Monday, August 31, 2009


I found this over at PoliticalPistachio.

Is there anybody out there who thinks this is OK?

This pretend officer must have gone to government schools and learned First Amendment 1A: "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech unless some stupid, hair-brained, uneducated, moron thinks it is inappropriate."

This is outrageous, and if you don't think so, you have absolutely no understanding of what this country is about and should not be pretending to be an American.

That big, dumb cop, if he really was one, should be sitting in jail somewhere charged with treason.

Guy with the sign: "This is America..."

Big dumb, idiotic, Commie cop: "It ain't no more, OK?"

Does that mean that what we "right-wing blogger types" have been saying all along has come to pass while nobody noticed?

I cannot begin to find the words to express my personal angst with this guy.

If he is correct, our nation is gone.

Saturday, August 29, 2009


I love blogging.

Blogging has given me an opportunity to express myself in way that I was never able to before its inception.

Sometimes my posts are really good...sometimes they are really bad, but good or bad, they represent what I am thinking at any given moment.

Blogging has been hailed by some as the ultimate method of spreading information around the world.

I'm not so sure about that.

I polled my Sunday School class a couple of Sundays ago and most of them (ages 20ish through 80ish) do not know what blogging is. Only a couple have read blogs and none of them (as far as I know) engage in blogging.

President BO is fond of blaming us "right-wing bloggers" for the troubles liberal representatives have had at town hall meetings.

There's no word on what mischief the "left-wing bloggers" have caused.

All of that may become moot, however, if legislation making its way through the Senate becomes law.

Senate bill S773, being revised and updated by West Virginia Democrat, Senator Jay Rockefeller, would give the president "emergency" power to interrupt and to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

You can read an excerpt of the bill and see for yourself what mischief IT proposes.

Its purpose is to give the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

According to CNET NEWS, "When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. 'We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,' Rockefeller said."

At ALL costs?

That is chilling.

Has it ever occurred to them that when one of the "ALL COSTS" is liberty, that it is not worth ANY price?

Do they not get that?

Why not?

Do we Americans take this business of LIBERTY so lightly that we are willing to disregard the blood, sweat and tears that it took to establish and keep it?

Did the founders make a mistake in believing that the beat of freedom rages in the hearts of all people and has since the beginning of time?

When I kept a personal journal, nobody objected...even back in the days when my thinking was corroded by the rust of liberalism.

Why, when I put my thoughts online in a blog, has my freedom of expression suddenly become a matter of concern for the government?

Folks, there is a despotic, dangerous, diabolical thought process clouding the collective thinking of liberals in general and our present government in particular.

If a bill like S773 is not stopped in its tracks, we will soon blog no more.

Friday, August 28, 2009


He is one of the sleaziest, greasiest representatives in congress.

Charles Rangel.

"Joe," you object, "That just isn't a very nice thing to say."

Well, I'm sorry, Charles Rangel just isn't a very nice man, and there are no good things to say about him.

"Joe!" You're kinda upset with me, I know, "You just can't go around making statements like that about our fine upstanding government leaders."

Yes I can...I just did.

Oh, and did I by any chance mention that he is a Democrat?

The New York Post has an article you can read about him here.

Says the Post: Rangel’s “corrections” to his financial-disclosure statements from 2002 through 2007 are stunning, even by the low standards of this “error”-prone paperwork-filer — who, by the way, happens to be in charge of writing the nation’s tax laws.

Seems old Charlie sort of forgot to mention millions of dollars in income and business deals during that period of time.

One of the things he forgot to mention was $1 million he got from the sale of a 132nd street building.

Just another Democrat slip-up, like all of the other mistakes made by so many Democrats on their income taxes...just one more.

What's weird is that New York city record indicate that Charles Rangel is still the owner of the building.

But wait...he sold the building...but wait...he still owns the building.

I think my head is starting to hurt.

As the Post points out, that's not all:

There are adjustments -- as much as $780,000 -- in the value of his assets:
* An "omitted" checking account valued between $250,000 to $500,000.
* Another fund worth up to $100,000.
* Unreported investment portfolios said to be between $15,000 and $50,000.
The unreported business deals total a jaw-dropping $3 million.

Oh, and did I mention that Charles Rangel is "the nation's tax-writer-in-chief?"

The Post also reminds us of: his failure to disclose -- and pay tax on -- some $75,000 in rental income from his Caribbean villa.

Then followed revelations about his:

* Four rent-stabilized apartments.

* Apparent quid pro quo in preserving a tax loophole for an oil company that donated $1 million to a planned "public service" center named for Rangel.

Last May, the Sunday Post disclosed yet another Rangel scandal, involving corporate junkets to the Caribbean.

I wonder how long it will be before Eric Holder will demonstrate his devotion to justice and complete the investigation into this idiot.

Well, the House has already started investigations, but don't hold your breath waiting for them to take action against one of their heroes.

Democrat heroes are allowed to break the law if they want to without reprisals.

Seems that the late Ted Kennedy is not the only one who gets (got) away with murder.

You might take a look at one of my favorite scenes in one of my favorite movies.

Think of the Walrus as Charles Rangel.

Thursday, August 27, 2009


His name was Robert Welch.

In 1958 he gave a speech in which he made some startling predictions about where the government of the United States of America was heading.

You can watch a video of the speech here at The Clay Tablet.

He laid out his predictions in 10 points and repeated them in a 1974 conference.

I'm going to give you his points one at a time, and ask you a question about each one.

He predicted:

1. Greatly expanded government spending for every conceivable means of getting rid of ever larger sums of American money as wastefully as possible.

Question: Since 1958 has the government been spending more or less money? Has it been spent more fiscally responsibly or more wastefully?

2. Higher and then much higher taxes.

Question: Since 1958 has our total tax bill remained static or has it gone up?

3. An increasingly unbalanced budget despite the higher taxes.

Question: How many years since 1958 have we had a balanced budget?

4. Wild inflation of our currency.

Question: Will our dollars buy more or less than in 1958?

5. Government controls of prices, wages and materials supposedly to combat inflation.

Question: Since 1958, has the government controlled more or less of prices, wages and materials?

6. Greatly increased socialistic controls over every operation of our economy and every activity
of our daily lives. This is to be accompanied naturally and automatically by a correspondingly huge increase in the size of our bureaucracy and the cost and reach of our domestic government.

Question: Does the government control more or less of our businesses today than in 1958? Has there or has there not been an increase in the federal bureaucracy since 1958?

7. Far more centralization of power in Washington and the practical elimination of our state lines. There is a many faceted drive at work to have our state lines to mean no more within our nation as our county lines do now within the states.

Question: Has there or has there not been a fuzzying of state lines, with more and more of our lives controlled by the federal government, rather than individual states?

8. The steady advance of federal aid to and control over our educational system leading to complete federalization of our public education.

Question: Has the public education system in The United States of America moved closer to a government system or further away from it? Has federal aid to education increased or decreased since 1958?

9. A constant hammering into the American consciousness of the horror of modern warfare. The beauties and the absolute necessities of peace, peace always on communist terms of course.

Question: Is our government approaching war with an attitude of, "let's get this done, done correctly and done now," or is it more of a "let's piddle around at this, and do lots of diplomacy and maybe everybody will just learn to love us?"

10. The constant willingness of the American people to allow the steps of appeasement by our government that amount to a piece meal surrender of the rest of the free world and the United States itself.

Question: Does our government spend more or less time seeking to appease other countries, apologizing for our past behavior and moving toward a One World Government system?

Putting aside whether or not you think we're moving in the right direction, was Robert Welch correct in his predictions or not?

Answer: His predictions were correct.

Not only were they correct, President BO has greatly accelerated our march toward the "S" word, socialism, which is defined as: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry; an economic system based on state ownership of capital.

The move toward Socialism is not new to America, it has been going on in earnest since before Roosevelt.

Think: Government take over of Chrysler and General Motors, government assistance of private businesses (car dealerships), much of the financial services sector, and now attempting to usurp the health care industry.

And that is supposed to be in the spirit of the American Dream of self sufficiency, achievement and personal responsibility?

Wednesday, August 26, 2009


I do not mean to diminish the significance of his death, but it is really difficult to deal with this in a compassionate manner.

If I were to make a list of the things I liked about Senator Ted Kennedy and place it next to the list of things I did not like about him, the latter list would be exhaustive, while the former almost non-existent.

Nevertheless, he was a flesh and blood person with a family that loved him in that certain way families of this type love each other.

I'm sure they are devastated, and I pray that they find the Peace of God in this trying time.

Ted Kennedy accomplished a lot...almost all of it bad.

Kennedy is credited with helping to pass a lot of "civil rights" legislation, some of it good, most of it serving to solidify the entitlement attitude of minorities. He consistently argued for the increased minimum wage in 1981, helped to fund "Meals on Wheels," helped reduce the voting age from 21 to 18, supported "Title IX," which gave women's athletics much better funding and helped use tax payer dollars to "access to health care" for poor people.

With the possible exception of Meals on Wheels, most of his legislative life was spent making people more dependent on the government, rather than leading them to become independent, self-helping, liberty-loving individuals.

At least four times, while at law school, Kennedy was stopped by police for reckless driving, yet he never had his license suspended.

I remember another president who was severely castigated by the Main Stream Media when some of his youthful activities came to light, but not Ted Kennedy. Somehow, with "help" from the family, he got off and it was never heard of again.

On Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts, in 1969, he attended a party from which he offered to give Mary Jo Kopechne a ride home.

Some say he had been drinking. At any rate, he missed the ramp to a bridge and flipped the borrowed limousine into Poucha Pond.

He left Mary Jo behind to drown and did not even report the incident until the next day.

For contributing to the death of another human being, Ted Kennedy was given a two month sentence and it was suspended.

It is often helpful to have a powerful family who can pull the appropriate strings.

When it was discovered that he had brain cancer, the subconscious mind of almost everybody knew his days were numbered.

And now, his number has come up.

No longer will we get to hear his sometimes muddled, often incoherent rambling rages on this that or the other.

His accusatory pontifications will be no more.

He will, for a short time, replace Michael Jackson as the only newsworthy subject for the talking heads and gossip-mongers of TV.

My honest condolences go out to his family, as they are no doubt saddened by his death.

Monday, August 24, 2009


President BO held one of his "famous" conference calls the other day. This one was with the National Council of Churches.

In it he said: "We are closer to achieving that reform than we have ever been and that's why we're seeing some of the divisive and deceptive attacks. You've heard some of them. Uh, ludicrous ideas for, ehh... Let me just give you one example. This notion that somehow we are setting up "death panels," uh, that would decide whether elderly people get to live or die. That is just an extraordinary lie."

Let's be clear. President BO, in the above remarks, is saying that "death panels" don't exist in his plan or the proposed legislation.

A woman with a 105 year old mother who had needed a pace maker when she was 100 years old, asked President BO whether that would be possible under his plan, given that her mother was very "spunky."

President BO's response at the time was: "I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's "spirit." Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."

OK. Under the health care plans being considered by the Congress, the Senate and the president, there would be a "commission" to decide whether a particular procedure conforms with the balance between cost and benefit.

So it's a "commission," not a "death panel."

A rose by any other name.

Another point that President BO is fond of making is: "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all. Reform's about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job."

Notice the figure he uses (as does most of the Mainstream Media): 47 million.

That 47 million figure includes illegal aliens (undocumented workers). There are about 12 million of them.

Obama has said we're not going to insure them. He said: "We've heard that this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal aliens, and that's not true."

What he fails to remind you of in this statement is that the Supreme Court's already ruled that illegal aliens have all citizen rights.

President BO has said: "You've heard that this is all going to, uh, to mean government funding of abortion. Not true."

Try to square that with his words to Bryan Howard, the CEO of Planned Parenthood : "In my mind, uh, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. And so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we are doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services."

Another point the President insists on making is that you can keep your present health insurance coverage if you like it, even if it is employer paid.

OK. Try this quote on for size: "I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out."

Now in my county automobile dealers are getting pretty upset. They've made a bunch of deals involving "Clunkers," which they have taken in trade on new cars, allowing up to $4,500.00 on them, for which they have yet to be reimbursed as promised by the "Cash for Clunkers" program put forth by President BO.

Several dealerships are sitting on the verge of closing down if they don't get their money pretty soon.

Of course the dealers can't take back the deal, because the "clunkers" have been destroyed, thus reducing global warming and decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.

If you believe that, I have a proverbial bridge in...oh, never mind.

Now President BO wants us to go along with his health care bill the same way we went along with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Post Office.

He's so honest, straightforward and integrity-filled.

Just trust him. OK?

PERSONAL NOTE (NOT USUALLY DONE ON A BLOG'S POST, BUT DONE HERE BECAUSE THIS IS MY BLOG AND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT) TO Douglas V. Gibbs OVER AT "Political Pistachio ": I read your blog almost every day and enjoy it a lot. I am have a hard time commenting and the comments I have left are not showing up. Is there something I'm doing wrong?

Saturday, August 22, 2009


"We are God's partner in matters of life and death..."

So said President BO at a conference call Wednesday with more than 1,000 rabbis.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reported: "(he - President BO) already has completed a call this morning with rabbis that he was invited to join as they get ready for their important holidays and the messages that they and their congregants will have; the importance of, for faith leaders, the importance of health care and health care coverage for millions of Americans."

According to a Wall Street Journal report, the alleged purpose of the call was for President Obama to enlist the rabbis to support his health-care reform efforts: “I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform.”

The reference to the “who shall live and who shall die” prayer was strange in two respects.

First, as Paul Bedard noted, the Jewish New Year won’t take place until September 18th.

In fact, today marks the beginning of the month of Elul, the last month before the New Year begins. And yet the president said “shanah tovah [happy new year] to all of you.” This is kind of like wishing people “Merry Christmas” on Thanksgiving.

Second, and more surprisingly, is this really the context in which he wishes to discuss health reform — a powerful and unseen being making determinations of life and death? One would think that he would want to avoid anything that could raise the specter of rationing, death panels, or the like.

Following that, there was this White House Release: "The High Holy Days are a time when Jews are called to reflect on our spiritual lives, and what our beliefs call for when it comes to the challenges confronting us as a society. As preparations for Rosh Hashanah begin, President Obama was grateful for the invitation to join an annual conference call with Rabbis to offer his thoughts on why health insurance reform is so crucial. There will certainly be rabbis and congregants on all sides of the debate, but one thing common to all Jews is Tikkun Olam -the commitment to making the world around us a better place - and today no issue is more central to that work than making our health care system work better for all Americans."

How interesting that President BO, who up to now has done nothing...absolutely nothing to encourage or support the Jewish community or their mother country, Israel, suddenly knows about their faith when he needs them to support his agenda.

This disciple of Jeremiah Wright, this "One " who after a 20 year friendship with Rev. JW, who did not know what Rev. JW stood for, but who used him to officiate his wedding and to baptize his family, expects the Jewish community to believe that he is on their side and us to believe that he suddenly understands faith.

Lucky for him we are too stupid to see through this blatant bit of Barbra Streisand.


The more I watch this guy, the more he reminds me of former President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Jimmy Hoffa.

Only he seems to prefer SEIU.

Pretty much the same thing.

Their attitude is "If somebody disagrees with us, we hurt them."

Real Americans, those guys.

I have absolutely no idea how any thinking American could fall for President BO's line.

"We are God's partner in matters of life and death..." is a paraphrase of a specific Jewish prayer, but is really, really out of context as BO used it.

This really a very scary stuff, because the much denied "death panel" provision of HR3200 and its cousins, still exists in the form of a "committee" that will oversee the end-of-life affairs of the elderly.

If the bill, or one of its successors, passes (and I'm certain it will, given that the likes of Barney Frank, ET. AL. don't give a rip about what their constituents think), look for a drop in health care availability, an increase in costs (including taxes on you and me), an increase in waiting time for needed care, the refusal of needed surgical treatment for elderly sick and much more.

The government will indeed become partners in matters of life and death, but it won't be with God.


Obama is da imho. ru with me?

Friday, August 21, 2009


I dreamed that President BO woke up.

In my dream, President BO called a special, unscheduled press conference at which he promised to make a special announcement.
When the press conference began, President BO stepped to the dais and stood looking over the reporters present.

He spent a few uncomfortable moments looking first to the left and then to the right, moving his head slowly, almost roboticly.

There was, I thought, a small tear in his right eye.

Then he spoke.

His speech was uncharacteristically slow and deliberate.

His tone was sad.

He said, "Ladies and gentlemen, after much introspection and much consideration, and having witnessed the unparallelled reaction of the people of the United States of America to recent plans and proposals coming out of Washington, and having witnessed members of Congress demean and ridicule their constituents at Town Hall Meetings, going so far as to ignore the questioner in order to speak on the phone, and hearing them tell the voters in their districts that they would vote for an unpopular health care plan whether the voters liked it or not, I have decided that current efforts to wrest control of the health of Americans from their hands and to place it in the hands of the federal government is contrary to the Constitution, against the will of the people whom we serve, and not in the best interests of the country, should be laid aside. I am therefore recommending to congress that they withdraw consideration of a health care reform act at this time."

A great murmur flashed over the crowd and people who had never been called on for questions at one of these types of meetings held up their hands and were recognized by President BO.

"Did we understand you to say that you are backing off of your efforts to reform health care?"

"Yes." replied the President, "Given the wishes of the people, and recognizing that I have been much too arrogant, prideful and...yes, even bull headed about the health care issue, I am backing off of my efforts to reform health care."

"Mr. President!" The rich, sonorous voice was from a mature reporter who bore the scars of the war in which he had been embedded years ago. "Mr. President, I must say that in all of my years of reporting I have never had such esteem, pride and emotion about a decision by a sitting leader of the free world."

President BO spoke. "I want to apologize from the bottom of my heart for the consternation I have caused, the extreme expense I have gone to trying to pass this hellacious health care package. I am embarrassed that it ever came up and I promise that in the future I will only suggest legislation that will follow the dictates of the Constitution and will be in the best interest of the American people.

"I will embark on a course to encourage all students of every race to take advantage of the education offered to them, whether in private or public schools, to graduate from high school able to speak proper English and to engage in productive contributions to society, going on to learn a trade or to attend college, work hard and make something useful of themselves."

"I will never again try to perpetrate on the American people any form of political hoax, nor will I be anything but honest with them. I will answer questions from you and other members of the press directly, honestly and in language that will leave no doubt as to my meaning. I will no longer parse my words to make them seem like answers when they are not."

And then.....

And then.....

I woke up.

Thursday, August 20, 2009


I wear a seat belt when I drive.

I always have, ever since they came out, that is.

At first there were only lap belts, which had a tendency to cut people in half when they were in serious accidents.

Then came the full belt with shoulder restraints, which more or less cured the cut-in-half issue.

Now that they have been "perfected," they work using the principle of inertia by which a certain level of force or motion causes them to lock and hold the wearer in place.

As I said, I wear them.

But I wear seat belts as a choice, quite apart from any law requiring me to do so, as evidenced by the fact that I wore them before the law was enacted (here in Florida, anyway).

Seat belts are a good thing, and there is ample evidence that they save lives in severe accidents.

In airplanes, seat belts have been required for much of the history of commercial aviation, although there is absolutely no evidence that seat belts help much in a fall from 30 thousand feet, or the collision and explosion of two aircraft, whether in the air or on the ground.

Here is a PBS report on the ground crash of a KLM 747 with a Pan American 747.

The issue, though, is one of individual LIBERTY.

People should be free to wear seat belts if they want to.

The government has no business requiring it.

"But...but...they save lives!" I hear you shouting.

No doubt.

So would staying home and not venturing out for any reason.

Why not petition the government to make a law that requires people to stay home and not venture out for any reason?

Of course, there would still be the occasional leaking propane gas tank, like the one across the street from where I lived in Midwest City, Oklahoma. It blew the house right off of its foundation and landed it (in remarkably good shape, considering) in its own front yard.

So the government should step in (being careful about what it steps in) and outlaw propane gas tanks.

The government should control the air we breath, the water we drink, the car we drive, the clothes we wear, the tools we use, the things we make, the food we eat, the farms we till, the health care we get, the electricity we use, the job we are allowed to have, the thoughts we think, the things we say, the way we use the Internet, the books we publish, the church we attend, the tobacco we smoke (yuck), the alcohol we drink, the businesses we can own, the air conditioning we use, the fuel we put in our cars, the people we associate with, the guns we own, the soldiers we let in our houses, the things we have to reveal about ourselves, the lawyers we use, and every other aspect of our lives they can think of.

There are countries where the government does all of those things and more.

They are called dictatorships.

We're not supposed to be living in one.

Not if we really believe in "...liberty and justice for all."

Wednesday, August 19, 2009


That's what President BO said. Here's a video from CBS YouTube in which he once again dons his lecture garb and explains to us why it was not that important, after all. There is also information about another plan "they" are considering to take its palce.

Here's the deal.

It is high time the Administration swollows its pride, admits that it does not have sufficient public backing and get out of this health care business altogether.

That is unlikely to happen.

In a press conference, Press Secretary Gibbs, in his snide, snarky, condescending, arrogant way, tried to give the impression that the "Public Option" is not as important as it once was, even though it is the prefered goal of President BO.

Will somebody please clear all of this up for me.

Here is a video from Politico where Gibbs slips, and sidesteps and even gets testy with a reporter. What a guy!

Tuesday, August 18, 2009


Well, well, well! It seems that the old site has run aground.

Amid fears that the White House was compiling a list of those who oppose their policies, and Press Secretary Gibbs' inability to put together a coherent sentence explaining why the whole thing was so fishy, they've decided to "deactivate" the program.

And I was having so much fun!!

According to, if you use the old email address you get the following message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via the website at”

So there! I can still have fun sending fishy information that the administration puts out to them.

It's a little more complicated, but it can still be done.

The black helicopters are still circling my house, the black limousines are still driving around and around my block, and the electrical power in my home is still going bright, then dim, but hey!

Here is my latest message to the White House:

Press secretary Gibbs erroneously stated that you do not keep a list of people who sent emails to the now defunct This, of course, was fishy, disinformation, as the law requires that all correspondence with the government be kept.

Please use the power and influence of the White House to instruct Mr. Gibbs to answer questions in complete sentences, honestly and forthrightly, instead of thinking he is fooling the people with vague misdirection.

Monday, August 17, 2009


It was at a July 22nd TV interview. President BO made a reference to a doctor faced with a child who has had a number of sore throats. She is supposed by President BO to reason within herself that she makes "a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out"—even if the child might not need surgery.

I have been going to doctors for 67 years. The first one ceremoniously slapped me on my bohonkus, and I, fortunately, cried.

That's the last time any doctor has hinted in any way that my welfare was not his highest priority.

Maybe they do it differently in Chicago...I have never been to a doctor there.

In my mind, the thought that a doctor might choose a tonsilectomy over medicine because he can make more money is both outrageous and unthinkable.

President BO obviously cannot think of a real life situation that illustrates the need for his health care hopes and changes.

Responding to a woman whose spry 100-year-old mother was given a needed pacemaker despite her age, the president said a few weeks earlier (at an ABC News town-hall event at the White House) that doctors should let patients know that sometimes "you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

And now we have this:

Like a father instructing his children, President BO tells us how we should "...lower our voices, listen to one another and talk about differences that really exist."

He invokes Kennedy, but instead of inspiration he gives us a lecture.

I cannot figure out who this guy thinks he is.

Can you?

By the way...did you notice his right eye and general demeanor?

Something is not right.


Dear White House,

In his weekly radio address, President BO lectured us on how we should "...lower our voices, listen to one another and talk about differences that really exist."

Turns out that it is not the job of the president to lecture the citizens as though he is our righteous father.Please infom him that we do not appreciate the condescension in his voice and on his face when he delivered this message.

Joe Scoggins

Sunday, August 16, 2009



I guess he and Chris Matthews have convinced management that this is the way to do an interview.

I have been in radio since 1982 and have conducted hundreds of interviews.

It would never have occurred to me to have interrupted the guest before he had finished a sentence, or thought.

Constantly challenging the respondent before he/she finished a thought would have gotten me fired.

Do you know what I think?

I don't think the boys of HardBall know how to interview people.

I don't think they know that they don't know how to interview people.


Dear White House,

At a recent town hall meeting a member of SEIU told a lady that if President BO fails to change health care it will be because some senators were bought off by conservatives.

This is fishy disinformation, because there is not a shred of evidence that ANY senator has been bought off or offered to be bought off by any conservative.

Something else fishy is the number of SEIU members showing up at town hall meetings around the country and using physical force and violence to quell the voices of the protesters.

This may be fair tactics in Chicago, but in the rest of the country it is considered strong-arm thuggery, something with which President BO seems to have no problem.


Joe Scoggins

Saturday, August 15, 2009


FOX News' Major Garrett sparred with Robert Gibbs over emails people are receiving about health care when they never signed up for them. White House adviser David Axelrod (picture to the left) is apparently behind this effort. See the Garrett/Gibbs video here.

The email from Axelrod is RIFE with misinformation about the proposed H.R. 3200 health care bill and its brothers and sisters in the House.

As you know, I have been emailing "fishy" statements about ObamaCare to for the last week or so, so it would not surprise me to have received the email from there.

HOWEVER! Imagine my surprise when I got the email, not from the White House, but from my family physician as a forward.

I replied to my doctor with a scathing rebuke for his using his standing as a physician to promote an email that takes a political stand.

I have no objection to him taking a personal stand on either side of the issue, but this email was sent in bulk to his patients, each of whose email address appeared at the top of the one I got.

I am considering sending my reply to each of Dr. Elmer Toro's patients, but have not yet decided whether to do so. Do you think I should?

TODAY'S FEATURED flag@whitehouse.gove EMAIL:

Dear White House,

Yesterday I received an email purported to have been from David Axelrod and asking me to forward it on to others.

I find it hard to believe that a person with Axelrod's position does not know what is actually in HR3200, but seemingly he does not.

In the email, he denies that the administration favours rationing health care, that the new system will undermine health benefits offered to the over-65s.

This, of course, is very fishy disinformation.

I urge the White House to use its full influence to stop David Axelrod from spreading such disinformation, and especially to cease and desist from spreading false propaganda about HR

Joe Scoggins

Friday, August 14, 2009


You may have seen this video and been told that there was some suspicion as to the authenticity of this young lady's claim to be a pediatric physician, in practice for four years.

Wonder no more.

She not only is not a pediatric physician, she is not a doctor of any kind but is a graduate student in social work and, just coincidentally, was a Texas delegate for Obama.

You can read the entire proof from her own emails at a blog called Patterico's Pontifications right here.

Let me clear that I do not know whether or not she was a "plant." Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't.

This I do know: she is representative of the mind-set of the typical liberal, IE., "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want, whether it is actually true or not, because the truth is not what actually happened, it is how I feel about it and whether or not I said it.

"If I said it, it is true, simply because I said it and you can trust me on that."

Such is also the mind-set of President BO.

He is not trying to establish a "public option" in the health care bill, not because he is not trying to establish a "public option" in the health care bill, but because, faced with opposition to it, he SAID he was not trying to establish a "public option" in the health care bill, even though he has vowed to do so within ten to twenty years.

If a conservative makes a claim, he/she had better be ready to list at least a dozen documents backing up his claim or else the liberals will hit you right between the eyes with their most reasoned reaction, "You're so lame."

Not a single liberal who views the above video of the fake (I'm not a doctor but I play one at town hall meetings) pediatrician will take the time to research her claim to four years in the practice.

"She said it, she's an Obama supporter, therefore it must be true."

Let a conservative stand before a group and contest a statement made by a representative, and the liberal response is, "He/she is a conservative, not an Obama supporter, therefore he/she must be a plant, a liar or an idiot." This before any facts are is a knee-jerk, unreasoned reaction.

My question to liberals is, "Why is it so ingrained in your spirit to misrepresent yourselves through lies, innuendo and vile, blistering attacks?"

Liberals fancy themselves as more enlightened than the rest of us.

Why, then, must you play every issue as though it were a child's top, spinning and spinning until you get whatever you're referencing to fit your twisted world view?

In my previous post you saw Fox's Kelly ask Obama's Bill Burton whether the White House was keeping a list of those who reported "fishy" information to

He could not bring himself to give her a straight answer, although he repeatedly said he was giving her an answer. He lied, he twisted, he deflected and he side-stepped, but he would not answer the question.

It was not until Kelly pointed out that a 1974 law required that the government keep correspondence with them that he finally acquiesced and admitted that the emails are kept.

As I said, I don't know whether the fake doctor was a plant, but I do know that President BO and his minions must be on some kind of weed.

Now I'd like you to enjoy this 50 year old cartoon:


Dear White House,

President BO has said that he does not want people to think his town hall meetings are visited by plants.

There is strong video evidence that this is disinformation: LinktoVideo, as this shows people getting off the bus in New Hampshire.

I strongly recommend that you cease and desist from making statements that are untrue about who is attending these rallys in support of President BO.

The people are not nearly as stupid as you give them credit for.

Joe Scoggins

Thursday, August 13, 2009



Translation: Under the current versions of the health care legislation, Jane Sturm's mother would have just been allowed to die.

Compassionate liberals at work.

Note: I much prefer writing my own posts, but I keep getting accused (by rank liberals, of course) of lying. While I really do research what I say, and am careful to put things into context, there are times when it is more direct to give the original source without comment. Thus the frequent videos and quotes lately.


This left me wondering why BB worked so hard at pretending he was responding to Megyn's question when, in fact, he was doing his best to misdirect it and not answer it.

I think I will report him on


Dear White House,

In an interview with Megyn Kelly about this email program, White House deputy secretary Bill Burton was asked whether or not the White House was keeping a list of the emails sent hereto.

Mr. Burton made every effort to avoid answering the question directly, but when pressed had to agree with Kelly about the law that prohibits you from deleting them from the record.

Please inform Mr. Burton that answering questions directly and honestly is the best way to keep us citizens (who are MUCH smarter than you think we are) from thinking he has something to hide.

Turns out, regardless of his spin on the issue, he was neither direct nor honest with his answer.

Joe Scoggins

Wednesday, August 12, 2009


Dear White House,

Once again, I am informing on myself.

I believe that the national health care bill known as H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 is entirely in violation of my rights under the United States Constitution. I have publicly expressed this view in multiple public forums, most recently on my blog (see below).

However, if you could direct me to the Article or Amendment in the Constitution of the United States that provides the Federal government the authority to mandate health care choices for the citizens of this country, I will certainly reconsider my position and offer public apologies.

Otherwise, I must warn you that I will continue to speak out against the what I believe is the true intent of this in this proposed legislation.

This communication is sent with full awareness of the Privacy Act of 1974 (no federal agency shall compile a list of people who disagree with their actions) and with the knowledge that the White House cannot destroy any correspondence it receives.

Have fun with that conundrum, Snitch Patrol!

Joe Scoggins

Dear White House,

DNC Executive Director Jen O'Malley Dillon posted the following piece of disinformation regarding those who protest the H.R. 3200 bill at town hall meetings:

These disruptions are being funded and organized by out-of-district special-interest groups and insurance companies who fear that health insurance reform could help Americans, but hurt their bottom line.

Turns out that almost none of them are there as part of an effort organized by any corporations or special interest groups.

Joe Scoggins

Dear White House,

DNC Executive Director Jen O'Malley Dillon is posting the following misinformation about the protests at town hall meetings about health care:

People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies.

As you know, more and more people are showing up at these meetings with copies of H.R. 3200 in their hands and are reading straight from it, followed by a question about what they read.

Turns out it is the bill itself which is frightening people, not the citizens doing the protesting.

Joe Scoggins

Dear White House,

DNC Executive Director Jen O'Malley Dillon, refering to health care town hall meetings where citizens are expressing concern over H.R. 3200, has said the following:

Their actions are getting more extreme.

It turns out that, in fact, more and more people are simply asking their representatives simple questions about the bill after which the representative either changes the subject, refuses to answer the specific question or engages in finger pointing and yelling at the crowd.

Joe Scoggins

Dear White House,

DNC Executive Director Jen O'Malley Dillon has posted the following on his website concerning the questions being asked about H.R. 3200 at town hall meetings:

Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation.

Turns out that their goal is actually to get honest answers from their representatives concerning pending health care legislation.

Joe Scoggins

Dear White House,

DNC Executive Director Jen O'Malley Dillon has posted the following on his website concerning the questions being asked about H.R. 3200 at town hall meetings:

Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on the thuggish crowds.

Turns out that the only thugs at the meetings have been members of SEIU, who have actually beaten citizens and have directed local police to move protesters from some locations while allowing supporters to stay.

It also turns out that not a single Republican leader has encouraged thuggish behavior.

I trust that the White House will use its considerable influence to direct DNC Director Dillon to cease and desist from spreading this misinformation.
Joe Scoggins

Dear White House,

I have been made aware of the following misinformation about the health care town hall meetings:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi penned a column that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints.

Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer claimed such behavior is "simply un-American."

As you no doubt remember, it was now Secretary of State Hilary Clinton who in 2003 shreeked: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

I implore you to use the full pressure of the White House to demand that Nancy Pelosi not only retract her statement, but to apologize to the American people for ever having made it.

Joe Scoggins

Dear White House,

At his New Hampshire meeting, President Obama, trying to bolster support for the H.R. 3200 health care bill, said, "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

May I suggest that you send some SEIU members to his office to explain to him that comparing the Post Office to UPS and FedEx is more of an argument AGAINST the government's ability to run programs, not for it.

Joe Scoggins

Dear White House,

Since there has been so much misinformation about H.R. 3200, I thought you might like a link to it so that you can actually read it and will therefore know what's actually in it.

This will help you when trying to determine what is disinformation and what is not.

Here is the link: LinktoHR3200
Joe Scoggins

If you find a piece of misinformation about H.R. 3200 being put out by liberals, on blogs or in government, I recommend that you report it to

When they claim that there is no "end-of-life" provision, no abortion payment, no rationing of health care and the like, that is misinformation. Copy it and send it to the snitch site.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009


WARNING (for the benefit of recent government school graduates who don't know how or don't like to read): LONG POST AHEAD

The media - even so-called "balanced" media (WE inform, YOU decide) - liberal Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, conservative Democrats, RINOS, moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans want you not to remember this information.

It is as though it never happened...a figment of our imaginations.

But it DID happen, and it's why we're where we are today.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods.

The Community Reinvestment Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance, be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations) in all communities in which the bank takes deposits.

In 1994 a class action lawsuit was filed as follows:

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:94-cv-04094
Buycks-Roberson, et al v. Citibank Fed Svg Bk
Assigned to: Hon. Ruben Castillo
Demand: $0
Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Date Filed: 07/06/1994

You can see the whole thing here.

One of the signatories to this lawsuit (the fourth one down in the right hand column) was Barack H. Obama...remember him?

Here is a Case Summary: Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

On September 30, 1999, the New York Times had this to say: "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s."

In October of 2008 there was this : "Radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions."

Yesterday I read this by Los Angeles Times writer, Joseph J. Ellis: "...In the ongoing banking crisis...the removal of government regulations permitted major banks to assume unconscionable amounts of debt, much of it in the form of toxic investments that still remain on the books.

It has been obvious that the banks needed to be temporarily nationalized to force them to purge bad debts from their portfolios."

"Temporarily nationalized?" Isn't "nationalization" something President BO has denied doing?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were early casualties of this boondoggle, although the most exceedingly honorable Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and others claimed nothing was wrong.

You've been told that part of the problem was the lack of federal regulation and oversight on the part of congress.

In fact, in 2008, the Bush Administration proposed an extensive overhaul of how the federal government regulated the banking system. The Democrat congress refused to go along, so regulations were not put in place.

Remember...this was because Democrats in congress did not want regulations on lending institutions!

Here is a chart showing the sequence of events:

So here we are, about to trust our health care to the same gaggle of goons who gave us the housing bubble, the bursting of the housing bubble, economic crisis, massive bailouts for insurance companies, banks and the auto industry, cash for clunkers, and a myriad of other fiscal insanities.

I cannot understand why you would trust them with health care.

What on earth makes you think they can get this one right when they got all of the others wrong?

Monday, August 10, 2009

Sunday, August 9, 2009


This is interesting...the original video I had here was "disabled." When I went to the original site, the video there had been "disabled," too.

I found this one, though. It's not the same event, but it is where SEIU thugs beat up a black man. He ended up in the hopital. Maybe it will stay up.

The original video had SEIU members telling folks where they could and could not stand on a public sidewalk and talk with each other. They then started telling the poilice to tell people where they could and could not stand to talk.

Saturday, August 8, 2009



So the President wants to limit speech that is against the government.

Who does that sound like to you?


Top White House aides gave Senate Democrats a recess battle plan showing video clips of the confrontational town halls that have dominated the media coverage, and told senators to do more prep work than usual for their public meetings by making sure their own supporters turn out, senators and aides said.

And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.





But only us snarky, ugly, mean, organized, paid conservatives get credit for "what we did." The Democrats can do what they want and not be accused of those tactics...right?

Friday, August 7, 2009


Her Royal Hindendness, Nancy Pelosi, has been doing interviews in which she is contending that the people at the lawmakers' Home-Town Meetings who are objecting to the Health Care Bill are paid rabble-rousers "Carrying Swastikas."

You think I am lying? You think she didn't say that?

I've watched eight or ten of those meetings and have not seen one single swastika. Not one!

When someone says something that is not true, do you know what you call that person?

You call him/her a liar.

So here we go: Nancy Pelosi, you are a (half - see below) liar on this point!

Not to be outdone, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to "sabotage" the democratic process.

Here's what he said: "These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having,"


Nothing could be further from the truth.

The protesters are part and parcel OF the debate!

The people at the rallys I've seen came on their own at no one's behest and expressed themselves in a democratic forum thus supporting the democratic process.

So Harry did not tell the truth about who the people voicing dissatisfaction with the actions of our lawmakers are.

When someone says something that is not true, do you know what you call that person?

You call him/her a liar.

So here we go: Harry Reid, you are a liar.

Be proud, Nevada, be proud of yourselves. Look who you elected.

The trouble with lying is that you have to remember what you said when you lied.

President Obama is both for and against a "Single Payer" health care system. Today he says the health care bill is NOT a move toward "Single Payer."

Trouble is, he is on record as having said he wants to move the country to a "Single Payer" system over time.

America, be proud. Look what you have elected. This man talks out of both sides of each of his faces.

ADDENDUM: Mark has brought to my attention that there was, indeed a gathering at which a protester brought a poster with a Swastika. You might check it out here: Pictures of the swastikas . Notice that they are not accusing anyone of BEING a Nazi, they are saying we don't want to go that direction. Nevertheless, at the time of the writing of this post I had not seen one, so I stand by my personal statement. I can now agree with Mark that NP was half right,and thus only half-a-liar.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009


God was missing for six days.

Eventually, Michael, the archangel, found him resting on the seventh day.

He inquired, "Where have you been?"

God smiled deeply and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael. Look what I've made."

Archangel Michael looked puzzled, and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet," replied God, and I've put life on it.. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a place to test Balance."

"Balance?" inquired Michael, "I'm still confused."

God explained, pointing to different parts of earth.

"For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth, while southern Europe is going to be poor. Over here I've placed a continent of white people, and over there is a continent of black people. Balance in all things."

God continued pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot, while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."

The Archangel, impressed by God's work, pointed to a land area & said, "What's that?"

"That's the State of Texas , the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful rivers,mountains, streams, lakes, forests, hills, beaches and plains.

"The people from the State of Texas are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent, humorous, and they are going to travel the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking, high achieving, carriers of peace, and producers of good things."

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then asked, "But what about balance, God? You said there would be balance."

God smiled, "There's Washington DC . Wait till you see the idiots I put there. ”

ADDENDUM: For a really good look at the provisions of the proposed health care legislation, visit Tom's Place and scoll down. This is neither made up stuff, nor is it is simply what the bill says and direct references to the pages and paragraphs. It's even better than the synopsis I gave a few posts ago.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009



HERE'S ANOTHER (between the red & black trucks)


Oh, and would you like to be scared? Watch the video on this link.

Go ahead...I double-dog-dare you.

Monday, August 3, 2009


Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a psychiatric disorder that describes a condition in which a single person displays multiple distinct identities, each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment.

Although most people refer to Schizophrenia as "split personality," it is not. Schizophrenia is characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality.

Poor old Earth has DID.

In the Pacific Northwest, temperatures have been soaring to record heights: 103 degrees!

Global warming?

Meanwhile, in the Northeast temperatures have been dropping to record lows!

Global cooling?

The truth is, the atmosphere is so very large, with so many, many factors influencing climate at any given point at any given time that it is absolutely impossible to make an accurate prediction of what it has done, is doing or is going to do.

Now let me be clear.

There is no such thing as chance.

Chance is simply not having enough facts.

Take rolling dice, for instance.

If you could measure every factor of physics involved in every throw of the dice (the position of the dice when you throw them, the exact weight of the dice, all of the leverages involved in a given throw, the humidity of the air around the dice in flight, the air pressure where you are when you throw them, the energy of the throw, and about sixty other factors), you could predict how the dice would turn up every time. (Look out Vegas.)

The earth's atmosphere is vastly more complicated than rolling a couple of dice.

Atmospheric "scientists" create computer models of what the weather will be like on any given day at any given place. (Get it? They create the models.)

Here in Florida, we regularly get reports of where some tropical storm or hurricane is headed.

Invariably, we are told, "Some computer models show the storm heading northwest, and some showing it heading north and then east.

Meteorologists then take a kind of average of the computer models to predict where the storm is going.

They are almost always wrong by at least a gaggle of miles on predictions more than 24 hours out.

So, if these trained, expert weather scientists can't consistently get it right right in their own back yards, what on earth makes you think they can speak authoritatively about global weather?

But you have been taught to trust them and so you do, in spite of your experience with their local weather forecasts.

The experts at The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration have told us that there would be about 9 - 14 named storms in the Atlantic this year, 4 - 7 hurricanes and 1 - 3 major hurricanes.

We've not had a single named storm in this two month old hurricane season and only one tropical depression, which lasted a few days and then fell apart.

There's still time, but the Atlantic is not following the computer models.

And there's the proverbial rub.

The atmosphere does not pay one bit of attention to the computer models.

The designation, "Global Warming," has given way to "Climate Change," which is really, really stupid, not to mention both redundant and repetitive.

"Climate" is defined as how weather behaves and changes in a given location.

So, "Climate Change," is like saying, "Change Change."

Now look! (A favorite saying of "everybody's" favorite president, President BO.) Don't be such a schmuck as to think that there is anybody who can tell you what all is going on globally when it comes to weather.

Be smarter than that.

Just like you're too smart to believe other things based only on the fact that someone taught it to you.

When the actual facts present themselves to you, you might end up with Dissociative Identity Disorder.