Wednesday, September 30, 2009


Let's define our terms.

LIBERTY: autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence; freedom of choice; personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression.

Autonomy: Ancient Greek: αυτονόμος autonomos, Modern Greek: αυτονομία autonomia, from auto "self" + nomos, "law": immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence.

Immunity :unsusceptibility: the state of not being susceptible; the quality of being unaffected by something.

Arbitrary: Based on individual discretion or judgment; Unrestrained by law; tyrannical; Determined by impulse rather than reason.

Statesman Patric Henry knew LIBERTY would not come easy to this new nation-to-be.

He said, "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!"

He knew that he knew that some things are worth fighting for, LIBERTY being chief among them.

The Father of Our Country, George Washington proclaimed, " fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to the United States, that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved, and that the Government which they have instituted for the protection of their LIBERTIES may be perpetual." [Washington's final annual message to congress - december 7, 1796...(caps mine).]

From the website, The American Revolution HERE, we read: "It is important to remember that several people contributed to the events surrounding the American Revolution. Many think that there were a minimum of 100 people who if they had not been born, we may still be subjects of the British Crown. Many of these individuals are not seen in the same vein as people like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, but those two would be the first to admit that the success of the "great experiment" was the result of thousands of people who laid their life on the line for a specific purpose. Freedom..."

People like: John Adams; George Washington; Thomas Jefferson; James Madison; James Monroe; Samuel Adams; John Hancock; Patrick Henry; Thomas Paine; Paul Revere; Richard Henry Lee; John Dickinson; Benedict Arnold; John Paul Jones; Nathanael Greene; John Jay; Henry Knox; William Prescott; Dr. Joseph Warren; Francis Lightfoot Lee; Ethan Allen; James Wilson; Benjamin Rush; John Quincy Adams and so many others gave both their time and their lives for the causes of LIBERTY.

So, how does this LIBERTY thing play out in your life?

How much stock do you put in LIBERTY?

Is LIBERTY just a passing fad?

Were the men and women who set forth this nation "...conceived in LIBERTY..." all fools?

Has the idea of LIBERTY seen its day?

Is it time that the words of Abraham Lincoln, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." be abandoned?

Which of your LIBERTIES are you willing to give up "for the good of the whole?"

Can you make me a list of them?

As for me, I will take my stand with Patrick Henry: "...GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!"

I am ready, willing and able to fight to the death for LIBERTY, as did my forefathers.

Are you?

Tuesday, September 29, 2009


This video has just been brought to the surface.

This is a group of "Community Organizers," The Gamaliel National Clergy Caucus, with a casket that symbolized the "death" of America.

They enter the room with the chant, "Everybody in...nobody out!"

Then they seem to engage in an antiphonal prayer with the repeated refrains of, "Hear our cry Obama," and "Deliver us Obama."

There is discussion about what they are actually saying in this video, but when I first saw it on HERE, there was no doubt in my un-coached mind as to what they were saying. What do you think?

And then there is this:

There is no doubt about what is going on in that one.

Monday, September 28, 2009


Let's say I want to start a business.

I think of a good idea, perhaps a product that I think people will feel like they just have to have.

Sitting down with my trusty calculator I discover that I don't have enough money to purchase the equipment to manufacture the product or to pay workers to produce it.

So my good idea must just languish in philosophical purgatory until either someone else thinks of it who does have enough money to produce it or I lose interest and go do something else.

But wait!

There are some people I've talked to who also think it is a good idea, but don't have the time or desire to produce the product themselves.

They could help me get my business started in exchange for a share of the profits, with the understanding that if it produces the goods and people like and want the goods, the business will make enough money to give them a good return on their investment.

They are willing enough to take the risk to invest in my business in order to receive a financial blessing from it in the future.

I, in turn, use their money (and mine) to produce the product and lo-and-behold the product catches on and people all over the world clamor for it, buying it as fast as my company can produce it.


If I can increase production, and if the sales continue, my little company will make more money, show a bigger profit, and my investors will gain an even greater dividend.

So my company grows and soon it is as big as Microsoft and I am as wealthy as Bill Gates.

Now, there are those who think that should be against the law.

They think that if I have a good idea I should submit it to the government and they should take the resources of all of the good citizens, help my company grow and take the proceeds and divide them among the populace so that everybody benefits from my business.

Then the government tells me what the limits are on what I can earn from my business and once I reach that figure, I can earn no more. But my business can continue to grow and the overage spread among the populace so that once more everybody benefits.


I don't have a desire to work hard enough to produce a product from which I can gain no further benefit.

So, I slack off and just do what the government says I have to do.

My business stagnates, the government gets mad at me and tells me they will take over my business.

Since they are neither equipped to conduct my business nor knowledgeable enough to run it, they sooner or later decide that it wasn't that great of a business anyway and just walk away from it.

See...I know that is all very simplistic and that a lot of factors were left out, but it serves to illustrate what is happening in our country.

The phrase "FREE enterprise system" doesn't mean it does not cost anything, it means the system if free from government interference.

Well, don't recent events prove that more government regulation is needed?

Absolutely NOT!

It proves government interference CAUSES problems.

Well, don't recent events prove that greed and corruption will take place.


They will take place no matter who is in control.

Don't be so stupid as to think there is no government corruption.

Think Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, Tip O'neal, Chris Dodd and friends.

There is a statue that stands in New York Harbor called the Statue of Liberty.

Our Pledge of Allegiance ends, "...with liberty and justice for all."

See, we are a liberty based society.

As a liberty based society, the bad apples eventually weed themselves out and the good apples rise to the top.

The more "control" that seeps into the system, the more ambivalence over what is right and what is wrong takes over, and the more bad apples appear.

The best thing for the country would be for government form what it is supposed to form, to establish what it is supposed to establish, to insure what it is supposed to insure, to provide what it is supposed to provide, promote what it is supposed to promote and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.

When that happens, just sit back and watch the economy take off again!

Sunday, September 27, 2009


"Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer."


Saturday, September 26, 2009


Wana spend some jail time?

Under the health care plans making their way through congress, if you don't purchase health care, you are liable for a fine of up to $3,600.00

Does that seem fair to you?

One plan says if you don't pay the fine, you are liable for an additional fine of up to $1,900.00!

Does that sound fair to you?

If you don't pay the fine, you are subject to jail time of up to one year.

Does that sound fair to you?

Where is the "liberty for all" hidden in all of that?

Where is the "justice for all" hidden in all of that?

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the legal actions would come from the IRS!

Yet, we are assured that the $3,600.00 is not a tax...neither is the $1,900.00.

Does that make sense to you?

When questioned by Republican, John Ensign of Nevada, Thomas Barthold, the JCT's chief of staff, said the IRS would "take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings."

If the penalty is not a tax, why would the IRS be involved? Why not the Department of Justice?

When Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, tried to introduce an amendment that would strike down the individual mandate, his amendment was struck down.

Now, why would our lawmakers impose a fine on those who do not want to choose to purchase health insurance?

According to President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks), it is because it would be unfair if someone who chose not to carry insurance got sick had their illness paid for by those who obeyed his mandate and bought health coverage.

If you are a liberal, can't you see the trampling of liberty and freedom manifested in that policy?

Of course you can't. Your mental illness has rendered you unable to think straight.

With every passing day, this administration moves closer and closer to destroying this Republic.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government we got from that historic 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia , he replied, "...a republic, if we can keep it."

It looks to me as if we are not doing a good job of keeping it.

Soon we will be saying, "I pledge allegiance to the Obamabanner, and to the dictatorship for which it stands, a divided nation, ignoring God, with excessive taxes for all and jail time for many."

Yet you liberals still think government manipulated health care is the way to go.

I will take no joy, when you begin crying about how you wish you had been able to see this disaster coming, in saying, "I told you so."

Friday, September 25, 2009


This was filmed at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ on June 19, 2009.


Now, use the comments section to make me a list of all of the other sitting presidents in our history about whose praises children in school have been taught to sing.

Who have you listed?

George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Ronald Reagan? Bill Clinton? George Bush?

How about in dictatorships past or present?

Chairman Mao? Joseph Stalin? Castro?

Of course, in the dictatorships, the governments were using indoctrination tactics.

The children in this video were not being indoctrinated at all...were they?

How about here:

Of course it is totally unfair to make any comparisons...right?


Thursday, September 24, 2009


A really super video has been put together by Paul Williams.

So, if I understand liberals correctly, when a conservative refers to President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) as "Hitler," it is a terrible, dangerous, fringe-group, right-wing hate-speech thing, but when liberals did it to President Bush, complete with the little mustache and swastikas galore, it was deserved criticism.

When conservatives use rhetoric that seems to threaten President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks), it is hateful and awful, but when liberals did it (and still do it) to President Bush it was OK.

When conservative talk-show hosts ridicule President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) with caricature it is a terrible thing, but when liberals ridiculed President Bush on SNL and other venues, it was perfectly permissible.

Did I get that right?

Come on, you stupid, hair brained, hypocritical liberals. Explain that to me.

With every passing day you are becoming more and more like lilly-livered, yellow-bellied, sap-suckers who couldn't think your way out of a wet paper sack. You are the epitome of venomed, swag-bellied skainsmates.

How on earth do you DARE to use a word like "hypocrisy" when referring to conservatives' characterizations of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) ?

You are its very definition.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009


An article on Hot Air, found HERE, includes the following video:

Here's a partial transcript:

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.

People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…


OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.

Did you follow President BO's (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) logic?

If you did, there is something wrong with yours.

Stephanieopoulos should not use the dictionary to define terms?

Now I understand what is wrong with liberal thought: they don't know (and don't want to know)the meanings of their words.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009


I'm not sure there is anything more convincing that the administration of President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) is pointing us straight toward despotism than the following by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein:

"There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.

This report can be found on WorldNet Daily HERE.

President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) has continually made statements that sound like socialism, associated with and appointed people to high level positions who have avowed socialist, communist and anti-American leanings, and enacted programs that are at least like those in play in socialist countries, all the while stating that he, himself, has no such leanings.

But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, lives in a flock like a duck and leaves a trail of duck-droppings, it is probably a duck.

If it walks like a socialist, quacks like a socialist, acts like a socialist and surrounds himself with a flock of socialists, and leaves a trail socialist droppings all around it is probably a socialist.

President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) walks like a socialist, quacks like a socialist (spread the wealth, Joe the Plumber), acts like a socialist and surrounds himself with a flock of socialists (Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, ET. AL.), and leaves a trail of socialist droppings (taking over the auto, finance and health industries), one could reasonably conclude that he is probably a socialist.

I think he is most comfortable with the teachings of socialism and is therefore an anamatha to America.

Sunstein's comment goes beyond socialism...all the way to despotic dictatorism.

Is that really what the people who voted for President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) thought they were getting?

I sure hope not.

Monday, September 21, 2009


President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) administration HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, lectures reporter on how to sneeze.

President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) takes an attitude of "Do as I say do, not as I do-do."

Sunday, September 20, 2009


“No country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings…Much to be regretted indeed would it be, were to neglect the means and depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The Great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far…to forsake us in the midst of it…We may now and then, get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path.”


Commander-in-Chief in the Revolutionary War, President of the Continental Congress, first President of the United States of America, known as “The Father of His country,” eulogized by Henry Lee as, “First in War, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countryman.”

Saturday, September 19, 2009


I don't own a firearm.

Lately, I have been seriously considering acquiring one or more.

For one thing, I live in the crime capital of Lee County, Florida.

For another, I am getting the distinct feeling that if I don't go ahead and get one, there will soon be a day when I cannot, the Constitution notwithstanding.

I received this email that makes some salient points about gun ownership and/or use:

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
~John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has released a helpful, updated primer for members regarding their conduct on the floor and in committees.

Under Section 370 of the House Rules and Manual, it has been held that a member could:

• refer to the government as "something hated, something oppressive."

• refer to the president as "using legislative or judicial pork."

• refer to a presidential message as a "disgrace to the country."

• refer to unnamed officials as "our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs."

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the president a "liar."

• call the president a "hypocrite."

• describe the president's veto of a bill as "cowardly."

• charge that the president has been "intellectually dishonest."

• refer to the president as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

• refer to alleged "sexual misconduct on the president's part."


Thursday, September 17, 2009


See more of Tim Hawkins HERE.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009




I could understand that.

There's a bad apple in every barrel.

But FOUR times in diverse, practically random places?

Come on!

Even YOU can see the pattern here, "Mr. Liberal-you Republicans are such a culture of corruption."

In Baltimore, Washington and Brooklyn, N.Y. and now California personnel in ACORN offices have demonstrated that they are liars, cheaters, tax evaders, former prostitutes and supporters of the international slave trafficking.

In this latest round, ACORN staffer, Tresa Kaelke, claimed to have been a prostitute herself.

You can read all about it here.

Says FOX NEWS: "ACORN issued a statement Tuesday evening saying that Kaelke, indeed, suspected she was being set up and only responded as she did to play along with the obviously fake pimp and prostitute."

In a sense, I could almost find that explanation plausible, but only almost.

If Ms. Kaelke had really thought these two were not on the up-and-up, she should have reported them to her superiors forthwith, at the very least to cover her own posterior.

If ACORN isn't divested of all tax dollars, direct and indirect, I intend to personally confront President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) and tell him to wake up!

Of course, President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks), who supported ACORN from his days as a "Community Organizer" up through now, didn't know they were not on the up-and-up.

Of course he didn't.

And he didn't know the anti-American teachings of his twenty year spiritual mentor and close family friend, Jeremiah Wright, or the terrorist activities of his close friend and campaign supporter, Bill Ayers and his wife, or the Communist involvement of Van Jones, or the severity of the economic situation he "inherited from the Bush administration," or the facts of the police officer vs. Gates.

I get the distinct impression that the only thing President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) knows is that he is little more than a pathological, putrid piece of protoplasm whose prime purpose on this painful path of pedantic progress is to pause, ponder and proclaim profound platitudes.

And then only with a TelePrompter.

Monday, September 14, 2009


Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire) was asked recently by a talk-radio caller about the constitutionality of the Democrats' government-run health care plan.

"I would point out to you that in the Constitution it also does not say the government can build roads or should build roads," said Shea-Porter. "It also doesn't say the government should make sure the drugs are safe. It doesn't say the government should look at airplanes to make sure they are safe to get on. It doesn't say we should have a police force in Manchester," she continued. "So, the Constitution did not cover everything."

Actually, it does.

To understand that it does requires a historical and sociological, as well as a political understanding of what the Constitution is and what it does.

In an interview on Chicago radio, President BO ("President" out of respect for the office; "BO" because his agenda stinks) stated that he sees the Constitution as flawed because it "...tells the government what it cannot do, but does not tell the government what it must do."

As a so-called "Constitutional" lawyer, President BO ("President" out of respect for the office; "BO" because his agenda stinks) should know better, but he either doesn't or he is so intent on his personal agenda that he is willing to put aside truth in its favor.

He actually got it right in the first part of his statement. The Constitution tells the government what it cannot do.

That's its whole purpose.

It gives six purposes for government, found in its Preamble: to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Notice the verbs so carefully and deliberately used. (For those of you educated in the last ten years in government schools, a verb is a word in a complete sentence that expresses action or a state of being.)

Seeing that there could be some misunderstanding about its purpose and meaning, the Constitution was amended to include a Bill of Rights, its first ten amendments.

Amendment X says:

The 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.

The members of the federal government do not like this amendment. The states and the people love it.

Ignoring it, however, is like the referee of an NFL football game ignoring the rules in the middle of a game.

"No more forward passes! The rule book is a living breathing document that we have been empowered to change, and we're changing it right now!"

Since it does not appear in the Constitution, health care is not a federal issue. Like transportation, drug abuse, and many other matters, it is an issue that belongs to the people and the individual states.

OK...what about roads?

To be sure, Article 1; Section 8 of the Constitution does say that the federal government can take care of what are called the post roads -- those on which the mail travels -- but outside of that, states are responsible for their own highways, their own roads, their own county, local, state roads.

The Constitution does cover drug abuse...since it is not dealt with by the text of the Constitution, drug abuse is under the criminal justice issues that belong to the states.

In the end, Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire) was wrong...completely wrong, and represents what is the basis for the out of control nature that has become our federal government.

It is a time to return to the rule book.

It is time to remember that we are a Constitutional society.

It is time to stand up and yell, "Liars!"

It is time to hold the slippery feet of our representatives to the blistering fire of the Constitution.

It is time to give them a lesson in government about "the consent of the governed."

The Washington Tea Party, and those around the country, were a good start.

Don't let up!

Keep the pressure on!

Let's get these clowns in line, or get them out of the circus that is our federal government!

Sunday, September 13, 2009


"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

John Adams, 1776

Saturday, September 12, 2009


Have you checked out my "Current Features" links to the right?

Every day I scour the Internet (mostly at the blogs I read) and select the ones I think are particularly of interest to you.

For instance, "A 9/11 True Story" is about a Middle Easterner who recounts his emotions on 9/11 and how he has changed to the point of view he now has.

"The Real ACORN Nutjobs" is about the crew posing as a pimp and his prostitute going to an ACORN office for help, advice and some community organizing. There are two videos, almost 20 minutes of material, but boy oh boy is it telling!

When you click on "Health Insurance: Big Profits?" you'll discover that these "evil" insurance companies not only do not make as great a profit as President BO has tried to lead you to believe, they don't even rank in the top ten profit-making industries in the U.S.

"The Vetting Process" challenges the intellect and political foresight of President BO, his cabinet and staff.

If you missed one of the features, you can still see many of them on down the side-bar where you'll find "Former Features to Visit or Revisit."

Jo-Joe Politico...always seeking to keep you up to date as to what's going on, giving you my opinion about it and helping liberals know what it means to them.

No need to thank me...I'm happy to do it...especially the part about liberals.

SPECIAL NOTE: Since I am tired of cowardly anonymous commenters, who have no rational thoughts of their own and can only call you and me names, and since Blogger does not explain how to keep them from commenting (well, it gives three options, none of which it explains well enough to help me make a choice as to which one to use, I have chosen...for the use the Sign in with a Google Account option. If you have trouble leaving a comment, tell me so when I comment on your blog. I'll try something else. If you KNOW how I can keep the bad nastys out of here and still let everyone else in, I'd like to know that, too.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Thursday, September 10, 2009


If the best a liberal can do to "make his/her case" is to call me or one of my readers an idiot, that liberal's comment will be deleted.

If you want to make a case for your point of view, make it intelligently and at or above a private Christian school eighth grade level. Make it coherent and as close to grammatically correct as you can so that we can understand your opinion.

Otherwise, your comment will be deleted.

Now I know you are dying for my opinion about last night's presidential address.

You must be, or you wouldn't be bothered reading this blog.

So here goes.

President BO (President out of respect for the office; BO because his agenda stinks) seemed defensive...and well he should. He has screwed up his agenda so badly that nobody can even tell what he is talking about any more.

He promised to be specific.

He was not.

(You can read the text of the speech HERE .)

For instance, he said, "First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."

That is not a specific, that is a generality...and one we've heard before.

Key word: require. Maybe not, but it will result in same.

(For the moment, let's just ignore his very stupid comparison of Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA with anything good, since all three are broke, inefficient and poor example of the value of ANY government run program).

He also said, "We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses..."

That is not a specific, that is a generality...and one we've heard before.

A specific would be: We will place a limit of $X on what you can be charged for out of pocket expenses.

He came close with this one, "We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange — a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices."

But alas, That is not a specific, that is a generality.

A specific would have said how that would be put together, who would oversee it, what it would cost insurance companies and the government to implement, and how insurance companies could compete for your insurance dollars and still make a profit in the business.

Then he said, "This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right."

Ooo! Ooo! A specific, see? He said specifically, FOUR YEARS!

Of course, that's not the problem with that statement.

The part that needed specificity was the part about, " it right."

What does THAT mean?

Right according to whom?

Maybe you think you know what doing it right is...maybe I do. Either way, what HE said is not a specific, it is a generality.

And he said he was going to be specific.

Oh, wait! He DID give a quasi-specific: "That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance."

And here I always thought President BO was pro-choice.

You know what that smells like? That smells like no choice, penalties and taxes.

So much for Liberty and Freedom.

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens."

You know the guy who shouted out, "Liar," during the speech? Turns out he was right.

That whole thought of President BO's was a lie.

There have not been claims by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost.

Nobody has said that there would be a panel of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens...not even Sarah Palin.

If you think that's what she was talking about when she used the words, Death Panels, you are not bright enough to know what she actually said.

Giving one hundred-five year old, sprightly grandmothers a pill instead of needed knee surgery (President BO's own explanation of his plan - LINK) because it is difficult to make the medical decision is paramount to letting her suffer and eventually die to save money, but it is not "killing her off."

President BO said, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

He's just TOO clever, isn't he?

Notice that he said, "...I'm proposing..."

You know what? It doesn't make one hill of beans difference what he proposes. He does not make law, congress does.

HR3200 DOES provide medical care for illegal immigrants (read: aliens), and so do its various cousins. Unless congress changes HR3200, it WILL.

Said President BO, " federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

Well, one more proof that he has not read HR3200 and its cousins. They do so too!

Then he said, "But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear — it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it..."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are a liberal of above average intelligence (don't you all think of yourselves that way...if you don't please make note of that in the comments section).

Say an insurance company offered you X coverage for $3,000.00 per year, and makes a reasonable profit on that in order to stay in business.

Then say the government comes along with the same plan X for $1,500.00.

Which one would you choose?

If you chose the insurance company, you belie the statement that you are above average intelligence.

So, multiply that by many, many insurance policies passed over in favor of the government's plan, and how long do you think that insurance company will stay in business?

No, the government did not require them to go out of business, but it did force them out.

Look...there's so much more.

But I have already violated the sensitivities of those leftists educated in government schools in the last decade, as they do not like to read, nor can they very well.

Let me just echo the words of a man who is in the news of late for telling the truth, Republican Rep. Joe Wilson, whom many stupid Republicans are denouncing today:


Wednesday, September 9, 2009


Found the following at Economic Swim.

I present it here without further comment:

Tuesday, September 8, 2009


President BO spoke to the children. You can read the entirety of his speech HERE.

In case you were wondering, here's what I think (actually, here's what I think, whether you were wondering or not):

1. The original flap over the speech was not because he is black (although I have already read some stupid remarks by some stupid people that that was the reason for the concern...those people are both stupid and racist).

The original flap was because the speech originally revealed at white included an assignment to the students to "write a letter to themselves..." explaining what they could do to help President BO.

That reeks of indoctrination, not of inspiration.

2. If the White House "speech czars" did not know that there would be flap over that kind of indoctrination, why didn't they? Are they just not smart enough to have anticipated it?

In fact, if they did not know that that assignment would generate flap among the general public, why are they still employed?

We need people who KNOW how Americans think, not folks who put forth their own agendas to force UPON the American people.

3. The final speech, as delivered, was stilted, and was not without "I" trouble.

For example: "I have something important to discuss with you. I'm here because I want to talk with you about your education and what's expected of all of you in this new school year.
Now, I've given a lot of speeches about education. And I've talked about responsibility a lot.
I've talked about teachers' responsibility for inspiring students and pushing you to learn.
I've talked about your parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and you get your homework done, and don't spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with the Xbox.
I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards, and supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working, where students aren't getting the opportunities that they deserve."

One of my beefs about President BO to begin with is that he seems totally convinced that this being president business is all about him.

The "I" thing cropped up in the speech several times.

I know, I know...he was just trying to: a) establish that he knew what he was talking about and b) to connect with the students...and that's OK.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Hot Air for this little chart:

56 iterations of “I”
19 iterations of “school”
10 iterations of “education”
8 iterations of “responsibility”
7 iterations of “country”
5 iterations each of “parents”, “teachers”
3 iterations of “nation”

4. There was one statement that caused me to emit the "say-what?" question. It was: "I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books and the equipment and the computers you need to learn."

Betcha he has never fixed up a classroom in his life.

What he might have said, had he wanted them to understand more about where he was coming from was: "I'm doing everything I can to confiscate more of your parents' hard-earned money to spend on making classrooms look like rich people built them."

But that's not really a complaint. That's just President BO doing his "government has the answers to all of our needs" thing.

5. Pardon me for being suspicious, but given the original text released by the White House, I'm more than just a little skeptical about his original motives for wanting to speak to the students.

This much is certain: had the original text up on the White House site been the speech he delivered today, there would have been no need for as much concern as was generated.

To the President's discredit, as the leader of the free world, he should have known better.

But he continually demonstrates that he does not.

He's still, after all, just a Sophomore.

Sunday, September 6, 2009


My sister, bless her little pea-pickin' heart, has a saying that borders on the gross, but is very appropriate to politics today: You can pick your nose and you can pick your friends, but you can't wipe your friends on the wall."

Talk about picking your friends...President BO is not so good at it.

His sophomoric approach to political philosophy leaves him scrambling to distance himself from his friends' pasts, backpedaling on his appointments of friends to important positions like "czarships" and all sorts of other issues.

Let's look at some of his most notable "friends."

You know, of course about green jobs advisor, Van Jones, forced to resign because he had never been properly vetted regarding his past involvements as a Communist and other serious issues.

Do you know about Cass Sunstein? In 2008 he wrote a book entitled "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness," In it he argues that changing to a policy of "presumed consent."

That means that you automatically give your consent to donate your organs when you die, and would have to "opt out" of the program if you didn't want to do that. This, says Sunstein, would "save many lives while also preserving freedom."

President BO has selected Sunstein to be his "regulatory czar," to head up the Office of information and Regulatory Affairs.

How about the man President BO has tagged for Science Czar, John Holdren?

Holdren was formerly a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Holdren co-authored an environmental "science" textbook that surveyed policy options to curb "overpopulation. "

In the book, he advocates involuntary fertility control methods like mandatory abortions, mandating family size and adding sterilants to drinking water or staple foods in order to help control the population.

I guess he identifies with the Charles Dickens character, Ebenezer Scrooge.

Mark Lloyd has been tapped as the Federal Communications Commission's Chief Diversity officer.

This past July, Lloyd wrote: "We call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary,..." which is seen as sounding an awful lot like supporting a form of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," requiring broadcasters to present contrasting views on important and controversial issues.

This is a doctrine intended to put the kibosh on the number of conservative programs that can be broadcast.

The right thing, of course, would be to let liberal programs compete with conservative programs for listeners. That way, listeners have a choice of what they want to listen to.

That's the only fair thing to do.

Add to these people the likes of: Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, who officiated at his wedding, baptized his children and was his mentor of 20 years, and whom Obama now says he really didn't know that well; Bill Ayers, member of the Underground Weathermen, who held a fundraiser for Obama, effectively getting his political career started, and who Obama now says he really didn't know that well; Antoin "Tony" Rezko, convicted in Chicago of on fraud, attempted bribery and money laundering charges, and who helped Obama purchase his house, gave him lots of campaign money, whom Obama now says he really didn't know that well; and you might begin to wonder what standards President BO uses for friends and associates.

Can you think of a common denominator among these "friends?"

In my opinion, your friends reflect on who you are and what you believe.

I don't think President BO has done so well.

Saturday, September 5, 2009


Red Guards were a mass movement of civilians, mostly students and other young people China who were mobilized by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) in 1966 and 1967, during the Cultural Revolution.

They were recruited to sing, chant and proclaim the hope and change that was being brought about in China by the revered Chairman.

Before you watch the video below, click on this LINK and listen to the song and read the lyrics.

I'll wait. watch the video below, of which I was reminded by Bumbling Genius .

Maybe you'll like this one, too.

I have an uneasy feeling that many of you don't get the connection, but for anyone of average intelligence or above, it should be obvious.

So, let me ask you: Do any of you remember the tune or the words to the songs school children in the U.S.A. were singing about Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, BJ Clinton, or George W. Bush?

Would you sing them to me, please?

Is this where we want to go?

Thursday, September 3, 2009


Change is in the air.

A least we can hope so.

President BO plans to address a couple of groups of students Tuesday of next week.

That sounds all well and good, but the content of parts of his planned speeches were released to the public and a well deserved outcry ensued.

According to White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom, a part of the "lesson" in which President BO planned to ask students to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president" met with negative response.

Parents got upset at what they saw as indoctrination.

Well, what did they expect?

Could not this wisest, smartest group of assembled politicians and staff discern from the get-go that this was not a good thing?

According to Higginbottom, the White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."

"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," Higginbottom said.

Inartfully worded???

Inartfully worded???


Any person with more than a third grade education EVEN IN OUR GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS can see that the two assignments are not even remotely related! One was about the president, the other was about the student.

My liberal friends, are you so blind that you cannot understand that the "assignment" was deliberately phrased in such a way as to try to get children to adopt a mind set that children are supposed to help the president get done what he wants to get done? There was nothing inartful about it.

There was something diabolical about it to begin with.

The fact that the White House saw the need to change the assignment means that they thought it was OK and then they realized that it was not OK.

To be sure, other presidents have addressed students, including Ronald Reagan, who managed to sneak a little politics into his address.

But this was more than a little politics.

This was planned indoctrination on the order of the kinds of things done by the former U.S.S.R. and by Saddam Hussein, and other despotic leaders.

President BO, let me explain something to you that you seemingly are to infantile to have learned yet:


It's about finding out what the American people need, based on feedback from them through their representatives in the Congress and Senate, and then SETTING OUT TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY WANT DONE!!!!!!!

Our whole government has turned the American system as inside out as a dirty sock.

It is time for you, liberal or conservative, to scream ENOUGH!!!

Let's have our disagreements.

Let's debate.

Let's wrench our souls trying to make this great experiment work as it was intended to work.

But for the sake of LIBERTY let's get these reprobates out of control and replace them with people whose egos are not the most important things in their lives.

I REFUSE to believe that there are not some really good, decent, wife/loving, family oriented, clear thinking people in this country who love The United States of America more than they love themselves, and who are willing to give up selfishness to help America be what she should be as they serve in public office.

As Katherine Lee Bates wrote: "O beautiful for heroes, proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved, and mercy more than life! America! America! May God thy gold refine 'till all success be nobleness, and every gain divine!"

I have one last message for the exceedingly infantile President BO, his staff, and his administration (along with the majority of our Congress persons and Senators):


Wednesday, September 2, 2009


In my last post I asked whether the late Ted Kennedy really was representative of the people of Massachusetts.

Another way of asking that might be, "Did he represent what the people of Massachusetts are really like?"

If not, why not?

Why would people elect a person to high office who was not like them?

Take a look at the picture (you can left-click on it to enlarge it).

Two of those guys are your senators.

[For the benefit of recent government school graduates: See, there are 50 states. Each state gets two senators. (2 X 50 = 100)].

When you voted for your two senators (you DID vote, didn't you?), did you look for the person who was most like you? You know, the person who thought like you, acted like you, had the same work-ethic you have, was as polite as you and with the same servant's attitude that you have?

Or did you vote for the best looking, most charismatic, ambitious, party-animal of them who was running for office?

Did you vote for the person who promised to take the largest portion of your hard earned money away from you and give it to people who refuse to get an education, refuse to work, refuse to take responsibility for themselves and refuse to be a contributing member of society (operative word: "refuse," not: "can't")?

Did you vote for the person who promised you lots of goods and services from the federal government for "free," not realizing that he/she had to have been lying because absolutely nothing...did you get that?...nothing is free?

Maybe you thought the person you voted for was suave and sophisticated, and understood the needs and aspirations of you and your neighbors. Did you really check that person out and are you really certain that's what they stood for?

In my state, Senator Bill Nelson is one of the most smooth talking, "southern gentleman" types we have ever sent to the senate. He is also one of the most vile, hateful people we have ever sent there and he doesn't give a hoot about the needs, wants or aspirations of the people of Florida. He only cares about the power he has achieved and keeping it.

He has vowed to do his best to keep our state from realizing the increased number of jobs that would be created, the decrease in prices that would result over the long run, and the extra time we could buy to develop affordable, viable alternatives to fossil fuels by allowing more oil drilling off the shores of Florida.

He does not represent my interests, the interests of my neighbors or the interests of the majority of the people of my state, and does not care to do so.

(Interestingly, he has made no move to prevent other countries from drilling for oil in Florida waters. The only ones he wants to hurt are the citizens of Florida and the United States.)

So what about your senators?

Do they both represent what you are like in the same way the late Senator Ted Kennedy represented what the people of Massachusetts are like?

If not, what are you going to do about it?

Tuesday, September 1, 2009


The people of Massachusetts?

America has observed the death of Ted Kennedy in two ways: one side has lionized him; the other side has vilified him.

Personally, and this is my own opinion, with which you may disagree but you cannot change, I think he was one of the most obnoxious, hate-filled, monstrous, self-centered, self-aggrandizing people ever to serve in the Senate.

My questions today are specifically directed to those of you from Massachusetts.

Did Ted Kennedy really represent what you believe about life and politics?

Do people from Massachusetts really believe that showing up for work so drunk that you cannot put together a coherent sentence is appropriate?

Ted Kennedy did.

Do people from Massachusetts really believe that it is excusable to turn your back on a drowning woman, return later with friends and then make up a story about the circumstances?

Ted Kennedy did.

Do people from Massachusetts really believe that it is necessary for the country to go to "renewable energy" sources such as wind turbines as long as they are not within eyesight of your own back yard?

Ted Kennedy did.

Do people from Massachusetts really believe that conspiring with the Soviet KGB during the Cold War in an attempt to undermine President Reagan for his one's own political gain is good politics?

Ted Kennedy did.

Do the people of Massachusetts really believe that a person should be elevated to a position of power because his family has money and his father sympathized with Nazis (not supposition, historical fact)?

Ted Kennedy did.

Do the people of Massachusetts really believe that a health care system that a very large percentage of them do not want should be forced upon them...especially given your current experience with government sponsored health care?

Ted Kennedy did.

Do the people of Massachusetts really believe that a representative whose life revolved around those behaviors and philosophies should really be considered "The Lion of the Senate?"

I lived in Massachusetts when I was a young adult.

While I was there, I never met a single person who was so indecent that they would have supported those behaviors.

Has Massachusetts changed so much that they now embrace them?

Have the people of Massachusetts, whose antecedents helped bring this country into being, fallen so far as to now want to take action to bring about its demise?


I accidentally pushed the "Publish" button before the post that used to be here was supposed to go up. It's not finished yet. I have saved the comments and will add them in when I finish the post. Don't go away...there is more to come.