500! You tell me, isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

If enough people are still asleep then this government stays in power after November of this year... then we will surely deserve all that comes with it… and that will not be good by any measure of common sense.

Wake up … America … and stay awake! Be vigilant for the wolf is at the door...

Usurpation eradicated by Nullification

Our Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, created a federal government of strictly limited, enumerated powers when it was ratified by the people’s delegates in their respective state conventions. These states were not created by the Constitution, because they already existed.

If there is a term that I wish would become a household word to be used again by every American in their daily political discussions, it would be the word “usurpation”.
Usurpation is the unauthorized, unlawful exercise of power. Whenever a person, department or branch of the government (federal, state, or local) usurps, they assume un-delegated powers and are therefore acting outside the law.

As part of this new constitutional contract between the people of the several states, their respective state governments and the federal government, the people of each state (as opposed to one American people as a whole), delegated a few, carefully chosen and defined powers to the new federal government. They did so with the understanding that these powers could be revoked if necessary. Furthermore, all the other powers which they did not loan to the federal government, they either retained for themselves or delegated back to their state governments.

Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people. Why? Because as the 10th Amendment makes it clear:
“All powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

George Washington warned against the dangers of usurpation:
“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

“Nullification” is a state’s decision to render a particular federal law that it deems unconstitutional void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state. It is a process which can unfold in a variety of ways. It may involve formal legislation, or it may not. I could include court battles, but not necessarily. Interposition by state and local officials, such as your state’s Attorney General or elected county sheriff might be required, but not always.

I’m very encouraged by what I call the “Great American Awakening” in the fact that there have been recent state laws that have been passed that use the nullification process in support of the Second Amendment. These laws are known as the Firearms Freedom Acts (FFA).

The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" or what ever state it was made in, on a central metallic part. So far, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Tennessee and my favorite, Arizona have all passed the FFA. 19 other states have introduced FFA legislation and 4 more states say that they intend to.

This administration is usurping power that it does not rightfully wield in order to take more and more of your freedoms away. Just voting them out in November 2010 & 2012 isn’t enough. Each and every state must fully acknowledge that it is they who wield the real power, not the federal government. Until that time comes to pass, we are all living under despot rule without ever really knowing it. But I guarantee that our Founding Fathers would have realized it by now. It’s time to once again be “We the People” not “We the Sheeple”.

Funny Videos: Or are they sad and true

Obama on Dragnet



Tim Hawkins



Uncle Jay explains Congress

American Suicide

Dick Lamm is the former Governor of Colorado and in that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington , DC , filled to capacity by many of America 's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his
latest book, 'Mexifornia,' explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States . He said, 'If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived
the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.''

'Here is how they do it,' Lamm said:

'First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country... History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to
be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada , Belgium , Malaysia , and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press
for autonomy , if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.'

Lamm went on:

'Second, to destroy America , invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other
explanation is out of bounds.

'Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec ' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance
that once dictated ethnocentricy and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, 'I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.'

'Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.'

'My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority.'

'My sixth plan for America 's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is
against most historical precept. People undervalue the unity it takes to
keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed
that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language
and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part
in the Olympic games.. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty.
Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors:
local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political
divisions. Greece fell. 'E. Pluribus Unum' -- From many, one. In that
historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of
the 'Unum,' we will 'Balkanize' America as surely as Kosovo.'

'Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to
talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word
similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and
paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion
and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having
established multi-cultum, having the large foundations fund the doctrine
of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our
immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has
been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every
individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of
millions of them.'

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound
silence followed. Finally he said, 'Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson
Davis 's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to
destroy America .. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't
read that book.'

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous
cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that
room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically,
quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today.
Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the
foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even
barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as
we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third
World as corporations create a Third World in America Take note of
California and other states. Todate, ten million illegal aliens and
growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book '1984.' In that
story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building:
'War is peace,' 'Freedom is slavery,' and 'Ignorance is strength.'

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is
deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration
monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California
wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American
Dream.

Who is on the “right side of history”…? It's all about perspective.

Many people have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Some even suggest we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to these people why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in the early 1900's when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English
a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture, to become an American citizen. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. Many of our fathers or grandfathers fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German- American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried the one flag that represented our country, Old Glory. Not one of those immigrant sons would have ever thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing by a different set of rules where they don’t have to wait in any lines, or go through the proper legal channels. One that includes the entitlement card of goods and services and a guarantee of still being faithful to their mother country and not disavowing citizenship. I'm sorry, that's not compatible with being an American citizen. The memory and honor of the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all their toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching to create a better life for themselves and families. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign flags on American soil.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to those citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet. The “right side of history” has yet to be written.

Immigration Protest is Atlanta



La Raza rally at UCLA (and they call themselves "nonpartisan"...LOL!)

Arizona's New Immigration Law with a common sense perspective.

If a very young looking person was partaking in the festivities at Marti Gras in New Orleans and was walking around drinking a beer like so many other thousands of people are doing, would it be “age discrimination” for a policeman to detain that person and demand to see some identification to verify that the person was not breaking the law by drinking under age? Wouldn’t the policeman have “reasonable suspicion” to believe the person is underage because this person appears to very young looking? Contrary to that, the Arizona law does not allow a policeman to just walk up to a person and demand to see immigration or citizenship papers. It is a “secondary” infraction meaning that the said person must first commit an infraction of the law in order to be detained where as the policeman can arbitrarily just walk up to someone in possession of alcohol and ask for ID to verify proper age to see if an infraction has occurred or not. People are saying that the Arizona law allows racial profiling and is discriminatory. Wouldn’t the above cited scenario be age discrimination and age profiling based on how young or old a person may look? The truth is, it’s a simple fact that 99.9% of all the estimated 496,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona come from south of the border. Regardless of what the politically correct crowd screams and whines about, that simple fact will not change by naming them differently such as calling them “undocumented workers”.

Drinking under the age of 21 is illegal just as entering the United States without going through the proper immigration process is also. So stop the crying and whining and stop the problem at the border. The Arizona law empowers authorities to actually do something about the problem. All states that have international borders should adopt similar legislation.

The underlying resentment about Arizona's new immigration law is that the people who oppose it actually desire these illegal immigrants to recieve amnesty and to have open borders, but this law is going in the other direction from that...towards where the majority of the American citizens want it to go. Round up and deport illegal immigrants and close the borders. Enough is enough already!

The following is NOT the new Arizona Law. It is EXISTING FEDERAL LAW THAT IS BEING IGNORED BY OUR PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS and the reason Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona hasn’t been indicted on federal discrimination laws. He is simply upholding FEDERAL law. Now he has STATE law to follow as well.


8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts:Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties:
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(c) Marriage fraud:Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud:Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

UPDATE: 2 May 2010

It is about time a news show other than Fox News reports the truth about the Arizona Immigration Bill!

Is he or isn't he? The Birther question. The truth shall set you free

Whether or not you do or do not believe that President Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the US Constitution is irrelevant when he adamantly refuses to put the question about it to rest once and for all. It is hard to comprehend why Obama has been so obsessively secretive about his personal records, but it is now time for him to call off his lawyers and show the American public his cards. It would be the height of irresponsibility for the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to be the source of destroying American military discipline. Permitting such an easily preventable situation to develop would very strongly imply that the man is not only ineligible for the office, but unfit for it as well.
The question about the Obama birth certificate is no longer one of conspiracy theory or hypothetical illegitimacy, as it now threatens to become a very serious military matter. Regardless of whether Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center, at the Queen's Medical Center, in Kenya or in a manger, the issue will have to be conclusively settled in the near future.
What is truly troubling is the fact that everyone seems to believe that Obama had been “properly vetted” during the campaign. How could he have been when besides his actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records? He has spent almost $2 million keeping all of them sealed. Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," but no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth even though the question was asked dozens of times and law suits brought against him. So far all of them have been dismissed for “lack of standing.” In other words, no one is eligible to challenge his eligibility to be president apparently!
It is one thing for Obama to deny the curiosity of the American public by hiding behind the courts and lawyers, but it is very much another for him to deny the right of the men and women of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, who are sworn to risk their lives upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, to be certain their orders are legitimate. Maybe through Lt. Col. Lakin’s self sacrifice, the truth will finally come to light. He will have a "right of discovery" during a court-martial – meaning Lt. Col. Lakin’s legal team could compel the Obama administration to produce proof of eligibility during the course of the government’s prosecution.




Did Michelle Obama let the truth slip out? Listen to what she says from 44 to 48 seconds into the clip…

Healthcare Bill: What history tells us.

Social Security Act of 1935
The bill was passed in the House on April 19, 1935 by a vote of 372 yeas, 33 nays, 2 present, and 25 not voting.

“Yeas”
House version:
Democrat: 284
Republican: 81
Farm/Labor: 1
Progressive/Other: 6

Senate Version:
Democrat: 60
Republican: 16
Farm/Labor: 1
Progressive/Other: 0

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

“Yeas”
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152
Republican Party: 138

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44
Republican Party: 27

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46
Republican Party: 27

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153
Republican Party: 136


Medicare Act 1965

"Yeas"
Senate
Democrat 57
Republican 13

House
Democrat 237
Republican 70

Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Obamacare) H.R 3590

"Yeas"
Senate (Dec. 23, 2009) House
Democrat 60
Republican 0

House (Mar. 21, 2010 @ 10:49PM)
Democrat *219
Republican 0

*216 House votes required to pass

In the last 75 years, there has been three major pieces of legislation passed with bipartisan approval; the Social Security Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Medicare Act of 1965. The fourth is the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act of 2010. This is a historic legislation in the fact that in both houses of Congress, not one single Republican voted for it...NOT ONE! It will go down in history as the most politically divided piece of legislation to ever get passed.

It will also eventually go down in history as the pivotal moment that brought the United States of America to its knees, both socially and fiscally. Referring to the Democratic Party, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, he infamously turned to an aide and said, “We have lost the south for a generation." Little could he know then that it would be for a lot longer. I wonder if Obama will mutter any profound prophesy to his aide?

Here is mine…

Never before in American history has the Congress and the American people been so politically divided as they are over the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Obamacare) and an administration. What Democrats fail to see or admit is that the very same sentiments that ushered in the Republicans taking both the House and Senate in 1994 are being felt by the American people today. Back then, in furthering what the press dubbed the “Republican Revolution,” Newt Gingrich and his newly emboldened conservative allies capitalized on the perception that the House Democratic leadership had engaged in corrupt practices and deception, as well as on the broad dissatisfaction among independent voters with the policies of President Bill Clinton. The Republicans are poised politically to do it again and the Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for their ignorance for not listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans who voiced their opposition to this bill. They did so at town hall meetings, at organized protests and gatherings around the country and in Washington DC. Not to mention the recent election upsets for the Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. It begins again...

If history tells us anything, the American people have had enough of the corruption and elitism in Washington once again and the Congress will again be under Republican control come November 2, 2010. That is the coming reality of what Obama should whisper to his aide when he signs the bill… Referring to the Democratic Party, ”We have just lost control of Congress for a generation” and/or “I have just become a one-term President.”

Stupak lied the whole time!

The representative from Michigan, Bart Stupak who portrays himself as a pro-life Democrat has been lying through his teeth the whole time! He freely admits that he WILL NOT stand behind his supposed pro-life principals and vote against Obamacare. If it came down to his vote being the deciding factor, he would vote in favor of Obamacare. Well guess what...that is exactly what happened, for the most part. He made a political deal with Obama to give him a little political cover by promising to issue a toothless "executive order" that states no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions in order for him not to look like a flip-flopper on his vote. Everyone with half a brain knows that an executive order does not over ride the legislated law and is only good until the President rescinds it or leaves office. It has as much teeth as a resolution and is not binding if challenged in court. Most of the provisions in this bill don't even take effect until Obama is either re-elected or voted out of office(preferably the latter!).

We Must Take America Back! (Video)

This video says it all...We must take America back or the next generation will never know how great this country is.

One of the only "Rap" songs I like..."OTP"

I'm not a big "Rap" music fan, but this one I'd be happy to hear my kids listen to! I hope it becomes a viral hit on the internet and makes the young voters snap out of their Obamatron mindset.

Know where you are politically…you just may be surprised!

Take the Nolan Survey to see where your personal politics lie.
I'd like to see some comments about where you find out your actual political beliefs are.

www.nolanchart.com/survey.php


Liberalism: A political orientation that favors social progress (progressivism) by reform and by changing laws (evolution of the Constitution) rather than by revolution.

Conservatism: A political orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and advocates traditional values. Distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. (Opposing radical changes)

Libertarianism: A political ideology that embraces individual liberty over state (governmental) authority, both in the realm of economic activity and personal or social activity. Governments role should be minimal, rarely interfering in the personal lives of private citizens.

Statism: A political ideology that advocates for the concentration of all economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government. The belief that the centralization of power in a state is the ideal or best way to organize humanity. (Socialism/Communism)

Centrist: A political orientation that embraces some of the beliefs of Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism and Statism. Centrism is the practice of promoting moderate policies which lie between different political extremes of the left and the right.

Our President's true political beliefs

This is an interview with an acquaintance of Barrack Obama when he was a student at Occidental College. This individual sheds a lot of light on the mindset of our President and his philosophy of how America's economic and social infrastructure should be "fundamentally transformed". It is categorical proof that Obama is a socialist/communist. Barrack Obama still has not released any information or transcripts about his years at Occidental College.
This may be why...







More insight into Barrack Obama during his Occidental College years at the acquaintance's blog...

http://www.anonymouspoliticalscientist.blogspot.com/

Colonial Bailout

“Not Yours to Give”
by Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

If every elected official understood and followed the principles in this story, we would have few problems from our government. And if every media reporter held officials to task for their violation and if every citizen voted in accordance with these principles, our liberty would be far more secure. This is a true story of colonial "bailouts" and what the constituents thought was the right thing to do.

________________________________________
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the emblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way.

"I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.
I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity."

"Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life."

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't, said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in ernest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue.

"This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes"
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend."

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote."

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before."

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm."

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me."

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:"

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:"

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error."

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before."

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress."

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing which I will call your attention, you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."